User talk:Nick/Archive11

I'm likely to be without internet access for a few days, apologies if you need my urgent assistance. I'm sure another administrator will help if you're in a hurry. If not, leave me a message at the bottom of the page and I'll get back to you in due course. I might be able to collect e-mail on my mobile, but I can't promise anything. Nick (talk) 22:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

{{ConfirmationOTRS|source=URL|otrs=Long Number}}

Nick - You're wildly offbase in your comments about Broadband Reports pn ACI. I'm a reporter in this area and the news section of BBR has some of the best and most reliable reporting in telecom. ACI should be identified as an advocacy group with funding from the telcos, I believe. Please get back to me Dave Burstein daveb@dslprime.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by DaveBurstein (talk • contribs) 22:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

i know who was doing the vandalism from our schools ip.

Hello, i see you blocked our school ip, well i would just like to say i know who was doing the vandalism there name is Dominic Brownell (User name:Infernomaster01), Dominic Brownell is not the one suffering becuase you blocked our ip from creating accounts and editing, it is the people who actually want an account and want to contribute constructivly who suffer.

Dominic Brownell Is not going to stop because you blocked our ip, he just uses one of the many online proxy sites that are not blocked at our school so he can vandalise your site.

The ip you blocked is 62.253.219.130 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamez21 (talk • contribs) 13:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Why?

Why was that photo deleted it wasn't a Copyyright vio.--Hornetman16 ^(talk) 23:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

It was taken from a website that doesn't licence content under the GFDL licence. That makes it a copyright violation and deleteable per our G12 criteria. Please ensure you are fully familiar with image copyright before uploading further images. Nick 23:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and could you reduce the length of your signature, it's considerably longer than the comment you left. Thanks in advance. Nick 23:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Eventually any size sig will be longer than the comments left, so no.--Hornetman16 ^(talk) 23:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

As long as you stop stealing photos, I suppose I can live with your signature. Nick 00:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Question

I am new and trying to figure this out. If I make edits that are stopped by a Bot and someting like this is shown.

"(cur) (last) 15:02, 3 August 2007 ClueBot (Talk | contribs) (14,365 bytes) (Reverting vandalism, by User:Codyryanyork (see here). If this is a mistake, report it. Thanks, ClueBot. (Bot)) (undo)"

What do I do to say no it my changes were good?

Reports can be left at User talk:ClueBot. Hope this helps. Nick 22:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Your user page

Why did you delete it? Melsaran (formerly Salaskаn) 05:19, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I was having a few days off. I'll get round to creating a new one when I've got a few minutes some day soon. Nick 10:46, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Heh, when I saw a red link in your sig I thought you left the project. Phew :-) Melsaran (formerly Salaskаn) 16:27, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Newspamdalogo2.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Newspamdalogo2.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 13:09, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

My edits?

How is this my fault? Jaranda (talk · contribs) is reverting me because he doesn't like the fact that I'm monitoring his edits, which isn't WP:WIKISTALK as he claims, as the reason for those edits being visible to the public is so people can monitor them. I'm making good faith edits and he's only reverting me because he wants to. He isn't even giving a reason for reverting me; he just wants to revert me. I'm giving a perfectly valid reason for why I re-reverted him, but that's not good enough for him. Jaranda is the one who is reverting me without a good reason, and you didn't even give him a freakin' warning. I don't think that's very fair. Ksy92003(talk) 19:43, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Jaranda isn't the person who made this astonishing threat on their talk page "...You have caused some problems in the past, so you're one of the users on my list of users whose edits I monitor constantly. When I look at your contributions and see that you make an edit that I don't agree with, one that I think isn't necessary, then I'm gonna revert it. Per WP:WIKISTALK, that's only an issue if the edits that I'm making are bothering you or preventing the progress of Wikipedia, neither of which I'm doing." . If you persist in editing with this attitude, then you will be blocked. Individual cases of edit warring will be dealt with as and when they are brought to the attention of myself or any other administrator and the parties involved dealt with as applicable. Nick 19:51, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka 2

Thank you for your support in my Request for Adminship. Unfortunately the nomination did not succeed, but please rest assured that I am still in full support of the Wikipedia project, and I'll try again in a few months! If you ever have any questions or suggestions for me, please don't hesitate to contact me. Best wishes, --Elonka 02:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks from Nancy

I see that you reverted vandalism on my user page earlier and wanted to thank you for dealing with it so swiftly. Much appreciated. • nancy • 15:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks

I also got the spam mail from Toggafasiognom today. I was just going to ask someone to disable his email :p -Nard 22:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Me, too. I was going to post on his talk page and ask what he was talking about. Apparently I oppose spoiler tags...so he spoiled the 7th Harry Potter book for me. Too bad I'd already read it. (^_^) ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 01:39, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Request for Clarification.

Hello,

My connection is somewhat poor, but I noticed that a few of the reports I submitted were removed. This happened in short order, and I had to check the logs to see the comments.

Perhaps, I incorrectly parsed your remarks, but it sounds like you threatened to block my account because of a difference in opinion on nominations some found questionable.

Is this correct? Feel free to reply on my talk page. --Aarktica 13:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• Just so that I understand, did you threaten to block me? --Aarktica 15:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• • Yes. Nick 15:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
    • You can't do that! If he is submitting reports badly, just remove them. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 01:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Blocking is a worst case scenario. Users are being blocked through incorrectly filed reports, as long as the user doesn't know they are being discussed, removing "bad" reports is the only sensible option. If, however, a user continues to pick out reasonable usernames and warn the user they should change their name, or that their username might not be inappropriate, frightening off the user, then more stringent measures may be necessary. The username policy and how it's applied is one thing we really need to get right first time every time with a new user. We will never know who we have scared away, but I'm not going to let users actively continue to scare new users away just because they don't have a short and sweet username. Nick 01:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
        • I don't know the situation in detail, but you can't act on your own here. If what you are saying is true then you'll need community support. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 01:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
          • I really hope it doesn't come to the stage where it's necessary to get community support for this, I hope it's something that can be dealt with quickly and quietly. Indeed, that was what I intended in the first place through my stern warning. Nick 01:56, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
            • Honestly it doesn't come across as a stern warning.It comes across as a threat, and is more likely to get his back up than obtain his cooperation. Based on what I have seen (and I didn't go through a whole lot, so I may be making a snap judgement here) if you were to actually block him the likely result would be a swift unblocking by another admin. BTW I basically agree with your position on usernames. I just think you were to harsh on this user. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 02:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you...

Should stop WP:SLAP...lol, just kidding. :-P Miranda 23:22, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I would suggest you to take a wikibreak. Seriously. Wikipedia is something that you shouldn't hold grudges about. Looks like those people from Rhode Island hijacked your talk page, too. Lolz. I hope you feel better. Miranda 01:05, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Aww...come on! :-P Okay, I won't hijack it anymore. :-P Miranda 06:47, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

A notification

Just so you know, you are being discussed in this thread on ANI. Thought you might want to know and/or defend yourself. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 01:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

"The Wayward Troll" (etc) blocking

Just to let you know, a google search indicates that The Wayward Troll is the name of a story, and there seems no indication of bad faith. This is being discussed at the WP:UAA talk page. Thought you might like to know.

If you just want to reply to me, feel free to reply here, I'll have it on my watchlist. SamBC(talk) 18:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Re:Contact with H

I understand he is afraid about the threats made, but he has to understand that I'll be doing this for his benefit. --Defender 911 (Leave a message!) 00:07, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I understand that it may take a while to establish contact. Thank you, though. --Defender 911 (Leave a message!) 00:18, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Please Advice Me

Can I use photos with the tag - {{self}}for my magazine.Kaystar 15:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

You can, but you would need to release your magazine, or sections of it, under the exact same licence. You also need to credit the photographer(s) and/or creator(s) of the work. Nick 15:48, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I want to use this picture [1], could you help me, how I could get the details of the photographer(s) and/or the creator(s) of the work. Kaystar 16:14, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

The photo has details of just one person, that of the photographer, who should be credited as "AlexRenou". That would be the only person who appears to need to be credited. Nick 16:20, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks.Kaystar 02:17, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

British Student Television

can i ask why you unilaterally moved this when the discussion had just opened? surely you should at least wait a week, particularly since no arguments have yet to be presented for the move, and plenty against it. Sherzo 13:34, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

As I noted at WP:ANI, the title does not comply with our manual of style and is misleading, given the content being discussed. Nick 13:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

if you had bothered to read the debate you'll find that in fact the title your changing it too is misleading. Sherzo 13:41, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I read the debate and see no real indication that this new title is misleading, indeed, there was rather a lot of support for the new title. I see a Republic of Ireland university mentioned in the page, the Republic of Ireland does not fall under "British" on Wikipedia, no matter how inconsequential their contribution to the subject or the quality of their work, so it's been moved to a more suitable location. Editors and readers of this site expect to find material under an accurate page title, the previous title was not suitable for that page with the content it has at present. Nick 13:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Sherzo

Thanks for commenting on the complaint I lodged against Sherzo. Could you please comment on his counter complaint against me. Thank you. TorstenGuise 14:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing to comment on, it's (in my opinion) being rightly ignored as an extension of the earlier content dispute. Nick 14:34, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Woodland Animations

Thanks for the semi-protect on the Woodland Animations page. I made a trivial edit, so I'm good to fly. Majorclanger 20:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

You abusing your administrative rights

I had the Howard Finkel photo released und GFDL or free licensing.--Hornetman16 ^(talk) 21:06, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, your upload was deleted because we lack evidence of the copyright owner having released the work under the GFDL licence. Can you please e-mail permissions-en@wikimedia.org with details of the e-mail or communication you received from the photographer or copyright owner stating they have released the image under the GFDL licence. Thanks. Nick 22:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I wish you would have notified me sooner. I deleted the e-mail now.--Hornetman16 ^(talk) 22:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Protection to Guitar

Hello Nick. Could you please review your protection to Guitar, as I seem to find it inadequate? You did well in blocking the warring users for their WP:3RR violation, but semi-protection for the article due to edit warring is rather ineffective as only full protection will prevent both from editing it. Best regards, Húsönd 03:52, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

With both users blocked, there's really no need for full protection which would have a large impact on other users. There's been no resumption of the edit war thus far to really justify a complete lock down of the article. I'll be keeping an eye on the article and both users when their block expires and I'd really like to remove the protection completely as soon as possible today to see how it goes. Nick 08:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey

Thanks for your contribs at WP:RFC/N. You may, however, might want to make a bit of a "return appearance" here. Cheers -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 10:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks. Nick 10:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

No problem. He was wrong to strike your comment. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 10:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Mailing List

I just saw your response to your comment at Crockspot's RFA. I was wondering how you sign up for the mailing list. New England ^{Review Me!} 18:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:ML has all the necessary information. I'd suggest setting up a separate account just for mailing lists, as messages do come in thick and fast at times. Nick 18:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I just signed up. New England ^{Review Me!} 18:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism and BJAODN

Why would a user need to log out in order to vandalize and add to BJAODN? One could vandalize, self-revert, look up the history and add to BJAODN. Total impact to Wikipedia integrity: minimal, because the reversion happens right away. So what's the problem? — Rickyrab | Talk 14:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC) see? — Rickyrab | Talk 14:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi there. A user wishing to make what they see as a funny but disruptive edit may well log out and make the edit, so that the vandalism isn't logged as having been made under their account but by their IP address. Nick 16:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/BJAODN

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/BJAODN. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/BJAODN/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/BJAODN/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad 16:24, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Herbal viagra

Your herbal viagra user-space page looks good enough to be an article. Would it be okay if I (or you) were to move it into the main space? MessedRocker (talk) 13:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Request

Hi Nick, I would like to ask you to unprotect User:YoSoyGuapo's talk page. I have mediated with him and the person has agreed to follow the established rules and policies of Wikipedia. I will keep my out on him and if he breaks our agreement, I will consider banning him myself. Cheers! Tony the Marine 06:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced trivia

I'm curious: you've removed a load of stuff from the Deal or No Deal (UK game show) page; this was detail generated by observation over the whole time that the show has been running. I am not objecting to the removal of the information from this article en block, but I wonder how one is supposed to reference works that include a large amount of observed research in this manner... I had a hunt around, but not spotted anything definitive --- although it could be I'm looking for the wrong thing. Maybe there is no place on Wikipedia for a presentation of this kind of research, or maybe it would be suitable for a user page? I'd be interested to see your views on the matter, and if you have an appropriate link... even better! :) Geoff Riley 07:51, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

If the information is presented in some book, magazine or an official website, then you could add it back in with a source or sources, but at the moment, it sort of falls under our original research policy because there's no way for a user to independently verify (without watching the show) what they are reading is correct. It's also not really encyclopedic and might be better suited to an independent site on a service such as Wikia, with the article here having a more generalized overview of the game, and winners and losers, rather than a list. The other problem is detecting vandalism and hoax names being added, without having a source for each name, it can be difficult if not impossible to tell vandalism from a genuine edit, now, this is by no means a reason by itself for removal of the list, vandalism shouldn't warrant the removal or prevent inclusion of material, but in cases such as these, it becomes impossible to tell vandalism from a genuine edit, which severely hampers accuracy, which we strive for. I'm sure, however, that given the large amount of coverage Noel and Deal or No Deal receives in the press, there's bound to be a few sources in newspapers and TV listing magazines. Hope this helps. Nick 09:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for that explanation, I shall investigate the original research policy. ...then I'll go and get a book published with all the details that have been compiled... nah not really. I understand what you mean particularly with regard to the possibility of vandalism. Geoff Riley 22:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Laughing Man

Nick, Thanks for deleting that image. It's an anime image (http://www.ghostintheshell.tv/2ndgig/episodes/1x4.html) from "Ghost in the shell". Note the 8th panel (2nd row, all the way on the left hand side). Laughing_Man's images is a copy of it. The color is slightly different, but the writing, design, shape and everything else are the same. Thanks! KoshVorlon
".. We are ALL Kosh..."
19:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Nick, The image was inspired by the series, and I created it myself, please restore it as it is not a television screen shot. // laughing man 17:16, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Can you please undelete this image? // laughing man 01:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but from what I can see, it's sufficiently similar to the image that appears here to be considered a copyright violation. You're welcome to seek out additional clarification on this, perhaps through Images for Deletion or Deletion Review however. Nick 01:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

So you're saying it doesn't matter that it was created inspired by the series?// laughing man 11:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Just to clarify, if it's sufficiently similar as it is in this case, even if it was created entirely by yourself, it would be termed a derivative image and covered by the same original copyright that covers the TV/Film the original image appears in. Nick 11:45, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Well in any case, I've been using the image for well over a year here and would have appreciated you discussing it with me first instead of rashly deleting it since it wasn't a blatant copyvio as what User:KoshVorlon suggested when tagging the page. Never mind though, I'm not wasting any more of my time on this bullshit.// laughing man 15:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry

Hey there Nick Sorry about that. Just curious. Why on the user's that I reported block log was there blocks not showing up? --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 21:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Missing page

My index has a link to User:Heligoland/Link, which I thought was a very useful page. Has the content of that page been moved elsewhere, or is it simply gone? -- John Broughton (♫♫) 00:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Ooh, I was having a clear out of all my old pages. If you want to undelete, please feel free. The information is out of date though and I doubt there will be date or time for an update anytime soon, unfortunately. Nick 00:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Given that I'm not an admin, undeleting isn't an option for me. But to the larger point - I'll mark the entry as being deleted because it was out of date, and when/if you do an update, then the entry can be added back to the index. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 13:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry

This edit summary was a bit dickish. It's a combination of being raised like that, joking not coming off well on the interwebs, and being in a bad mood. -lucid 11:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I've been known for slipping in the odd unusual edit summary from time to time. Don't worry about it. Nick 11:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Requesting some follow-on administration

The same anon user (presumably) that was flooding the Woodland Animations entry with junk edits (see above - you semi-protected the page) is now doing it to both Postman Pat and Fireman Sam. If you can, take a quick look at the page histories and act if you think it appropriate. There many many anon edits from the same IP range, some obviously with incorrect information, but some may be accurate. I want to completely fact-check both pages and add citations, but I seem to end up only reverting garbage a couple of times per day. -- Majorclanger 17:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I had noticed this was going on and I've reverted stuff a few times on the Tugs article. It's one of the most annoying situations where the person in question keeps on changing IP addresses and rangeblocks would need to be widespread to be of any use to successfully block the user. Page protection might be an option, but it's going to stop any anon edits to any of these articles, and it would need to be pretty much permanent, I think, to stop the person responsible. I'll have a chat with some other administrators to see what we might be able to do but I think it might need to be a case of simply reporting the user to WP:ANI or WP:AIV every time they change IP addresses. Nick 17:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

OK. Please let me know what the consensus is. Thanks for looking into it. -- Majorclanger 18:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Isn't this cute!

AWW!!!

File:Nick title.png

To put on the little Nick's page. :-P Miranda 03:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Please Advise Me

Can I use a image with the following tag for the Back Cover of my magazine,

{{GFDL-self-with-disclaimers}}

If I am going to use the same image inside of the magazine and give due credit to the person and the source.Kaystar 07:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi again. I think that might be OK, but I'm not absolutely certain and I'd strongly suggest you e-mail the Free Software Foundation who are the authors of the GFDL licence to ask for their advice. Nick 11:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks.Kaystar 12:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

If you talk to Durin...

... make sure you tell him that evidence very strongly suggests that e-pol.org is a dummy organization. Geez, let's not lose Durin over a hoax... Pascal.Tesson 22:08, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

We've already had a lengthy discussion about this, Durin is aware of all that's come up but is still understandably nervous. If only I could get a straight answer as to who or what e-pol and UNOP Liaison EU actually is... Nick 22:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Vishwamitri-river-1.jpg

Wow, I'm surprised it was escalated to this level. I think I may be wrong in this case, and the river is Mahi (Mahisagar). I had taken this picture out near Vasad, and so I guess Mahisagar is the correct one. I stand corrected. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:32, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

apology for erroneous edit summary for Beaker (glassware)

Please accept my apologies for providing an edit summary on a revert of Beaker (glassware) which erroneously says you are the target. The edit summary does correctly say I reverted to your previous version. I use twinkle and popups, and somehow I operated them such that the edit summary indicated you as the vandal and not 75.164.146.132 (talk · contribs) as it should have. I'll be more careful in the future. Cheers. —EncMstr 01:21, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

can i...

can i ask where did you find my username to smile at me?--Blue-Eyes Gold Dragon 16:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello there. I noticed the image on your talk page being removed through an IRC feed monitor I run. Nick 16:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

oh ok, I thought i welcomed you or something--Blue-Eyes Gold Dragon 16:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Smile

Blue-Eyes Gold Dragon 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. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Dolcett

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Dolcett. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Hektor 07:45, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey, you forgot something!

--Kizor 12:22, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:RFPP is your friend there. Nick 13:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll keep that in mind for the future - though this was such a simple and uncontroversial case that it was much less cumbersome to bug you about it than file a request for action. --Kizor 14:02, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

No problem, it's worth keeping RFPP in mind in case the administrator responsible isn't active, is on a break or something. Nick 14:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Query

Kangaroo court? I'm well aware that my role as arbitrator is (primarily) to stand up and get pelted with crap, but coming from you that actually wounds a little. What would you have done differently? Mackensen (talk) 17:51, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Not guilty, m'lud. I'm unhappy with how the situation was dealt with, and I've explained as fully as is reasonable on the RfA exactly why, but I believe you'll find Wikihermit was responsible for the contention that the Committee is a "kangaroo court". Nick 17:57, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:EM

You may be interested to read the new essay Wikipedia:Editors matter; it relates directly to some discussions we've had in the past at MfD. Your input on its talk page would be appreciated. Walton^One 19:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On September 12, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Backwater Reservoir, 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.

Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

SmIlE

M.^(er) 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. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Ping. M.^(er) 05:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

I passed my RfA, and couldn't have done it without your trust and support. Thank you very much. — Hex (❝?!❞) 12:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to the club. Nick 00:16, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Apology

Apology for discussing that at WP:RFA. I am really sorry for that off-topic remark. --Solumeiras ^talk 18:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

That's OK, we all make unfortunate comments from time to time. Half my archives are me putting my foot in it, so I wouldn't worry about it. Nick 00:16, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

I owe you a big thank you for supporting me in My RfA, which was successful with 67 supports and 20 opposes. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 23:59, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Oooh, more fresh blood. Nick 00:16, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Here...

One comment. Whee. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 18:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Simpsons barnstar

What was wrong with the old image? It looked a lot more Simpson-esque. At the very least, the doughnut should be pink. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 20:59, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, no offence, and I appreciate the effort and all, but I do kinda prefer the original. Plus, the question of the orginal being a copyvio has been resolved. Gran² 21:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

At the time, I was led to believe it was a copyright violation. Nick 21:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

could you please change the simpson barnstar back the way it was thanks.Swirlex 21:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Done. Nick 21:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you so much for changing the barnstar back the way it was.Swirlex 00:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

That's not a problem. You should be able to revert images yourself, near to the bottom of image pages, there's a section that's titled "File History" - if you look in there, it should show you a table with all the images that have been uploaded with the same filename. At the very left of the table, there should be a "(revert)" function, and all you need to do is click that next to the image you want to revert back to. I've checked this out without an admin account and it looks like it's something all users should be able to do. I hope this helps in future. Cheers. Nick 09:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

TREYWiki

TREYWiki has requested that the arbcom consider lifting his indefinite block. Since I have no idea what the issue is about, and I'm sure the same can be said of the rest of the arbcom - can you email me an explanation of why you blocked him? Raul654 03:24, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Unblocking

I appreciate you looking into the blocking of User:Ophios and User:Mael-Num and reaching an agreement with the latter user, but you really should have discussed it with me first before unblocking either of them.

The routes to resolve a block are agreement by the blocking admin, a (very rare) override by other admins in the case that the block was clearly unjustifiable, or appeal to the Arbitration committee to make a formal ruling on the matter. [2]

Thanks. TigerShark 00:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I had a look to see, from your contributions, when you were likely to be online, and given the fact it was quite likely the user in question would needed to have waited for a few hours whilst I waited for a response, and given their pledge of co-operation on the issue, it didn't seem like a problem to unblock. 3RR blocks are one of the few areas where all the information is available to make a decision regarding the unblock request, especially given there was no significant prior problems in their block logs. There's also the small question of how appropriate it is to block both users some 2+ hours after they have ceased edit warring and had at least tried to discuss the issue. Blocks, even for 3RR, are supposed to be preventative, not punitive. Nick 04:39, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of whether you thought I was online you should have tried to contact me. The policy that I have quoted above is fairly explicit against wheel warring, but you seem happy to disregard it on the basis of your own thoughts of when a blocking admin should be contacted. Thanks for the advice on preventative vs. punatative blocks, but if you had looked more closely both parties were well aware of the 3RR and there had previously been gaps of up to 2 hours between reverts. My advice to you is to not wheel war in future. TigerShark 18:53, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

One unblock does not constitute a wheel war. My advice to you is to cease making such overly dramatic statements whenever an administrator makes a call you dislike. I also have to ask, when benefit would have been obtained in waiting to contact you when I was already in conversation with the party you had blocked and had an assurance regarding his behaviour, what would you have added to any discussion on unblocking the user ? Nick 19:08, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

A single reversal of an action can be wheel warring depending upon the context, whether you think it is or not.

"Possible indications of wheel warring are:

* An admin takes it upon himself to undo another admin's actions without consultation". [3]

The policy is very clear but, again, you to not understand it or seem happy to dismiss it. You ask what benefit would have been obtained. The benefit would have been that you would have attempted to consult and gain consensus with a fellow editor before reverting their good faith action. Not doing so is considered harmful to the relationship between editors.

"Just as edit warring is considered harmful and needlessly divisive, so is wheel warring considered improper behavior for an administrator". [4]

Any damage done would have been fixed by a quick "sorry", but for some reason you think that this is not a problem, even though it is a major principle of community editing on Wikipedia. TigerShark 20:59, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Pardon the butting in, but it's not at all unreasonable for an admin to occasionally undo another admin's actions. There is no reason at all to call this "wheel warring". If we tried to always consult first, this could easily lead to bureaucratic paralysis. TigerShark, I think you're trying to "own" your admin actions too much. When there's a disagreement, it's far more useful to talk about what should be done now than to quote policies at others. Friday (talk) 21:10, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Friday, but I disagree is this case. This has nothing to do with "owning" my action, it has everything to do with consensus between editors which is vital. Yes I have quoted policy, but there is nothing wrong with that. Policies are not abstract bureaucracy, they are the embodiment of community consensus addressing real issues and therefore an important tool. If we ignore them then we are ignoring that consensus, and chastising people for refering to them just makes it more likely that they will be ignored. It is your opinion that undoing admin actions without attempting discussion is reasonable, but that is not the consensus of the community (at least as embodied in the policies). Consulting itself does not lead to bureaucratic paralysis, it takes very little time and, in the vast majority of cases, makes things run much more smoothly [5]. Thanks TigerShark 22:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

It was a "hear and now" decision, having had an extensive discussion with one of the users on IRC. I didn't think you would object to me dealing with the users unblock request. If this has upset you, then I apologise. Nick 21:16, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Nick, I appreciate that. Best Regards TigerShark 22:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: out-of-control bot

The administrators seldom check every single image to be deleted, and so they end up being deleted unless the tags are removed. But once they are removed, bots will put it back on and so it becomes an ongoing war as a result of one bot. So, in effect, it would be the bot's fault (and arguably yours) for the images being deleted.

And you've gone ahead and reverted my edits - absurd LACK of reasoning for doing so! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ananddvd.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:7G_Rainbow_Colony.png and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Happy_Days_Telugu_2007.PNG . It was specifically the first one that made me take a look at the other 3 which were uploaded by this user. The first one is entitled to be used in an article which will be applying for FA status in a week or so.

I will also take this opportunity remind you to not engage in edit wars (sock puppetry!), and that reasons have been provided for keeping the images as it is used in articles. Ncmvocalist 14:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

My RFA

Why did you close my RFA? I didn't violate WP:SNOW as in your edit summary and I'm really starting to get mad at you plus everyone in my RFA. HyperSonicBoom 20:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Your RfA was closed because it was clear it would not have passed. Your behaviour was also disgraceful on that RfA and you're very close to being blocked for incivility at the moment. I would strongly urge you to take a break and come back when you're less annoyed if you're starting to get mad at individual users. Nick 21:00, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Accidental block

I was trying to unban Treywiki and accidentally blocked you instead. I've undone it. Please let me know if there's any issues. Raul654 17:03, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Ramutans Pages

Well, I wasn't sure, and tried to make it clear that it might be permitted, but I wasn't sure. It has happened before. I hoped someone could clarify the issue, preferably the renaming bureaucrat. It wasn't totally important, as he specifically said he no longer wanted his user pages deleted a bit through the discussion. i ^said 23:13, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

That's OK, it's become a total disaster area, some people are suggesting the Cool Cat issue shows deletion is OK, others suggest it shows a link needs to remain. All very confusing and there's no policy or guidelines to guide us on this. Nick 23:16, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Redirect deletions

I'm sorry. I imagine those were listed at Special:Brokenredirects. I don't know that there's an easy way of checking whether this kind of redlink is being used or not -- should we ask for some kind of modification so that userspace pages don't show up there? NawlinWiki 23:57, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure, some users would want redirects to their userpages left, like I do, whilst others would want them deleted, and we've no consensus to do anything any one way given the discussion underway at ANI at the moment, so I honestly don't know if filing a bug report is useful at the moment. Nick 00:02, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ferrylodge

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ferrylodge. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ferrylodge/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ferrylodge/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad 16:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Your request

I found that an article I was interested in writing was somehow linked to someone who also wrote about that org, followed the links and thought I should check, went to http://www.skatteverket.se/international/inenglish.4.3a2a542410ab40a421c80006827.html then to http://www.skatteverket.se/kontaktaoss/servicejouren.4.5098f9104ec1b57328000216.html, they replied with malmo@skatteverket.se and confirmed it was a true org. Why the interest? Jenny^Len☤ 06:31, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Citation script?

Hmm...I have been thinking, since people don't know how to properly integrate citations into articles, and put [1] (with the links) instead of the citations, do you think Wikipedia is ready for an application like this? Miranda 05:12, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

It's been ready for this for years, which is why we have Magnus Manske's excellent script on the toolserver. clicky. Nick 08:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

. . . Miranda 10:37, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

lol Nick 10:42, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Rudget RfA

Dearest Opposer,

Thank you for your participation in my RFA, which closed unsuccessfully with 39 supports, 15 oppose, and 1 neutral. I would have liked to gain some experience of being an admin, but it wasn't to be. At least I gained some valuable time there and will use my knowledge picked up to my next candidacy. I would like to say once again, thank you for voting and I hope to see you at my next request be it a nomination or self-induced, I hope I don't get as many questions!

Rudget _{Contributions} 09:41, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Bluer 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. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

A token of my appreciation for reverting the vandalism on my talk page. — Blue。 18:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

RE: Civility Reminder

When writing that comment, I was very irritated by this. I understand what you mean and I do agree with it, but I acted out of spite because to me, it seemed both childish and stupid to write something like that. It was like a sad attempt sympathy. I don't know... Overall, if I received a message like that because I did something like what he did, then I'd accept it because I was in the wrong. That's just the way I am. I honestly hope I don't get involved with this user ever again, in life. --Ryu-chan (Talk | Contributions) 18:51, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Brown Town?

Are you sure that this one and this one are Brown Town sockpuppets? Brown has been trolling me, and his contributions have been a bit more obvious than theirs- they both have been around for a while, and from contribs, seems to be doing reasonably positive edits. Am I missing something? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:59, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

First account was caught in an autoblock of the second, second was caught in an autoblock of Brown Town. First and second userpages are identical too, including some esoteric features. Nick 20:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I looked at those deleted userpages. I'm convinced that they're socks of one another, at any rate- Brown Town, though, has mainly just been adding this content to various pages], which leaves me puzzled by their edit histories, which show, in general, vandalsmacking and minor cleanups for nearly a year back. Something is odd here. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:17, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Because User:Schumi555] had contacted me immediately when the first Brown Town account was blocked, I believe that he really is the older brother, and not the vandal himself, which would account for the discrepancy in the edits and the identical IPs. Not sure about User:Thebestkiano; he claims that he is another brother, and implies that he copied the userpage formatting, and I think I believe him because neither of them has done anything particularly noteworthy that would require this kind of long-term sockpuppetry. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:00, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not convinced and would like to make sure there are no further "brothers" in this household before unblocking. Nick 22:40, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser confirms that all 3 accounts, please User:RWJBRB is the same person, as are three IP addresses (e-mail for them). It's also impossible to tell because of the dynamic nature of the IP allocation if there are further sleeper accounts, but I would drop a note on Pascal.Tesson's talk page as he blocked RWJBRB and may know about more of their accounts. Given they neglected to mention the RWJBRB account, I can only assume they are intending to disrupt the project in some way. Nick 00:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

There is something unusual about the checkuser result, though. One very rarely sees what we see on this one -- different named accounts editing from the same IP in the same minute. For example:

1. Thebestkiano recreates RWJBRB's user page at 18:39
2. Brown Town9 edits Fisher Queen's talk page also at 1839

(There are quite a few other similar pairs of edits.) This makes it appear that there are multiple computers behind one IP, each being driven by a different person. I'm not sure they're all annoying brats; obviously one of them is; if they can control their brother, I say let them back on and keep a close eye; if they can't, we'll have to treat a family with an uncontrollable family member the same as a company that refuses to control a vandal. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 04:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

(undent) See also Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Brown Town9, filed by Thebestkiano. Weird. -- But|seriously|folks  07:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I find it problematic that the sock puppetry report, Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Brown Town9 was filed by a related user. It may be in our own best interests to block account creation from this network for a while. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

There's no realistic way to prevent account creation, given the wildly changing IP addresses a BT Internet customer can obtain simply by rebooting a computer, rebooting a router or simply disconnecting and reconnecting. I'm going to go along wity jpgordon on this and unblock the accounts making constructive edits and we'll just have to keep an eye on them. Nick 11:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for eventually coming to the conclusion that I am no vandal. It may also come to your attention that the creator of Brown Town accounts has no longer access to a computer in my house. Thank you and the admins for the help in this matter and it should not happen again. Thank you, Thebestkiano^T|C 12:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the unblock Schumi555 13:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

My (KWSN's) RFA

Thank you for commenting my recent (and successful!) RfA. It passed at at 55/17/6. I'll try to make some changes based on your comments. Kwsn (Ni!) 01:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Please undelete

Please undelete Commit Suiside and Image:UffeWasANazi.jpg as I have added a ref to the Ulf Ekberg article (strange, were they never there or was the ref removed first?). // Liftarn

Provide the references first and I and the other deleting administrator will then decide whether or not to undelete these articles. Given the nature of these claims, I'm sure you can understand the need for caution. Thanks for your co-operation. Nick 17:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Please see Ulf Ekberg for a list of references (four as of writing). Btw, is the record company considered a reliable source? // Liftarn

I'm discussing this issue, might take a few days before we decide on what to do. Either way, I won't be undeleting Commit Suiside as I didn't delete the page and have no intention to wheel war with the deleting administrator. I'd also like to see some proof that the image has not been altered in anyway before making any decision. If the record company has an image which they can send us or we can see on their website, then that should be fine. Nick 17:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

The image is directly from the record companys site. I think the link should be included so there should be no problem. // Liftarn

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Image:UffeWasANazi.jpg. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Liftarn 11:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

A quick note

I have left Wikipedia. Thanks for your help (not) Thebestkiano^T|C 21:25, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

There is no need to be rude, TBK. Nick took the time to discuss it, he could have just left it and ignored you, but he had the decency to try to sort it out. Please behave appropriately towards your fellow editors. Qst 22:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

The block

It might help if you supplied diffs of the disruption. Friday (talk) 23:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Kmweber - pretty much all of his edits to RfA. Nick 23:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I took a quick glance- I see him saying things I don't agree with. What I don't see is the disruption people are talking about. It might be there; you'll help your case if you point it out. Friday (talk) 23:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Aside from the disruption he's causing by the usual "I view self-noms as ”prima facie” evidence of power hunger" opposes, I'm seeing incivility in his edit summaries through his contributions, not just to RfA and I'm not overly impressed by his ending of his two month absence by pretty much starting back by commenting on RfAs. He's editing in such a manner that he's not able to express any opinion on the candidate, editing two RfAs in the same one minute, he can't be doing anything but disrupting the process. His comments relate to the process so need to be left at WT:RFA, not on the individual RfAs. Nick 23:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

If there are other reasons for it, you should make them clear in the appropriate places. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kmweber already has extensive discussion of his opposition to self-noms. I don't believe you're on solid ground for a block or ban on that basis alone. Friday (talk) 23:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

The way the comments were made after a period away from the site, in addition to the actual comments themselves are the reason I have blocked. I'm quite willing to expand the block based on the evidence that Kurt is a disruptive influence (whether good faithed or not) to the site, not just for his edits to RfA, but based on his entire pattern of behaviour. Nick 00:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

(I'll stop badgering you now, I promise) Maybe he's gotten worse since the RFC, I dunno. It seemed to me that that time that he was more eccentric than actually disruptive. I'm totally on board philosophically with blocking based on a pattern of disruptive behavior, I just wonder how necessary that is in this case. Last I looked into it, it didn't seem like he was doing much harm. It already looks like there are several people irritated enough by him to say "good riddance"; I just hope they're not saying that to make some symbolic gesture toward disruptive editors in general. I'm not disputing that a case can be made against him- maybe it can. I just don't see a solid case here based on the evidence presented. Friday (talk) 00:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I think there's just enough evidence to warrant a block, I know you probably don't, and I knew that would be the case with yourself and other editors, which is why I posted to WP:AN and threw the decision I made open to scrutiny straight away, there's quite mixed signals at the moment, so I'd like to see how this develops, if people generally say the behaviour doesn't warrant a block or there's not enough evidence of disruptive behaviour, I'll quite happily unblock. Nick 00:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

(I really mean I will stop badgering you this time) I think you're being perfectly reasonable here, thanks for the discussion. I hope some other people support unblocking. I think there's a less drastic solution to be found here. He had reason to believe, based on the RFC, that this issue wasn't that big a problem. Friday (talk) 01:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Based on the comments at WP:ANI and the RFC I very nearly unblocked him myself - but that would be wheel warring which is inherently very evil. I strongly encourage you to leave this editor in an unblocked state pending whatever other resolution mechanism you choose to follow. His edits are (IMO) manifestly NOT disruptive (unlike, say, Boothy, he states his reason for his !votes). As Andrevan says at the RFC what he's doing is what WP:POINT suggests should be done and requires no followup effort from anyone (i.e. is NOT disruptive). -- Rick Block (talk) 04:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd also like to see you unblock this user. The discussion is pretty clearly pointing to a conclusion that the block was not justified. I also think the using Jimbo's comments to justify a general rational to start blocking users you may feel are disruptive is counter-productive, and in fact he even requested we not move too fast in this direction. Thanks, RxS 05:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Howdy. I replied on the RFC page- sorry about not leaving a note here earlier. Friday (talk) 03:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Former administrators

Nick, in response to this comment, I'm really sorry for adding a temporary desyopping to the former administrator list. I didn't know that those desysoppings don't go on that list. I wasn't trying to be stupid. Please accept my apologies.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 04:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmm...

You need to undelete this, and take that pumpkin off of your userpage. :-P Miranda 20:13, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

this doesn't exist. Pumpkin fixed too. Nick 20:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, this does exist. What you replaced on the page is scary, because when I click your name, I know that you will be in the bushes taking my and others pictures. :-P Miranda 00:55, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I will talk to you about this "editor's deletion incident" later. Wikipedia is not a social site. I could be indef. blocked banned for socializing, and you can have your mop taken away for such (ahem) *crude* behavior. :-P Miranda 01:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Shall I delete WP:EFD then ? Nick 11:43, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

(reduce indent) Um, Xoloz deleted my notice. Thank you Nick! EFD...um, I think you used up your rogue admin points for the week. Miranda 21:32, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I was on IRC today, but someone timed out. So...tomorrow? Yes, tomorrow. Because, you have some 'xplaining to do... :-P Miranda 01:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:ICAP R PMS PC.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:ICAP R PMS PC.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 18:52, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Images moved to commons

Hi, before deleting the local version of an image which has been moved to commons please make sure that all of the relevant info exists at the commons image. As an example you deleted Image:WOI-Logo-Shield for-Word (1).jpg which on commons has a source which points back to en.wiki. Now once the en.wiki version of that image got deleted any chance of checking the source got limited to en.wiki admins only, and since it's an internal source only (i.e. id doesn't state who actually created the work,just who uploaded it) it's not enough to keep the image. /Lokal_Profil 11:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, All the information from the page was indeed copied to the page at Commons when the image was moved to Commons. I was under the assumption that the uploader was the author of the image given the copyright tag on the image, if that isn't the case, there's nothing I can do, I'm afraid. Nick 11:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

November 2007

Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made to Sapphire: You may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit was inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. Jauerback 20:47, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Moonraka (talk · contribs)

Just a heads up, Moonraka (talk · contribs) is at it again with mass changing song genres. SpigotMap 12:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

He was blocked before I was able to deal with the situation. If he's not prepared to discuss his edits after a block, we'll take it from there. Nick 13:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Poor administrator

I would like you to provide diffs proving your point, or I shall simply create another account for the purpose of segregation and security. Please answer the issues in my second unblock request. Please note that you are one of the very worst administrators I have come across in my entire time on the Pedia, and that includes some pretty nasty people.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 10:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Query

While I don't have a problem with deleted user pages, having one and not having a talk link in your sig is just annoying. Would you be willing to put something like (talk) or just make your sig [[User talk:Nick|Nick]]? -- John Reaves 23:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Email

Email for you. Cheers, Skinwalker 01:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Sunder King

Hi, I have just noticed that Sunder King got blocked. As far as I could tell from his edits he was a decent editor. How come he got blocked? The template on his userpage says refer to checkuser for evidence. It took me a while to figure out how to find the Molag Bal archive (as there are no clear instructions on how to do this on the checkuser page), a look at the page history tells me that no new evidence has been added since September 2007 and there is nothing on there relating to Sunder King. The Sunder King talk page has been redirected to his user page and protected, so it is impossible to have any debate about it there. This looks extremely dodgy to me, even if he is this guy Molag Bal, surely blocking people should be more transparent and less misleading. What do you think? King of the NorthEast 21:27, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Nothing dodgy about it. We have Molag's IP address, we asked a checkuser to confirm whether Sunder King was editing using the same IP address. Checkuser confirmed he was. It's the best we can do without revealing personal information, which we can't do. -- Nick (talk) 21:36, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Who did the checkuser? What made you suspicious? Email me if you want to talk more freely. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 21:38, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I actually had nothing to do with requesting the checkuser, nor did I enact the block. I simply happened to concur with a number of other administrators who have considerable experience dealing with Molag when the account came to our attention. I happened to get to decline an unblock and tidy up afterwards, that's about it. If you're familiar with Molag, the account sticks out by a country mile. -- Nick (talk) 21:45, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

(sorry for the traffic, Nick) I performed the block on the basis that Sunder king was a blatant sock of Molag Bal. I'm not going to say more here for fear of making Molag change his MO in future, but feel free to special:emailuser me. A checkuser was indeed performed (privately), and more will be done shortly to uncover any further puppets. Suffice to say that there was enough evidence without checkuser usage to block. Thanks, Martinp23 21:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, Molag has admitted (on IRC) to owndership of the account. I'm not sure what more we can do... Martinp23 21:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Who did the checkuser? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 21:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Does it matter, it'll all be logged, and it was 110% above board. Is this the new Arbitrator pester admins into premature death ritual we're going to suffer anytime we request a checkuser in private because we have a request which involves private information not suitable for publication on Wikipedia ? -- Nick (talk) 22:01, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

No this is the not at all new ex arbitrator Theresa who politely asks questions andy bloody well makes damn sure everything is above board ritual. It may come across as pestering now, but if you ever find yourself in a position that Sunder King is in now you'll be glad to have an irritating so and so like me pestering the admins involved in the blocking and block review. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 22:11, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

It may sound daft, but I've rarely, if ever, seen anybody ask for a checkuser in private that they wouldn't be willing to request on-wiki, and this request was no different (well, up until the time we had private information). I would like to think neither I nor Martin have a reputation for spurious blocks on established accounts such that we need to be pestered quite as much about a situation such as this. -- Nick (talk) 22:38, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

It was not my intention to imply that either of you were in anyway untrustworthy. But hell anyone can make a mistake, so we need to be able to check each other's conclusions. That's why I asked who performed the checkuser. Not because I thought one wasn't carried out, but because I wanted to talk to them. Anyway having spoke privastely to Martin and the AC I am now pefectly satisified that the block was in order. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 09:31, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

This was my adoptee, and he has just emailed me. I request that all information regarding this matter be emailed to me immediately, as I felt that this user had a lot of potential, and I will fight this if I have ground to stand on. Once again, I want to see all of the information available on this matter in an email ASAP. That is all, The Hybrid T/C 22:15, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Well the thing is, the info is confidential. The checkuser was done privately for a reason. It's easy for me to ask for private info via email as I am a highly trusted person who has been on Wikipedia for years. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 22:20, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm a trusted user who's been on Wikipedia for a year-and-a-half, and my adoptee was just blocked. He's emailed me asking me to get to the bottom of this, so I need some kind of an explanation for this. At least email me what you'd trust me with. I'm easy to convince. I just need something, as this is a really big deal. The Hybrid T/C 22:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I've sent you a short email outlining the facts of the matter - your adoptee has admitted to being a sock of molag bal on IRC, so you are, frankly, flogging a dead horse. Good work on the adoption efforts, keep it up :) Martinp23 22:38, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I've replied, and to avoid disrupting the atmosphere further I will keep it in email from this point on. Also, thank you for the compliment :). Cheers, The Hybrid T/C 22:45, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Hi; thanks for your support to my RfA, which closed successfully at (51/1/2). I'll keep this brief since I don't like spamming anyone: I'll work hard to deserve the trust you placed in me. Thanks again. — Coren ^(talk) 23:23, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

DRV notice

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Sky Eats Airplane. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Jreferee t/c 19:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

The "I" word

I'll be the first to admit, I'm ignorant about a lot of things. Keep in mind I wasn't calling you directly ignorant just your argument. Interests vary from person to person and the bottom line is that American articles should not be discriminated against nor should articles that handle a hard issue in a very graceful manner. Revert if you may, but please read.--STX 00:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections comments

Hi. Regarding your recent comments on candidate votes pages, unfortunately, they are too long and should be made at the voting talk page. This determination was reached on prior consensus on the ArbCom Elections talk page. I've gone ahead and moved them appropriately, but feel free to edit my move to your liking. However, extended comments, like the ones you provided, belong on the talk page. Thanks, and forgive the inconvenience. - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 00:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Daniel did the actual move. - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 00:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, that was a waste of time. Nick 01:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't move your comments. Mtmelendez copied them to the talk page, so I merely finished the job. As I noted on the talk page of Deskana's voting, I wasn't sure whether the action should be taken, hence I waited for a second opinion. Daniel 03:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah, not to worry, they were a bit long and rambly, as ever. Especially comments about not having to make comments. Not to worry, just some more 0s and 1s sent into the ether for all eternity. Nick 03:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Why can't i vote? HUH?????????????????????? Redstarsldr (talk) 02:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I understand the specifics. Thank you very much for that information. Redstarsldr (talk) 02:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Andrew Regan

Hello. Did Regan threaten Wikipedia with libel? Dfutter 22:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi there. We don't comment on individual cases such as this for reasons of privacy. It would be unwise to assume any action has been taken for any specific reason. Nick (talk) 01:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Wryly amused

Hey Nick when you wrote "If it were possible to be Neutral, that is how I would be voting" at Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2007/Vote/Giano_II did you consider that not voting is the same as voting for neutral? I'm not here to change your mind, just to point out it made me think for a bit. --Mcginnly | Natter 15:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, it's OK, I'm keeping an eye on things, add if it comes down to my vote, who knows... Nick (talk) 16:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Vatomanocu

Please retract your statement. Bad idea to threaten to block people just because they are sending out cheerful messages. Regards. PeaceNT (talk) 15:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Spamming messages with a new account only a day old is entirely reasonable grounds for a block, especially when those messages were signed as coming from another administrator. Nick (talk) 15:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Uga Man

Hello. As the blocking admin, you may want to consider the unblock request at User talk:Uga Man. It shows some effort to contribute constructively. Sandstein (talk) 07:24, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

RfC

Hello. A request for comment has been opened regarding User:Kmweber's oppose !votes on WP:RfA has been opened here. You tried to get Kmweber to stop his behaviour on his talk page, so your endorsement of the dispute is required within 48 hours. Thanks, Auroranorth (!) 09:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Really, really bad haikus from a new admin

Setting new lows in thank-you spam:

Click there for my RfA spam haikus! → → →

Janitor's new tools
Spam must stop -- will new mop act?
Ooops, .com blocked

New admin, new tools
Earnest newbie furrows brow
Fare thee well Main Page

New mess all about
Sorcerer's Apprentice mop
Not supporter's fault

A. B. so grateful
Wikipedia trembles
Watch out DRV

A. B. wonders why
Copyright always confused
Fair use, farewell, bye

Qatar is blocked
Shucks those range blocks are tricky!
Will get it straight soon.

Colbert's elephants
stampede Wikipedia
Must protect, protect

Wiki fortress not.
Open gates, knowledge wings free
But fiends are about

Dear RfA friend,
I will learn, chaos will fade
Thanks so much ... A. B.

This RfA thank you card is based on a card originally done by Phaedriel

Nick, thanks so much for your strong support. I look forward to living up to the trust and confidence of you and others.

In the meantime, enjoy your haikus while I go have fun with the Main Page.
--A. B. ^(talk) 20:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello sir

I admire youre work and i accept that you want to do the best, but I dont know why did you block me Biblebeliver.

However as you did block me I please you to unblock me aswell. You can see my argument here, I please you to read it here[6].

(also the way you blocked me you have put me in postion that i cant even reply to that

Thank you sir In forward.

Please can you request an unblock on your talk page here on Wikipedia. Even though you are blocked, you can still edit your talk page and request an unblock. I am willing to consider unblocking if you can provide a valid reason to unblock you and agree not to make edits with inherent POV problems. I have, in the interim, blocked your IP address. Had you not decided to edit a page but simply asked me to consider unblocking, I would not have blocked your IP address, but your first edit today was making a content related edit [7] which I consider to be block evasion. The other alternative you have is to e-mail unblock-en-llists.wikimedia.org and request unblocking that way. I would like everything done on-wiki so that there is full accountability for the due process, rather than an unblock request being placed off-wiki and the decision perhaps seeming less that transparent. I'm sure you'll understand. Nick (talk) 14:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow

You must be psychic. Just as I was about to submit a repair request to the Holding Pen for Sitekick, I refresh the history and you've fixed it. Thanks! Ariel♥Gold 18:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Cobi raised the issue on IRC, so I've set about fixing it. Nick (talk) 18:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Nick you dont get it

I have every time another IP address, its random, every time I connect, I already wrote you why I belive that youre blocking is injust but you didnt read it. I please you to read it here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.198.128.153 (talk) 20:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not visiting an external website to review your unblock request. You either place your request on Wikipedia or you will remain blocked. If necessary, I will rangeblock your entire ISP if you are not prepared to comply with this and the block placed on your account which prevents you from editing. I hope such drastic action is not necessary and you are prepared to discuss your unblock request on Wikipedia in the near future. Nick (talk) 21:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:MG Rover Corporate Logo.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:MG Rover Corporate Logo.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 20:28, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of User talk:Mercury

Please review this deletion. Talk page archives of established users contain the posts of many users and the context for utterances in various places. They should only be deleted in extenuating circumstances - like privacy violations or real-life harassment. If such is being asserted (and I'm unclear about that), and if the oversight of specific posts cannot solve the problem , then there may be exceptional reasons for a deletion, but removing archives of established users is generally damaging and lacks a basis in policy. It removes the context for the posts of other users elsewhere, which may be prejudicial. Please see [cite.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive114#Deleting_User_Talk_pages this thread], which clearly shows that there's no basic in policy or consensus for rtv or courtesy deletions - unless there are rare exceptional circumstances. If such circumstances do exist in this case, then I withdraw any objection.--Doc^g 13:02, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I would advise asking Mercury, he requested the deletion, for what reason, I'm not entirely clear, but I believe he's exercising his right to vanish. It's quite unusual to have a former administrator e-mail OTRS and request deletion of all their talk pages. If there's no extenuating circumstances, I'd be quite happy to delete the talk page and archives. Nick (talk) 13:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Then your deletion is improper. There is no WP:CSD for this, and rtv does NOT allow for it either. m:right to vanish states "Your user and talk pages, and their subpages, and other non-article pages that *no others have substantively contributed to* and whose existence does *not impact the project*, *may* be courtesy blanked or deleted." But, with users who have been substantial contributors that doesn't seem to apply as 1) others HAVE substantially contributed to the pages 2) it may well have impact on the project. The only justification for this deletion would be IAR in exceptional circumstances of real-life privacy violation or harassment. If it isn't that, then there is utterly no basis in policy or consensus. The discussion on AN, which I link above, bears that out. Courtesy blanking is better in such cases. --Doc^g 13:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

It's only four talk pages. There's absolutely no need for crazy statements like "Your deletion is improper". We can get to the bottom of why the Mercury left and why he requested deletion, and deal with undeletion and courtesy blanking as soon as we know the full reasons behind the request. Nick (talk) 14:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I've tried to contact Mercury, but for the moment, I've undeleted the pages, courtesy blanked them and protected them from further edits. I can't see anything which would cause any problems for Mercury, but if he does request their full deletion again and cites privacy concerns, I'll look favorably on such a request. Nick (talk) 14:33, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

(ec)Sorry, I probably over reacted. I'm fighting a larger war on routine deletions of talk pages and archives - and a general misunderstanding of the rtv, and what it allows. I believe that the deletion of usertalk pages of established users is only justified in exceptional circumstances of causing off-wiki difficulties (and, in such cases, IAR can be validly invoked.) If you are satisfied that, in this case, there are such circumstances, then I won't question your judgement or ask for details. However, you might perhaps consider whether selective deletion/oversight of offending posts, or courtesy deletion might be better. Having said that, I leave it with you - I'll say no more and I'll not contest whatever you finally decide. I'm going to take up the wider issue as a policy discussion (without naming you or this particular case). I've posted, in generalities, to the mailing list. Again sorry for my tone.--Doc^g 14:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Sonja McCaskie

Hi, I noticed that you semi-protected Sonja McCaskie several months ago due to vandalism and BLP concerns. Since things have likely calmed down since July, would you mind if I unprotected the page? Cheers, CP 18:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, feel free. There's some deleted edits to the article which should be fairly self explanatory regarding the need to delete the article and create a new article, but it looks like the editor responsible has simply given up. Nick (talk) 19:01, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, done. I'll keep a watch and make sure that no one has been lying in wait, which would be a bit strange, since they could have created an account that could have edited the page by now. Cheers, CP 00:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka 3

Thank you for your support in my RfA. It was definitely a dramatic debate! I paid close attention to everything that was said, and, where possible, I will try to incorporate the (constructive) criticism towards being a better administrator. I'm taking things slowly for now, partially because it's the holiday season and there are plenty of off-wiki distractions. :) I'm also working my way through the Wikipedia:New admin school and double-checking the relevant policies, and will gradually phase into the use of the new tools. My main goals are to help out with various backlogs, but I also fully intend to keep on writing articles, as there are several more that I definitely want to get to WP:FA status! Thanks again, Elonka 06:56, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Wishing you the very best for the season - Guettarda 04:20, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

WikBack account created

Someone, perhaps you, recently created an account at the WikBack. If the account was created by an imposter, please let me know as soon as possible so that it can be disabled. Otherwise, welcome! The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

No, it was me, getting in before the imposters. I spotted your message to the wikien-l mailing list and registered pretty much straight away. Nick (talk) 21:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Upload

Hello! I just noticed that you made an edit to Wikipedia:Upload. Would you be so kind as to fulfill the protected edit request at Wikipedia talk:Upload#Preload description and use rationale templates as well? This change really needs to be made, both to prevent more invalid uploads but also so that the revised page doesn't fall out of sync with the main page. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 02:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll speak to Carnildo and see what I can do, but it'll be tomorrow now as I'm trying to get the help desk for BetacommandBot up, running and on people's watchlists as quickly as possible (and it's 2am here). Nick (talk) 02:03, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

RfC

Right-o. Though you might want to add a few links - it has neither a link on Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_conduct or my talk page, so how on earth people are supposed to find it... Adam Cuerden ^talk 20:31, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I didn't want to link it from the RfC page until it was actually open, and I could have sworn I linked to the page from your talk page, oops. Nick (talk) 20:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Aleksander Balos

Hi, this article's been fully protected for nearly 6 months. Is it now OK to reduce or remove the protection? WjBscribe 01:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeap, just making this note so nobody thinks I'm ignoring Will or that he's gone and done anything without waiting for me, we've already discussed this. Nick (talk) 02:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

User:The sunder king IP confirmation of sockpuppetry

Is it not possible that the IP adresses change over time, I know mine does. I was just going to ask you if you would kindly direct me to the page where the evidence is listed, etc. (Could you reply on my talk page please) // F9T 22:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

On second thoughts, could you send me an e-mail to keep it confidential? // F9T 22:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, this was extensively discussed at the time, there should be discussion further up my talk page and there will be further discussion at User talk:Martinp23 (under Archive 10), but the reason the account was blocked was that Molag simply confessed to the account being his, we did of course have checkuser evidence too which backed up the confession. There's not any private information that I was privy to in this case. I should note that I didn't actually block the user, only protected their talk page against abuse. If there's any further information you require, please don't hesitate to contact me. Nick (talk) 23:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

But then, because one user admitted to being a sockpuppeter or whatever we call them, does that not mean that they could just not particularly like someone? Its just that a check user system can't be 100% accurate can it? // F9T 18:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

We know categorically that the user on IRC was the person behind The sunder king, since their IP address was available on IRC. We also know that the IRC nick belongs to Molag Bal and that the person using the nick on IRC at the time had identified themselves (logging in, for want of a better term) so we are completely certain that the person on IRC was Molag Bal. We passed the IP address Molag was using on IRC to the Checkusers and posed the question - "is the IP address Molag is using on IRC being used by any accounts, he claims The sunder king is his new account". We received confirmation back from checkuser that at the same time Molag was on IRC chatting to us (and using the IP address), The sunder king had edited from the same IP address, so even without his admission of guilt, we would have had categoric evidence that these are the same person. There is absolutely no doubt that The sunder king was a Molag Bal account, there's no question about dubious checkuser evidence, in this case, we are 110% certain the account is a Molag Bal sockpuppet. Just out of curiosity, what is your interest in this matter, something that was extensively discussed to the satisfaction of users 2 months ago ? Nick (talk) 18:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I was just wondering really. Thanks anyway for the info. // F9T 09:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

To let you know, as it has been brought to my attention that I will probably be accused of being Molag because of this. The main reason is, I really don't trust Technology that much. On seeing as the explanation above, I will bow out of my argument now. // F9T 19:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Simple Wikipedia rename request

Hi, I've now renamed you on the Simple English Wikipedia. Thanks, Archer7 (talk) 12:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks. Nick (talk) 15:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Spam blacklist

Hi. Do you still have a way of adding external links to this? I've removed http://sweet4ever-forum.de.tc/ from the Sweet (band) article and another editor drew my attention to the fact that it has been repeatedly added in the past, by a range of IPs. Let me know if you can help, or, failing that, where I can get help. Thanks in advance. --John (talk) 00:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi John, I've added the URL to the spam blacklist for you. Nick (talk) 01:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a million Nick. --John (talk) 01:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Blacklist

Hi Nick & thanks for helping with the blacklist. I realise that sometimes it isn't easy to do but some form of permanent link to the request would be good. It is a pain but I know from Meta experience that it is much harder to "defend" a listing without some real background in 6/12 months time. Spammers can be even more difficult than me :) Thanks anyway & regards --Herby ^{talk thyme} 07:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

OK - then I read the one above so I've done it - cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 07:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I very rarely add stuff to the spam blacklist, normally we used AntiSpamBot instead, so I'm a bit out of the loop when it comes to knowing what to put in the logs. I'll try and remember to add a link to the request in future. Cheers. Nick (talk) 12:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Wikinger

Hiya - a comment you made has come up whilst I've been researching the activity of what appear to be Wikinger's latest socks, so I thought I'd post you a link to the RFCU I've opened here. Regards. Giles Bennett ^{(Talk, Contribs)} 13:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Note about second proposal related to restrictions of Gp75motorsports and Blow of Light

As someone who gave your input into my initial proposal, would I be able to respectfully request your input into a secondary proposal which addresses issues related to the restrictions placed on Blow of Light specifically? Your input into gathering consensus at this discussion would be much appreciated. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 12:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Re:Questions

See User talk:Avruch // F9T 20:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Question

Please understand I am asking this in good faith. I went into the Johnnie Ray article and made some rather large revisions, making edit summaries on why things were changed. The next day, Dooyar reverted back over everything to a version that contained a lot of misinformation and which removed even citation needed tags etc, under an edit summary that disguised most of what he/she reverted. Granted, I've had experience with him/her doing this before, which prompted my comment on it in the edit summary. I outlined my problems with what I removed and what the reversion of it did, on the talk page. As you see, he/she reverted back, accusing me of vandalism, which my edits were not. Another editor and I agreed the change was better. On the talk page, he/she again accused me of vandalism. The other interested editor, Pinkadelica, and I are interested in moving this article forward to a more balanced, objective one. The early decision to ask for a dispute resolution and page protection is because we want to avoid edit wars and contention. My question is, just how is one supposed to do this in the face of being accused of being a vandal and threats to be reported such as were made? Thanks in advance. Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I understand your position but I would be quite surprised if Dooyar didn't think exactly the same, however if there is problems with unsourced material, which is extremly problematic due to the article being a biography, I would rather deal with those problems, instead of a simple protection of a page. Nick (talk) 19:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Marsden

Could've Cluebatted all the SPAs instead of protection... Will ^(talk) 17:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

That's coming as soon as I can find a checkuser. Blocking accounts purely for being a problematic SPA isn't as easy as it once was. Nick (talk) 17:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Time to depolicy IAE, then? Will ^(talk) 17:22, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Wikinger again

Hello Nick, you were the latest admin to block Wikinger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Now we have obviously identical user CBMIBM (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), denying he is Wikinger despite absolutely identical editing profiles (and Checkuser result of "possible"). He's making rather confused edits still. I was going to overlook the obvious block evasion and treat it as just an account switch, since at least he wasn't using the Wikinger account in parallel. But now we have a new bunch of anon IPs continuing the same edits and claiming they are Wikinger, not CBMIBM, so I think that again brings it clearly into the realm of abusive sockpuppetry.

Could you hand out new blocks? I made the mistake of engaging in something of a content dispute with him, so I might be not uninvolved enough at this point.

Let me know if you need more links, I'm a bit too lazy right now to dig them up, but will of course if you need them. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not ignoring this, just a bit busy with other stuff. I'll get round to this tomorrow most likely. Hope that's OK. Nick (talk) 23:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I've had a look at the situation and it looks to be under control at the moment, just thinking back, I know Wikinger has a new account as he lost the password to his old account, so CBMIBM is possibly going to be him, but there's no sockpuppetry there. IP edits coming from the same IP addresses as we blocked before are likely to be him, they're highly dynamic and blocking them is a complete waste of time. I'd go with semi protecting pages instead. Nick (talk) 11:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Lois Nettleton

Lois Nettleton's death now has a reliable obituary, which I will momentarily source and add to the page. I won't unprotect the page, however, in case there are other concerns that lead you to protect the page. Cheers, CP 05:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

There weren't any other problems that led to the protection of the page, just the insertion, at the time, of an unsourced date of death. If you do wish to unprotect the page, please do feel free. Nick (talk) 08:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

BLP box on Ledger page

I like the "BLP still applies" box you added to the Ledger article, although unless an accusation is made against somebody, or something like that, I don't know if it really applies - was it added perhaps due to the Mary Kate Olsen rumor? Otherwise it could create precedent for BLP banners to be retained on any article on a deceased person that mentions someone still alive. I'm not sure if that's a good idea. However, that said, I'm going borrow your idea and add a variation of that box to a few articles regarding musical groups where members have died, yet the article refers to members who are still alive, as I think the box works well in that context. Cheers! 23skidoo (talk) 05:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

We get all sorts of complaints on articles where the subject is deceased, I was just taking preemptive action to try and make sure we don't get any wild tales about Heath's family, friends, people he's been in movies with and so on. The last thing we want from a legal and encyclopedic perspective is claims that he was murdered, was having an affair, was driven to suicide by Joe Bloggs, that sort of stuff, which is not only hurtful for Heath's family, but could present serious legal problems for the Foundation if the other named party decides to pursue us. There's also past comments from members of the Arbitration Committee which I strongly endorse

"The policy speaks to the harm that comes to the person and their living family members. Drawing a line in the sand about whether the subject of the article is breathing today misses the intent of the policy..."Not to harm living people". FloNight 18:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)"

I don't know if you'll get support from the entire community, but I think most administrators would certainly support the creation of such a template for use on the talk pages of deceased persons. Nick (talk) 10:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

About the trolling.

I think it's good to have active admins like you, because there aren't a lot of them. Since you're that kind of guy, you should check this out, because there's definitely tons of trolls in there, somewhere.

Anyway, this image is not trolling: Image:Wikipedia absolute accuracy.png

I made it several days ago as part of my expansion to WP:FAIL and it's polemic, but I showed it to User:Kim Bruning and he thought it was pretty funny and sent it to several friends. Wikipedia is not censored, etc. etc.. The image is basically a perfect analogy for the definition of "success" in WP:NOTFAIL.

If there's anymore lack of clarity about this or whatever, I'm free to discuss this privately on Skype, or whatever you like. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 18:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Box Office Leaders USA

Could you take a look at Template talk:Box Office Leaders USA#Something's wrong? For some reason the template does not work correctly at the moment. I've proposed a solution that should fix it - tried it, looks good to me, etc. GregorB (talk) 00:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

RfA

I am not one for sending round pretty pictures, but after my recent RfA, which passed 68/1/7, I am now relaxed and this is to thank you for your support. I will take on board all the comments made and look forward to wielding the mop with alacrity. Or two lacrities. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 21:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not a nazi. See?

On Talk:Palestinian people, an anonymous IP asserted that those who disagreed with him are Jews[8]. So, I reported it. [9] ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 21:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Picture size in Infobox UK Stations

I note you have been reducing the width of the image in the infobox of many Scottish stations. Myself, User:Dreamer84, User:Pyrotec and User:Signalhead have previously determined that 265px is the optimum width that matches the width of the picture with the default width of the infobox. Consequently I am resetting the picture width on the station infoboxes. --Stewart ^(talk) 21:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

250px looks much better to me, and a small group of users isn't sufficent to warrant reverting multiple edits. Take this discussion to the template talk page, the width should be hardcoded into the template anyway. If you do want to revert my edits, I expect you to make sure every instance of the template which features an image is resized from the wide variety of sizes to your preferred size, something I have been trying to on and off for much of the day. Nick (talk) 21:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

This comes from the work we have been undertaking on the scottish stations over the past 18 months. I had notice that you have also been modifying some Welsh stations. As my work has been involved with WP:TIS I attempt to keep away from other areas (I suppose it is how to "eat the elephant" - one bit at a time. The 265px come from another user adding pictures with random widths between 250 and 450. However I am inclined to agree with you about this being hardcoded into the template. It would make life far easier, although the occaisional protrait image would make the box very long. I will take it to the template talk as you suggest. --Stewart ^(talk) 22:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm a bit reluctant to leave the Welsh and English stations at different sizes, so I'll go tweak the images I've added to those articles today (and see if there's any Scottish ones to be altered too). I started off on a page with a 250px image, I just assumed that 250px, being a nice round number was the correct size for the template. I'll also make sure all the images I add from now on are the correct size. Portrait doesn't look too bad at 265px either. Nick (talk) 22:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

re:Hello

Nick,

You may aswell just do it. I'm fed up of this site. I've left twice now. Perhaps a block will make me see sense that it's pointless and rubbish, and keep me away for good.

Regards,

BG7 16:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

We don't block upon request. Nick (talk) 16:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, fine. But either way, I will probably break a rule within the next while.

I also award you

		The Barnstar of Peace
		Thanks for trying! I wouldn't have contested if you had... Thanks for being a great editor, a credit to WP (unlike others...) BG7 16:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

BG7 16:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

My Talk Page

Please what on my talk page was harassment when it was an talk page conversation that is shown just as it happened? BillyTFried (talk) 01:18, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The same content a couple of other administrators found concerning. Nick (talk) 01:28, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

re Futurekids deletion

Nick -- your speedy deletion of Futurekids confounds me. I never saw the writeup deleted earlier by Sean Whitton as blatant advertising (and I can't see it now). My earnest and well researched effort met Wikipedia requirements, including notability, citations and references. The article is a prelude to much more extensive research and writing that I wish to do on the subject of 21st century learning.

As a new contributor, I have a lot to learn. But I'm an accomplished researcher and believe that my short article fulfills Wikipedia rules. Please reconsider. You can find my draft here: http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=dvg4g8t_33gg5rdvf8&hl=en.

Your guidance is earnestly sought.

Murry1 (talk) 19:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Recreate the article in your userspace and have an administrator check the page over, if it's fine, we'll move it into the main encyclopedia. The old version was written like a press release. Nick (talk) 20:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Nick. I don't see the choice for administrator review on the creation page, which offers Save page / Show preview / Show changes. Is there a code I insert into the start of the article? BTW, I am a journalist who writes in inverted pyramid style, which of course is emulated by press release writers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Murry1 (talk • contribs) 21:13, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Sadly not, although you could use {{helpme}} or drop a note at The Administrators Noticeboard asking for a comment on your text, I'm sure someone will look at the article and advise you on best how to proceed. Nick (talk) 22:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll give it a try as soon as I restructure to soften the press release style you cited. With gratitude for guiding me. Murry Murry1 (talk) 22:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Hassidic couple photo

Nick, I understand from the discussion at your commons talk page that the Wikimedia Foundation processed a request to remove a photo of a Hassidic couple by David Shankbone on Wikimedia commons. I notice that the photo of a Hassidic couple in Orthodox Judaism#Orthodox religious sectors is still there as of this message (It's Image:Hasidic jewish couple.jpg). This may be because (a) You haven't finished processing the matter; (b) You forgot to delete this photo, which is a cropped version of the original one User:David Shankbone uploaded, (c) We're talking about two totally different photos and the request Wikimedia Foundation processed just isn't about this, or (d) something completely different. Could you please let me know what the situation is? Thanks, --Shirahadasha (talk) 16:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

There's now some doubt that the request to remove the image is a genuine request at the behest of those in the image, it is looking quite likely, I'm sorry to say, that the request is not genuine and is some sort of attempt to have some of David's work to be deleted. The image in question was brought to our attention after we became aware the request might not be genuine and following other images of David's have been targeted for deletion. We have requested confirmation from those who made the request to have the image deleted, but in the interim, the cropped version has not been deleted, and the original version (which I deleted originally following the OTRS request) has been restored pending clarification. There is an open invitation from David for anybody who appears in his work to contact him and he will request deletion of his own material. This was not the case here, the request was placed directly to the Foundation and as such, is being handled through the OTRS system, in this case by myself and another couple of volunteers. Nick (talk) 17:53, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Please let me know what the outcome is. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 02:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

My RFA

Really sorry about that. I have removed it and added a db-self template to it. You are completely right with your statement. When is the right time to re-apply? STORMTRACKER 94 ^{Go Sox!} 21:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I recall I waited about 3 months from my first, unsuccessful, self-nom RfA before I accepted a nomination for what would be my second and ultimately successful RfA so I'd suggest 3-4 months, 6 if you can stand the wait, less if not. It's something to keep an eye on the RfA page for though, see what the average time between nominations is at the moment. Having been lurking about as an admin for a year or so now, I can say from my little experience that rushing adminship isn't fun, it can end up making people quite miserable, so it's best to wait until you're really comfortable with the whole process, and add on extra month or two just to be safe. Nick (talk) 21:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm deeply toubled by your deletion here Nick. Please consider your own oppose and how this marries up against the fact that RFA 5 will now be RFA 4 (again). Please also consider that this should be recreated and preserved in the archives for future reference at RFA 5, which I assume will happen. Pedro :  Chat  22:33, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind withdrawing my vote (a minor technicality) and going on the assumption that the RfA was never properly started, was malformed or what have you. It certainly didn't go for the full seven days and wasn't withdrawn by a 'crat or closed by a sysop. I see no problems in the RfA remaining deleted, instead of becoming yet another millstone around the neck of the candidate. I'd prefer to treat the RfA as a error, a mistake, much like the articles we probably both wrote when we were new editors. Nick (talk) 22:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Persuasive view point. However I'm unconvinced that a candidates "error...mistake" should be hidden from non admins at RFA 5. It would, IMHO, have bearing on the potential/expected discussion. Of course I bear the candidate no ill will, and will abide by your decision in this. Pedro :  Chat  22:50, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure the candidate would mention the now deleted RfA (it's happened in the past, can't recall who) and it's not the sort of thing one would expect to be brushed under the carpet come RfA#5, as it's the sort of thing that would come out half way through and do serious damage, whilst I'm hoping the decision the candidate made earlier shows evidence of a more mature level of judgement, something that really should be pointed out at the start of any future RfA. Everything is here and given my alarming propensity not to archive my talk page, it'll probably still be on my talk page come RfA #5. I'll make a point of having a chat with Stormtracker94 at some point before their RfA about the deleted RfA. Nick (talk) 23:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I trust your judgement on this. And yes, I was wondering how you missed the archive thing :) Man, your talk page is long! Pedro :  Chat  23:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Template:AbRep

A tag has been placed on Template:AbRep requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

No objections from me over the deletion. Nick (talk) 15:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Unprotection of Rachel Marsden

I now realize that I should have asked you before requesting unprotection at Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Rachel_Marsden_.28edit.7Ctalk.7Chistory.7Clinks.7Cwatch.7Clogs.29. Shall I withdraw or shall we discuss there? Thanks. –Pomte 04:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I've re-protected the article, I don't think it should have been unprotected, not for the usual wheel warring stuff, any other article I wouldn't mind. There's just a continuation of the previous edit warring, tendentious behaviour and reinsertion of material which is little on the problematic side. Un-protection might well have worked, so no complaints from me there. Nick (talk) 19:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

JzG's RFC

You're never going to get anybody to take part in an RfC that's been plotted over for the best part of a month by people who are coming bloody close to being banned for the endless shit they stir up or who otherwise have scores to settle with the subject

Calm down please. a) 62 people have taken part to date. b) The main contributors were Cla68, Viridae and myself. Are we really "bloody close to being banned for the endless shit they stir up"? I would suggest doing so would see the blocking administrator desysopped post haste. Wild threats of being banned for daring to use the dispute resolution process are silly, and unbecoming of any administrator. Neıl ☎ 12:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Let me see, we've got Viridae trying to remove comments I made to the RfC to start with (and which one person has subsequently endorsed), we've got a history of friction between one of the certifying bodies and the subject of the RfC and questionable behaviour over the whole process in several places, there's a clear history of the endless plotting going on, and let me see, there's clear evidence of this being more than just a couple of concerned onlookers trying to deal with some genuine civility concerns. Do you honestly think you're all above reproach, and if this was pushed towards the Arbitration Committee, you would all walk away being able to edit, and where applicable, with your admin permissions intact ? I don't and I'm not alone. Nick (talk) 18:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Creating an RFC is not illegal or evil. The preparation for this RfC has been done entirely in the open - by definition, "plotting" is done in secret. Feel free to push it towards ArbCom, if you so wish. It may end up there anyway should Guy's behaviour regress (so far since the RFC was posted it has been decidedly better). I haven't seen any of the certifying bodies doing anything that would result in any kind of punishment. Neıl ☎ 22:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

So his behaviour is improving, yet Viridae still sees fit to make disgruntled noises about Guy not participating in the RfC. I'm afraid I'm therefore still at a loss trying to understand what this RfC is now serving by remaining listed, if that's the case. We've asked him to play nice, and he's playing nice, what more is there to say or do. If he regresses in future, we re-open it, but at the moment it's serving no conceivable purpose. With regards to your last comment, I think Viridae persistently trying to force my comment onto the talk page would raise a fair few eyebrows amongst the ArbCom for a wide variety of reasons, the inherent conflict of interest, the blatant deletion of the content, and making the comment "I know this is also on the talk page but noone reads those on RfCs" before trying to force me to leave my comment there. That's grounds for a slap with a trout, if nothing else. Nick (talk) 22:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Assume bad faith a bit more Nick. Viridae^Talk 22:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Where have I assumed any faith (good or bad) on your part ?. I've detailed everything you've done today, in a vaguely chronological order. Is there anything you wish to disagree with. If so, I would be delighted to hear your view on your contributions today. Nick (talk) 22:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

How about "yet Viridae still sees fit to make disgruntled noises about Guy not participating in the RfC" - thats definitely assuming bad faith. How about "I think Viridae persistently trying to force my comment onto the talk page would raise a fair few eyebrows amongst the ArbCom for a wide variety of reasons" - yet another assumption of bad faith. Threaded discussion is discouraged in the RfC main page. It is unhelpfull and confuses things - that is what the talk page is for, if you have a response to someone else comments you can use the talk page like evryone else did (or if you agree - certify the view and make your comment there) Viridae^Talk 22:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

So how else am I supposed to describe your recent comments on the RfC page regarding Guy's participation, or your removal of my comment, especially in light of the fact you consider the talk page to be something, in your words "...noone reads those on RfCs". I'm sort of under the impression you don't like me making assumptions about your behaviour on this RfC, but that you find it OK to do exactly the same with regards to Guy. Is that an unfair assumption ? Nick (talk) 22:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

What assumptions am i making about JzG's behaviour exactly that arent based on 180 diffs of bad behaviour? Your comment wasn't "forced" to the talk page, that is where it belonged - just like my response to your view. For the last time, Threaded discussion is NOT encouraged on RfCs, and your comment was threaded discussion. Yet despite my polite request to out it on the talk page where it belonged you edit warred using the rollback tool. Viridae^Talk 22:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

← Well, your polite request was hardly polite, nor a request. You just removed the content without asking me first, you failed to leave a request on my talk page instead choosing to leaving an edit summary when you reverted me. You tried to force a comment onto the talk page when you were boasting that nobody reads RfC talk pages (your words, need I remind you "I know this is also on the talk page but noone reads those on RfCs". I rather wanted my comment read, am I to assume you didn't want my comment read ? Nick (talk) 22:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Once again with the assumption of bad faith Nick, you are going to have to stop doing that. My edit summary was rem comment by Nick - comments on the talk page please"" - what is not polite about that...? I was "boasting" that noone reads the talk pages was I - that is a serious mischaracterisation of my comments and a serious assumption of bad faith. You also assume I "didn't want my comment read" - once again, on what grounds did you make that assumption? The main page of an RfC is simply not the place for threaded discussion, I removed your comment and asked you to place it in the correct place and you used the rollback to revert non vandalistic edits - who is in the wrong here...? Viridae^Talk 22:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

"I know this is also on the talk page but noone reads those on RfCs" that was what you said, was it not ? Why did you think it was acceptable to remove a comment and try to force it onto the talk page if that is your view of the talk page. Would that not serve the purpose, in your view, of ensuring nobody saw my comment ? anyway, I'd say we're both in the wrong here. Me for edit warring and you for removing the comment and not asking me to move the comment into it's own section or onto the talk page. Fair assertion ? Nick (talk) 23:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I should probobly have used talk page as well as the edit summary, yes. I will try and remember to do that in future. However can you please stop assuming bad faith about my actions and motivations, all of it has thus far been wrong and it has helped nothing. Viridae^Talk 23:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Question about JzG RfC comment

Nick, I'm the one who initiated this RfC on JzG, in the open on my userpage and with a few posts to a some other users' talk pages, and I'm the one who posted it and was first to certify it. So, what exactly did you mean that this is "an RfC that's been plotted over for the best part of a month by people who are coming bloody close to being banned for the endless shit they stir up or who otherwise have scores to settle with the subject"? If someone involved is close to being banned, I think you should identify who that it is, because I'm unaware of such discussion taking place anywhere. Cla68 (talk) 00:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Please see my comment above, in response to Neil. Nick (talk) 09:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Your reply above seems to indicate that you only have an issue with one involved editor. But, in your statement, you said "by people". Did you mean one person or more than one? Even if you only meant one person, where has there been any talk of that particular individual being a candidate for banishment? Cla68 (talk) 01:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi

I have replied to you comment on the talk page, I'm not sure if you noticed. Viridae^Talk 12:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

My RfA

File:David,larry.JPG		My RFA
		Thank you muchly for your support in my recent request for adminship, which was successfully closed on 76%, finishing at 73 supports, 23 opposes and 1 neutral. The supports were wonderful, and I will keep in mind the points made in the useful opposes and try to suppress the Larry David in me! Now I'm off to issue some cool down blocks, just to get my money's worth! Kidding btw. All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 11:39, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Shawn Lonsdale

No problem, I hadn't actually written any of the article's text itself - just added a bunch of secondary sources to the "Further reading" section, intending to use them later to fix up the article. Is there any chance that you could just copy all the secondary sources that were used in that article, and put it in my sandbox? I don't really care much about the old article's text/paragraphs, just the sources I had worked to compile, I'd rather not find them all over again and format them appropriately. Thank you for dropping by with the note on my talk page and the suggestion, much appreciated. Cirt (talk) 23:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Hehe, too many admins acting on this issue at once. Doc glasgow (talk · contribs) had already emailed me the "Further reading" section, minus the article's text, which is all I wanted. This is actually better, won't be tainted by the old version of the article, and I'll work on it from scratch. Thanks again, Cirt (talk) 23:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, there was inline citations which I figured might be of some use. I've not had a look at them, but some look like they should be useful. Nick (talk) 23:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, forgot about those, thanks. You can go ahead and delete it now, I placed {{db-user}} on it. Cirt (talk) 23:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Cirt (talk) 23:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• I created the article Shawn Lonsdale from scratch, using material cited to WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources. Please provide input if you feel like it, and if requested to do so I will nominate it for deletion myself. Cirt (talk) 02:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Wrong Start, eh?

Hello, Nick. I see we are off to a wrong start. i would like the help desk to have a link to my User:Nothing444/help service. It is much qquicker and easier. Salutations, Nothing444 19:54, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

You're off to the wrong start. You do not link to your own personal pages from the Help Desk. Nick (talk) 19:56, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Okak-dokey. I'll try 2 remeber that. I'll also contribute into Mainspace. :) Nothing444 19:58, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Took off personal page myself. i have learned from you. thanks SOO much :) Nothing444 20:01, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

BoL

As a contributor to the first discussion, your input at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Removing topic ban on Blow of Light would be much appreciated. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 03:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Reply in Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Hersfold 3

Just so you know, I've replied to your comments again in my RfA. Please note that I will not be online after 04:00 UTC, so any replies you leave after that time will not receive a response. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 23:58, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Re:Stalking

Sorry, I was just asking because if I knew, I could give her the userbox she asked for. I asked her for her gender because I needed to give her the userbox that told if she was a male or a female. You can visit her userpage to see what userbox I gave her. Again, sorry for the trouble.--RyRy5 (talk) 00:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Give the kid a second chance?

Nick, I approve of your block of User:Nothing444--except the indefinite part. My case for shortening the block [10]. I think if he's willing to come back after two weeks, maybe the disruptive editing will stop. I could be wrong, but I think that there's something to salvage here, despite the difficulties in communication up to now. Thanks for considering this -- Darkspots (talk) 02:40, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I would also support a second chance - perhaps he could be unblocked and kept under close supervision? Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 02:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and remove his block. I was given a break way back when I started, perhaps this editor can learn from his errors and do well for himself. If not, we can always reinstate the block. – ClockworkSoul 18:54, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Never mind... I'm going to let your offer to him play out instead. – ClockworkSoul 18:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[11] Thanks for working on the situation, I like your approach. Darkspots (talk) 19:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Deletion Review for Template:Rnb

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Template:Rnb. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review.. I'm very curious why you deleted this template without there being any discussion. I put a lot of work in this template and others are using this on their userpages or talkpages. Freestyle 16:14, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

DM

While I thought your protection was hasty and a bad idea I liked the edit before that one, you should have left as was. Thanks, SqueakBox 01:20, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Please subst discussion closing templates

Hello, in case you didn't know, please always subst the Template:Drt and Template:Drb when closing a discussion at WP:DRV. Thank-you. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 03:36, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Response

Hey, cheers for the stepping in, but shielddane seems to have reponded to your message! Igniateff (talk) 10:25, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou...

for sorting that hard rangeblock out so I can edit again. Exxolon (talk) 20:52, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Infobox Scottish Distillery

This is why I love wikipedia. Thanks for the template, I'm implementing it for the remainder of Islay distilleries - where I'll be in a few days! Cheers! Madcoverboy (talk) 08:46, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Don Murphy

Nick the Tempest in a Teapot thing is a real concern to me. There is too much hype on a matter that realy won't matter much down the road. What is your take on this whole thing being blown out of proportion? 91.113.63.20 (talk) 15:18, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm staying out of the deletion discussion completely, my only interest with the AfD is to ensure it's fair and there's no disruption or material added which could present problems. Nick (talk) 15:28, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales

You protected the page at the wrong version!! 217.160.207.226 (talk) 16:34, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

There was no planning to protect it in that version. I actually hit the protect button to go into the page to set the page protection options after Bramlet Abercrombie had been reverted, but there was another removal, addition and removal by the time I had finished setting the protection option and message. I've got the headache of what to do with the most popular User talk page on the project because of a pile of edit warriors, but it does seem that the message, if reinstated on Jimbo's talk page will result in further edit warring which makes the page equally useless. Not a lot we can do then, is there. Nick (talk) 16:56, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, that was supposed to be dry, random IP(Tor) humor. You would have protected it at the wrong version no matter where it landed. Nuff of that, I'm off to do some serious trolling for awhile!! 78.48.159.88 (talk) 22:46, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Buzybeez (talk · contribs) permanently blocked?

I have reviewed some of the recent edits by the user, and I am of the opinion that you have been too fast; I don't think he deserves an indefinite block. Unless there's something I have missed ... - Mike Rosoft (talk) 17:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeap, the persistent disruption and reversion of the article on the St Christopher Iba Mar Diop College of Medicine. It's one of those bogus universities, but Buzybeez persists in asserting it's a fully accredited and recognised university. Nick (talk) 18:38, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Gregs the baker

Gregs the baker (talk · contribs) contacted me via email to appeal my decline of his unblock. He says he made a mistake socking and won't do it again (paraphrase), but I have a policy of not unblocking without discussing, so I wanted to get your input. Looked like an abusing sock per RFCU. MBisanz ^talk 05:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm usually fairly easy going, but there's too much history of abuse for me to support an unblock on this guy. I've had all manner of e-mails offering up all manner of explanations, only the most recent of which offered any admission of sockpuppetry, so the fact he's taken so long to come clean does worry me. It's entirely up to you if you do want to unblock however. Nick (talk) 12:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Greeting from Nothing444

I've had some disagreements with you, and I will admit that you are right. As you can see, I am very active in Afd Stub categorizations, and WP:LINY. Those are mainspace, and if you have any suggestions, I'd be glad to take them. Nothing444^{Go Irish!} 16:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

RFA question

I asked the question "If you come across a vandal-only account that has recieved their last warning and they had to be blocked, how long would you block that user and why?" because I wanted to see if User:EyeSerene knew the only answer. If you still want me to change my question, please tell me. Thanks!--RyRy5 ^{Got something to say?} 00:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

It's probably best not to ask too many questions at RfA, heaven forbid someone asks you 30 or more questions when you have your RfA, which we wouldn't want, would we ? Also, asking the same question repeatedly doesn't help, it's so easy to lift the correct answer from another RfA that it's really not worth the bother. If you feel you need to ask a question, it should be relevant to how you comment and should really be something that is relevant to the RfA. Hope this helps. Nick (talk) 01:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you so much

Thanks a lot [12] this editor has been nothing but an attack account, created personally to attack me. Trav (talk) 13:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Problem with you protecting Paul Burrell's page

it has an incredibly POV statement in the Lead. i dont want to register with wikipedia, and i think that putting permanent semiprotection on it is wholly irresponsible, especially since it is not tagged as such in the body of the article. this goes against the foundations of wikipedia imo. better to keep it on a watch list then arbitrarily protect statements which are incredibly POV (Paul burrell is misunderstood by the general public). 142.106.63.213 (talk) 16:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Fixed, and the semi-protection will have to stay for a little while longer. Sorry. Nick (talk) 16:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

re User:I123Pie

You just cleared this users monobook to remove his Twinkle access, but something seems to have not worked, since, according to their contribs, they're still using it. Any ideas why?--Jac16888 (talk) 18:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

It only works when they restart their browser. There's technically nothing to stop them using Twinkle all week, I believe. It's a bit hit and miss, but it's a better alternative to an outright block. Nick (talk) 18:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

How odd. oh well, thanks--Jac16888 (talk) 18:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

To be fare i stopped using it this week, but i want bits back in see here. – i123Pie _bio^contribs 11:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of copyvios

When you delete copyvios from WP:Copyright problems, please check to see if there is a Talk/Temp file for them, for example, you deleted Günther Specht, however, as indicated on the talk page there was a replacement page at Talk:Günther Specht/Temp as per the procedures at WP:Copyright problems. Additionally, WP:Copyright problems is a deletion discussion page and should normally be listed as the deletion reason. This helps with researching deletion histories as it will cite the proper log date on Copyright problems. Thanks.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 15:28, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The bad news is that the replacement page you've just moved is also a copyright violation, containing the same text as the version I deleted. This was the case with all of the German WW2 Luftwaffe pilots. The original revision of the page and all the others was taken from http://www.luftwaffe.cz so there was no clean revision to revert back from. It was also a blatant copyright violation - the entire article, save from the infobox and formatting was lifted from this site, not just a paragraph or two, so there was no alternative to a straightforward Speedy Deletion in accordance with the WP:Copyright problems page - however I wasn't actually made aware of the copyright problems via that noticeboard, but through a tool that exists on the toolserver that lists very short articles (page blanking vandalism), stubs and copyright violations. There's a whole pile of other deletions or reverts that come from identifying problem articles with this tool. Nick (talk) 15:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

That's fine, I just knew the old talk page noted the talk/temp page (b/c I started it) and thought maybe you were unaware of that process or how to handle it. As for the new article. I reviewed it and the luftwaffe.cz page and I don't see the current problem. The two editors who created the clean version (User:MisterBee1966 and User:Dapi89) are both regularly involved in re-writing these pages and I highly doubt that either of them took much if anything from luftwaffe.cz as they have remarked before that it is not reliable. You might discuss with them on their talk pages though if you still think it's a copyvio. Let me know though if you see specific copyright problems with the current article.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 18:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I've had a look through everything and it might be OK with some judicious pruning. The only word for word section I can see at the moment is the following.

from luftwaffe.cz

Specht was listed as missing in action over Asch, Belgium on 1 January 1945, during operation Bodenplatte, ... He was posthumously promoted to the rank of Oberstleutnant and was recommended for the Eichenlaub.

from Günther Specht

Specht was listed as missing in action over Asch, Belgium on 1 January 1945, during operation Bodenplatte. He was posthumously promoted to the rank of Oberstleutnant and was recommended for the Oak Leaves to the Knight's Cross.

I'm sure the section further down came from a website, but it's not lifted from either of the two websites given as references, so I'm not as worried about this as it was. Hope this helps. Nick (talk) 18:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll mention this to the two editors I mentioned above, I was only involved in creating the bare /Temp pages and really know nothing of the subject matter. I am certain that per WP:CV these could be reverted to an earlier version, if necessary, to eliminate a copyvio; at the very least the one liner I started it with.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 00:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Did you know

Hi, Nick. Why has Alojz Rebula not been included in the recent update[13][14] of the DYK section? Is it due to an error or imperfection in the article that should be fixed? --Eleassar ^{my talk} 16:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not the sort of Did You Know that I'm comfortable with being on the main page of Wikipedia. The article is good though, certainly nothing wrong there, I'm just uncomfortable with negative material from a biography being taken out of the context of the whole article and being presented on it's own. Nick (talk) 17:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I respect that. Although it is more about the courage of Rebula and oppression of the communist party. What about "Did you know that Alojz Rebula was one of the first Slovene authors who wrote extensively about the philosophy of Jacques Maritain?" May I renominate the article? --Eleassar ^{my talk} 17:27, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

That's a good hook and I have no problems with you renominating the article. Nick (talk) 17:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

It's just that the article has been created on April 3, while the list at template talk:Did you know seems to go only till April 4. Ok, there is a section called Expiring noms. Can you advise me here? Is it ok to put it among the expiring noms? --Eleassar ^{my talk} 17:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I've put it among the expiring noms. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 17:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

User:I123Pie/monobook.js

Can you add this code back in please?

var wikEdComboPresetOptions = [];
wikEdComboPresetOptions['summary'] = [
'Limited spellcheck + basic unicode fix + minor fixes + [[User:Mboverload/RegExTypoFix|fix]] [[Wikipedia:Typo|Typo]]s', 'Category fix(es)', 'Comment', 'Formatting'
];
var wikEdRegExTypoFix = true;
var wikEdShowUsingButton = true;
var wikEdSummaryUsing = 'via [[User:Cacycle/wikEd‎|wikEd]]';
 
addOnloadHook(function () {
var tabs = document.getElementById('p-cactions').cloneNode(true);
tabs.id = 'mytabs';
var listitems = tabs.getElementsByTagName('LI');
for (i=0;i<listitems.length;i++) {
if(listitems[i].id) listitems[i].id = 'mytabs-' + listitems[i].id;
}
 
content = document.getElementById("content");    // Find the content div
content.parentNode.insertBefore(tabs, content.nextSibling);    // Place tab list right after content div
});

importScript('User:Misza13/statusChanger.js');

Thank you! – i123Pie _bio^contribs 11:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

wikEd

If he/she wants to add tl in the message, he should help me! 地獄からのパイ 18:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

That's no excuse to revert an edit by an administrator who was simply helping out as "vandalism". You should read WP:VANDAL and be sure that you understand what you can revert as vandalism and what you can't before we consider giving you access to those utilities again. Nick (talk) 18:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I was not using wikEd to revert it, i was using the wikipedia 'undo' button in the diff screen. it said via wikEd because the undo function brings up the edit page. Read about wikEd. All it does is replaces the standard edit panel and replaces it with a advanced one, it's not a revert tool. Plus when you removed wikEd from my monobook.js you also removed my mytabs feature which adds tabs at the bottom as custom tabs don't show at the top on my mac. Can you add my tabs back? Thanks.

Add this back in;

addOnloadHook(function () {
var tabs = document.getElementById('p-cactions').cloneNode(true);
tabs.id = 'mytabs';
var listitems = tabs.getElementsByTagName('LI');
for (i=0;i<listitems.length;i++) {
if(listitems[i].id) listitems[i].id = 'mytabs-' + listitems[i].id;
}
 
content = document.getElementById("content");    // Find the content div
content.parentNode.insertBefore(tabs, content.nextSibling);    // Place tab list right after content div
});

– 地獄からのパイ 11:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

My RFA has closed

My RFA that you weighed in on earlier has closed as no consensus to promote, at a final tally of 120/47/13. I thank you for your feedback and comments there, and I'm going to be considering all the various advice and comments presented. I might end up at RFA again some day, or not. If you see me there again in the future, perhaps you might consider a Support !vote. If not, not, and no hard feelings. The pen is still mightier than the mop! See you around, and thanks again. Lawrence § t/e 18:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Req

If you could read my statement in the John254 drama at RfArb, I'd appreciate it. You may not agree, but I have independently noticed that some sliding 'round BLP is happening. --Relata refero (disp.) 22:44, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

It's an interesting viewpoint, but I doubt if we genuinely need Arbcom to say "self-published sources that attack the subject of an article under the pretense of reviewing their work are not permitted" - that's common sense and something we can deal with on a case by case basis. Determining what's an attack and what's a genuine review is as difficult as deciding on notability itself, and I doubt there's any way a set of rules can be written to deal with attack material masquerading as critique and genuine critique. I think it'll need to remain a case of use common sense, get plenty of second opinions from people who deal with BLPs if in doubt and erring on the side of caution at all times. Nick (talk) 23:16, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, but that boomeranged badly on me the last time I tried it. I still don't think "he explores the borders of ignorance" isn't a slimy way of attacking a man rather than a book.

Anyway, thank you for the sea otters. Made my day. --Relata refero (disp.) 06:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the temporary block on User: Kurtlockwood...... I know it isn't the real Kurt Lockwood,because of comments made towards me on both his and my talk pages. We are friends and he wouldn't say these things... Thanks again for the help.Countrypaula (talk) 06:40, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Nick, can you please have a look at ticket 2008041210013441? This was the follow up from your block. I was not aware of the history (apparently there's some sockpuppetry going on) behind that case and the message seemed legit at that time. What do you think? -- lucasbfr ^talk 09:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't really know what to think. The sockpuppetry allegation looks to be well founded. Looking at Kurt's website, his e-mail address and the e-mail address we have on OTRS don't appear to match. Dunno if that's significant or not though. Nick (talk) 11:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Mmm, I can't really look at his website right now (I guess I'd have a serious explanation to give if I got caught looking at that at work ^^). I'll contact him tonight on his "official" email (Please do so if you have the time beforehand). But I guess we might have an impostor... -- lucasbfr ^talk 12:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't want to say too much on-wiki, see the ticket linked above ;-) Nick (talk) 12:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that's what I had in mind :) -- lucasbfr ^talk 12:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi all:

I'm Kurt's webmaster and either myself or him will reply from the email sent to the website (like you guys said it's not a website I can or would access from work), but I have verified with him that this person is not him. Claire999 (talk) 18:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello! I did ineed put the suspected sockpuppetering tags on his used IP's based on attacks to User:Countrypaula and compared them to edits on Kurt Lockwood. When he got unblocked, he immediately attacked her userpage wich proves further that it's not Kurt Lockwood. --Cream (talk) 03:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Nick, just replied to your email to the website. Thank you for your help. Claire999 (talk) 03:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I want to extend my thanks also for the help you have all shown with this issue.Countrypaula (talk) 23:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

otrs verification

Hello. Could you see this AFD where I noted where I would make a request to verify a ticket. What needs verification is the subject requesting deletion. Would you mind verifing it for me and placing a note there?

Ticket # 2008040910002834

Also of note: I'm not asking for you to comment on the merits of the AFD, however, you are welcome to do so if you are inclined. Regards, NonvocalScream (talk) 14:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

My RfA...

Thank you...

...for your participation in my RFA, which closed with 85 supports, 2 neutrals and 1 oppose. I'm extremely grateful for all the the kind comments from so many brilliant Wikipedians I've come to respect and admire, as well as many others I've not yet had the pleasure of working with, and I'll do my best to put my shiny new mop and bucket to good use! Once again, thank you ;)
EyeSerene^talk 16:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Tiger Droppings

Thank you for protecting this page. The vandalism was getting overwhelming. Is it at all possible to ask you to remove the fourth paragraph, as it appears that it is the only vandalism remaining? Thanks again, GaryColemanFan (talk) 19:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Tiger Droppings

Thanks for protecting that page. I have no idea why that page was being attacked so much, but it was all I could do to keep it at bay. (hence all the reverting.) Would you please remove the content of this edit? Thank you. Thingg^⊕⊗ 19:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Someone already remove the content. Thingg^⊕⊗ 19:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused why, after protecting the page, you would go ahead and delete it after a speedy nomination from Ukexpat? Am I missing something? Trying to assume good faith here, but that article, while assumedly heavily vandalized, is suddenly non-notable? (A7?. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I had a quick look at the article to get a rough idea of how the page should go, then I went through the history of the page, looking at diffs and blocking accounts and IP addresses as appropriate. The top priority with any article undergoing that sort of vandalism is to stop the vandalism and stabilise what's going on, block any accounts, preventing further vandalism by those accounts to other articles and user pages. It was only once I had dealt with the vandalism and problematic editors that I was able to review the article, have a look at the content, Google to check for notability, look right through the history to see that the page was tagged for deletion almost the moment it was created. I know it was again noted for deletion but by that time, I was already considering deletion and was checking for notability, Alexa rankings, the coverage on the site from independent sources and so on. Speedy deletion isn't simply a case of seeing a CSD tag and hitting the button, it needs to be done properly and in some cases, it can take a few minutes or even a few hours to decide on how to proceed with a deletion. Nick (talk) 22:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

That's what I thought you were doing. Thanks for clarifying, I just rarely see someone protecting a page, only to delete it a short time afterward. Cheers, Nick, thanks for taking the time to ease my weary mind. Nice work! Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

RE: ANI

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

Apologies

Hey. I know we haven't had very good relations (the RFA, the MFD, ect.), so I apologize for everything that I have done in these situations. I created the proposal page because I wanted to make it less painful for everyone who is in RFA. I just wanted to make a difference that would have an impact on the community. I did not want to gain something for myself through these, and I just wanted to accomplish a goal through my RFAs. I realize this may seem fake or something like that, but I truly mean this and would like to start over. Please consider it and thank you. STORMTRACKER 94 ^{Go Irish!} 20:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Could you please respond on my page (I remember you responding here). STORMTRACKER 94 ^{Go Irish!} 20:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, we have crossed. It's section 124 of your talkpage. Thank you for the link. STORMTRACKER 94 ^{Go Irish!} 21:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

216.229.227.142

This guy [15] whom you blocked on April 9th, is at it again. Can you help? Thank you! Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. Nick (talk) 00:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Now we'll see if he finds yet another IP address. He seems to have had 2 already today, at least. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Bitter behavior?

You stated here that my behavior has left a bitter taste in your mouth. What are you referring to? I'm genuinely not aware of doing anything uncivil and seeing your comment shocked me. Please let me know if I'm doing something wrong, Malinaccier (talk) 22:55, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

When apologizing to User:Cenarium for any possible offensive behavior, he said that he believes you are refering to User:Xenocidic, and not me. If this is the case, sorry for overreacting/bothering you/whatever. But if you are referring to me, then just drop a line on my talk page. Happy editing, Malinaccier (talk) 23:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

It's a bit of everybody really, but nobody I could specifically name. Nick (talk) 23:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

If it has anything to do with me, then at least send me a private email. Malinaccier (talk) 23:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it's the cabal/social networking stuff ? Fortunately, it seems to have calmed down by now. Cenarium^Talk 00:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

It was mainly the replies to the Oppose comments that annoyed me a little, nothing to really worry about, but it's supposed to be a discussion, if we could all just remember that language like "I see no problems whatsoever in the diffs you provided." which isn't the most conducive way to start a discussion. Nick (talk) 00:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'll remember that in the future. I was trying to protect my nominee...and I should have worded it differently. Thank you, Malinaccier (talk) 00:34, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it's true. When we're in complete disagreement with someone on one point, it's better to ask for clarifications, since it may be a misunderstanding. Hold your horses ! Cenarium^Talk 00:51, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

No hard feelings

TheProf - T / C 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. Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Hope there are no hard feelings over our little disagreement here? Have a nice day! TheProf - T / C 23:39, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

re scientology controversy

hay, I appreicate the message. Septer origionaly added the tags after he went on a rampage of deleting articles with the word "contriversy" in them (by redirect in this case) and after it was reverted he slaped all those tags on with no discussion. now he has added 10 tags, many of them don't make sence without more detailed information(how is the factuality disputed?, is the "manual of style" comment about contriversy a argument about the article in general, or is it refering to the "scientology reponce" section, there are already many sources why do we need more?, etc.) I am trying to assume good faith, but without detailed discussion it really looks like he arbitrarily slaped tags on to deface the article. (he hasn't contributed to any part of the article at all). also we have been having a discussion on the talk page, and the consensus has been to remove the tags.Coffeepusher (talk) 18:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I would believe Sceptre is referring to the controversy section. I had a look on the talk page and there's not a great deal of comments, and as far as I can see, no indication on whether or not the tags have merits. Controversy sections are generally a bad idea, tends to pile all the negative commentary into one section and they can very quickly begin to dominate an article. It's best if the information is integrated into a more balanced article overall. You can never have to many sources, and if there's a claim, it's always best to have a source to back it up, inline style. If you know that some sources have information that is relevant to another section tagged with a {{fact}} template, add another reference. Nick (talk) 18:45, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

heyy, id just like to say thankyou very much for your help. i would also like to say taht you are a very friendly person unlike some other wikipedians. you give me advice in a nice way, and you don't just point out all my faults. thanks a lot --123.2.251.149 (talk) 03:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC) just tellin u dat th above message is from me, soz i forgot to log in. thanks again --Thfrang 03:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thfrang (talk • contribs)

Your comment to Verisimilus

In your comment to Verisimilus, you said "Do us all a favour, delete the bloody code and find something more useful to do with your time". Please tone down the condescension, this user implemented a feature in good faith and your comment was wholly uncalled for. If everyone behaved like this we would scare away our good contributors in no time. JACOPLANE • 2008-04-23 21:50

True, it was quite a bit too brutally honest. Nick (talk) 22:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Spoken like a true politician.My apologies, that was rather uncalled for as well. Hope you are well, JACOPLANE • 2008-04-23 22:45

Page Blanking

Thank you for blanking my talk page. Was wonderful of you to remove some content. Why did you do it? Chris19910 (talk) 18:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, let's see, you stole the userpage from someone else, and did not attribute them, which makes it a copyright violation I could feasibly delete the page over, you have admitted to just having passed A-Level Computer something or other in your letter to Jimmy today, and you only have one barnstar, not two. Also, I didn't touch or blank your talk page. Nick (talk) 18:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I have undone your edits to User:Chris19910, noting that User:Bridwater presented both barnstars - one at 15:00 and one at 15:03 - on 11th April 2008. Whatever circumstances these Barnstars were presented under, Chris19910 is entitled to display them. I am also uncertain which page the editor was supposed to have "stolen" their userpage from, since it is now substantially different to the one created on 1st April and much of the content has been created (and revised) incrementally since then.

I would comment that I am also concerned at the use of the term "stolen" - which is both W:BITEy and a serious allegation. Do you have any evidence to support this claim? If you do not, I suggest that you retract it - along with the threat to delete the userpage. I have my own views regarding the editor and their relationship with facts, but I do not think this is the best approach in dealing with them. Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:53, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I do indeed, if you look at the link to the Deviant Art site, it belongs to a female user located in Canada, not a male user located in Britain, as Chris claims he is here (through having passed his A-Levels, which are an English qualification. The bulk of his page at present was clearly taken from User:Qrystal. Nick (talk) 20:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I must admit that I didn't check out the userbox links, so my apologies for that - although I am unfamiliar with userboxes as I don't have them on my page. I am however familiar with the GCSE A Level examination, being British and having dropped out of the forerunner examination in a couple of subjects many years ago. I am uncertain that Chris19910 has that certificate even, though, as with various other claims he has made, as he seems a little immature for such a student, but I have been taking my AGF pill and have been trying to help this editor become a net good contributor over the past couple of weeks. If you have any concerns regarding Chris19910 I will always be willing to help, and mediate, and attempt a resolution. Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I think I'll just steer clear of him for the time being. I don't wish to make to hamper the efforts of those who are trying to help him, such as yourself. Nick (talk) 20:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Lady Aleena's RfA

Nick...Thank you for participating in my nomination for adminship. Your comments have shown me those areas in which I need improve my understanding. I hope that my future endevors on Wikipedia will lead to an even greater understanding of it. If you wish to further discuss the nomination, please use its talk page. Stop by my talk page anytime, even if it is just to say hello. Have a wonderful day! - LA @ 04:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for blocking this guy, the pest was really getting my nerves.--Kerotan^{Leave Me a Message} Have a nice day :) 16:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Phentrimine

I'll also add that it appears some of the content has been taken from the medical guidance for the drug, I'm assuming from the patience guidance note that can often be found inside the packet, and that being the case, it could make the article a copyright problem. We're not a medical encyclopedia, just a general compendium, so whilst it's nice to have information on the drug, we don't need to have a mass of information targeted at patients. Nick (talk) 23:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

So you want to say that, for instance, Phentermine is not the same case like my Phentrimine? In that point is it better written?

FYI

I deleted Phentrimine as spam. There's probably an article there, but that was a horrible mess of edit-warring and advertising. Feel free to revert me if you disagree, I'm logging off for the night now. Black Kite 00:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Privatemusings/OptOutNoticeboard

User:Privatemusings/OptOutNoticeboard, a page you created, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Privatemusings/OptOutNoticeboard and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Privatemusings/OptOutNoticeboard during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. MBisanz ^talk 08:50, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

geez - this whole deletion thing seems a bit unnecessary to me - and I'm certainly sorry to have involved you in something which seems to be less straight forward than p'raps either of us thought when you were kind enough to undelete it the other day...... I've replied a bit to the comment at the discussion, but wanted just to swing by here too, and say thanks for what you did the other day, and to hope that you don't cop any flak - note to lurkers or interested parties - nick was doing me a favour, which I appreciated...all responsibility this way please! ---------> Privatemusings (talk) 11:57, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Yea, I use Twinkle to write the MFD, and it notifies the page creator, which was Nick, since he pulled it out of the deleted contribs. So I just copied this notice after the fact to PM's page since I knew he was the "actual" creator. MBisanz ^talk 12:01, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

IRC Doctor Who admin work

Just to say thanks for catching up with the often intense Doctor Who wars I point out on IRC - it's usually you, and it is appreciated. Thanks! —TreasuryTag—t—c 11:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

No probs - one of the benefits of watching the series is I'm happy to deal with requests - it's easier to tell what's vandalism and edit warring when you've seen the episodes in question. Nick (talk) 11:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

True, true. In that case, enjoy next Saturday :-) —TreasuryTag—t—c 11:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Questions re JAF1970 and Gamestooge

Hi there. I have a couple questions for you: I noticed that about the same you indef-blocked User:JAF1970, the site Gamestooge.com was added to Wikipedia's spam filter. (I was adding a comment to his WP:WQA, and my edit was blocked because of a preexisting Gamestooge link. Shortly after that, we received notice that he'd been blocked.)

First off, can you point me to where the discussion occurred about Gamestooge.com? I don't have any specific support for or against a decision to block it from use on Wikipedia, but all I can see right now is that it appears to have been blacklisted because JAF was using his own review articles as sources for WP articles, meaning he personally had a conflict of interest. While I support his block, I'm not sure I can support the block of the website without knowing more.

Secondly, aside from the recent WQA, was there other evidence of JAF's behavior that prompted his indef-block? I'm just curious, and I'd be happy to share more of my own experiences with him if that would be helpful. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

JAF1970 was blocked for a number of reasons, but his spamming of links to Gamestooge was only discovered after he was blocked, and the original block was prompted by a number of factors, the later revelation of his conflict of interest and spamming wasn't one of them - all but one of the links to Gamestooge, of which there were 56 instances, were articles written by JAF and then added by him to WP. Given the fact that the site is being used to source material, despite the self published nature of the site, and the conflict of interest that existed, I made the decision to add the site to the spam blacklist.

JAF's behaviour was grossly unacceptable - he was unhelpful in the mediation process, he was continually violating copyright policy with his repeated inclusions of images both on article pages and on his talk page, and he was terribly incivil, in addition, we later found out that it was his use of his own material that was responsible for the edit warring and disagreements that now require mediation, and that he was adding his own material to Wikipedia in a clear violation of our spam and conflict of interest policies. Nick (talk) 18:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Understood. I'd just like to mention that I don't see anything on the Gamestooge site itself that would warrant a global blacklist, in the same vain as, say, a site that tries to install viruses on your computer when you visit it. In other words, the site doesn't appear to be any sort of threat to Wikipedia users. I could see the site being referenced by other editors who found the information useful, and there's a chance that it could be a reliable source. If I understand the situation correctly, it was blacklisted solely because it was being used as a self-published source. I'm not sure I agree that that's a good reason to blacklist it entirely. I also believe it unlikely that JAF is the only writer on Gamestooge. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

JAF was the writer we found on 55 out of 56 links, given that there was no other usage of the site for referencing purposes, and all the links were added over a period of 9 months, it was clear that blacklisting the site was going to have no negative impact on the site. It seems quite clear that the site has never been used for referencing purposes, rather, it has been used by JAF to support his content additions and for no other purpose. If users find they need to use the site for referencing material, that's something I'm happy to look at as and when such a situation arises, but given the past history of the site and the way it has been used in the past, I'm confident that the site being blacklisted will not adversely impact on our good editors, only those who are using the site and it's content to push their views and opinions. Nick (talk) 19:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

To jump in, I concur with Nick. Given the size of Wikipedia and the difficulty in monitoring for the mostly bad uses of this link, requiring an exception for its use is warranted. MBisanz ^talk 19:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Understood. If the situation arises where people have legitimate uses for the site, we can revisit it. Just for my reference, where would such a discussion take place? — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Generally flagging down an admin like Nick or myself would work for a clear exception. Or the Sources noticeboard if you don't see anyone active elsewhere. MBisanz ^talk 19:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

JAF1970 unblocked?

Hi again. I see that JAF1970 has been unblocked. Could you please clarify why this was done? All I see is a reference to an off-wiki discussion, but nothing visible to other admins not involved in that discussion. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

It's all on the unblock mailing list, please refer there to see the details of the specific case. Nick (talk) 20:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't know how to access this mailing list. Can you point me to it? (Feel free to send me a Wikipedia Email if that would be preferable.) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/unblock-en-l. I'll drop you an e-mail too. Nick (talk) 22:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Nick

Dude, I didn't want to appear uncivil myself at the recent RfA. I replied to you there just as soon as it was closed, so I felt compelled to take my comments here. Please bear in mind that I was not opposing the candidate just because of three diffs at UAA. I think you and I disagree about UAA stringency..and that's ok. Cheers mate. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 21:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I tried to have UAA deleted because it was too bitey on the newbies, but I don't berate people for following the rules and being unaware of stuff that has been suggested in the past. Nick (talk) 21:43, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

When is throwing insults okay?

What exactly was this? It definitely wasn't civility. --Bobak (talk) 21:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

That's an observation, and I'm buggered if I know how it's remotely incivil. Nick (talk) 21:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

It was bluntly put, but not incivil. Malinaccier (talk) 21:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, if in civil conversation (i.e. not with buddies), you tell a stranger that a person "should be taken out and beaten with a cattle prod" it does not imply civility --am I supposed to hear your tone through the internet? It's rude. Rude = uncivil. Should I assume you weren't being rude? --Bobak (talk) 22:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Nick (talk) 22:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Was that comment necessary?

I know that we don't always agree at RfA, but, I'm hoping that your "Support to piss off Wisdom89" was partly facetiousness. I mean, I don't see anything wrong with what I perceive as diminutive communication and article participation. I don't want you and I to have any abrasiveness in our exchanges. I hope you know I don't hold anything against you regarding my previous RfA. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 03:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Riskers RfA

Hi. While I understand that such opposes are a windup there isn't much chance of the 'Crat placing any weight to it, and I think that comments such as yours might be taken as a threat or something - which would spoil what appears to be a successful nomination. Please could you redact or alter the wording. Thank you. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

How's it a threat ? I fully intend to Oppose the chap's next RfA citing his windup oppose as a reason - telling him that, and giving him the option now to avert such an Oppose is no different to Opposing any RfA based on how a candidate behaves in relation to answering the optional questions. I'll reword it if you really want me to. Nick (talk) 21:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for striking. It might be considered a threat because you indicate that you will change your action if they change theirs - you are trying to influence them through negative consequences. If you had put "I shall oppose your next RfA on the basis of this bad faith oppose" then there is no threat, just a notice of some future action. You may wish to consider this amendment to your comment if it is the same on the concerned editors page, but it is entirely up to you. Again, thank you for striking it on Riskers RfA. Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

RFA Thanks

Thanks for your support at my recent Request for adminship. I hope you find I live up to your expectations. Best, Risker (talk) 13:56, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Spotlight

I just spotted Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Spotlight, and noticed this comment:

There's discussions on getting the project back up and running, a few of us have been discussing doing some work over Christmas when a lot of us are insanely unbusy. It's just the time of year for people to be busy, end of semester exams and such. Let's see how we get on over Christmas and we'll take it from there. Nick (talk) 20:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I've restarted the project and, if you were referring to yourself, I thought you might like to collaborate. Just a thought...... Dendodge .. Talk^Help 23:09, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Drop it

I've deleted your new userpage as it's simply nothing more than a blatant attack of me and another half dozen editors you're pissed off with. Your continuing disruptive behaviour will not be tolerated any further. If you wish the page re-created, obviously without the problematic content, drop me a note. Nick (talk) 13:59, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Your behavior is being discussed on ANI. miranda 02:15, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

In in effort to move the discussion from the editor to the action, and to minimize dramatic effect (intentional or non intentional) I have done a DRV here. Regards, NonvocalScream (talk) 03:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey man how are you?

Hay man! You are from the welcomeing commitee yeah? I need some help really, i want to add things to WIKI, you know what i mean? But i don't really have the time to write fullblown articles. I was told by a pal i could help by reverting BAD recent changes. The problem is how do i know whats BAD and whats GOOD? That sounds crazy and all but i don't know a think about Yorkshire villages! Is it just guesswork/ getting the obvious? Any tips mans?

Good day?

Rectorshield (talk) 11:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Page intentionally left blank

Hi Nick! I believe the most common used phrase is Page intentionally left blank and not Page is intentionally left blank, see http://www.this-page-intentionally-left-blank.org/. 83.81.5.126 (talk) 19:15, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I seem to recall I had it the other way before and someone told me that was wrong, or I've already been told that it's wrong. I might actually get round to putting some decent images and content on the page instead of leaving it blank anyway. Nick (talk) 19:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

My recent RfA

Thank you for supporting my RfA, which unfortunately didn't succeed. The majority of the opposes stated that I needed more experience in the main namespace and Wikipedia namespace and talk space, so that is what I will do. I have made a list and I hope I will be able to get through it. I will go for another RfA in about three month's time and I hope you will be able to support me then as well. If you have any other comments for me or wish to be notified when I go for another RfA, please leave them on my talk page. If you wish to nominate me for my next RfA, please wait until it has been about three months. I will not be checking back to this page so if you would like to comment or reply please use my talk page. Thanks again for participating in my RfA! ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 06:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Miranda/userpage

I count four reversions from you ([16], [17], [18], [19]), one misusing your rollback tool, in the space of less than 24 hours. The MFD, the DRV and consensus all suggest the content is fine. Please do not edit war. Neıl 龱 07:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, nobody else considers the material to be inappropriate or unacceptable; you are in a minority as of this time. Perhaps you could open a thread on AN asking for further input, or file an RFC. Neıl 龱 11:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm already compiling the necessary evidence for an RfC on Miranda, unfortunately, her userpage is a response to the last time I went to the community to ask for sanctions to prevent Miranda stalking me on Wikipedia and on IRC (there's a story behind the RfA thanks template too). An RfC does seem rather excessive for one line on content that any other editor would be quite happy to remove, and I'd be quite happy if that one line was removed from the userpage, indeed, that's why I undeleted the page as soon as I became aware of the DRV, I didn't think anybody would object to the line of text being removed. Nick (talk)

LINCOLNSHIRE SHALL BE FREE

WILLIAM ADAM TRELLIS SHALL RISE FROM THE ASHES

THE UNITY APOSTLES SHALL BE OVERCOME —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xelutho Dhali (talk • contribs) 15:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

JAF1970 again

Just a quick note: While he hasn't gotten uncivil again, JAF1970 is starting to show warning signs that he's about to start in on it again over in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines. We're currently engaged in a heated discussion (much more so than is really necessary) about whether video game articles should list the game's release date or "street/in-store date", and JAF is essentially butting in and telling at least myself (and probably others in the discussion) that we shouldn't be using the term "street date" at all, since it's not commonly used in the industry itself. It's an argument about simple semantics, but I'm concerned that his attitude may be starting to hostile again.

This is just an FYI for now - I'm not requesting any action be taken, but I thought you should know about what I'm seeing since you were the original blocking (and unblocking) admin. (BTW, I did finally have a chance to review that unblock request on the mailing list, and I completely disagree with the rationale for unblocking.) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

There's not a lot I can do. At this stage, I'm tempted to say "fuck it" and send this whole sorry article and all those involved off for arbitration, as it seems nobody is capable of editing it in a sane and sensible fashion. Nick (talk) 20:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I should be clearer: The conversation in question is in the "Release Date" thread, not the "Interview policy" thread that JAF started right below that (though I agree, that's starting to look like the same old thing all over again). I'm staying out of the Spore discussion for now, since I have no real interest in the subject. I just meant that I'm seeing more general warning signs from this guy, keeping in mind that I've had problems with him personally in the past and he was just recently blocked for behavior issues. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any major problems with him on that thread to be honest, he's getting a little annoyed, but he's been remarkably well composed from the time he was unblocked and we should continue to work with him here. Nick (talk) 21:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

(nod) I'll keep an eye on it and try to keep things defused. Thanks. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Just stopped here to say thank you for your opinion in Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Ilyushka88_2. Ilyushka88 (talk) 22:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

User: Zippycup

I noticed that you blocked this sockmaster. You may know already, but I think Zippycup and a previously blocked user called Yoshi525 may be linked. 86.148.164.181 (talk) 14:03, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

We believe that to be the case, and for that reason, sockpuppets of Yoshi525 are listed as a subcategory of Zippycup's sockpuppets. We have a couple of checkusers working on this case when they're not too busy, so I'm hopeful of full confirmation in the next few days or so. Nick (talk) 14:39, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

This guy has really evil intentions on Wikipedia. Can't you just perform a lockdown on all accounts to stop him? 86.141.15.129 (talk) 09:36, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

All i wish is for the name of my homeland to be cleared of the evil that the unity apostles have laid upon it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnchampsio (talk • contribs) 11:54, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Keeley Hazell

Is there a reason you removed cited information with this edit from Keeley Hazell? -MBK₀₀₄ 18:25, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

No, I just felt like removing material which is clearly unsuitable for the article and for the project for no good reason, and without a descriptive edit summary. Nick (talk) 18:26, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

OIC, I didn't even look at the content, just that it was cited. Thanks for that. -MBK₀₀₄ 18:28, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

STBotI

Hi Nick. I replied to your comment on Duk's talk page, but let me ask a simpler question here... What is the appropriate forum to discuss the specific way that bots implement the requirement for machine-readable fair use rationales? It seems to me that the problems are all in the details of how STBotI was going about it, in particular how unclear it was being about what it was looking for, and I would like to see if there's a way to have a constructive conversation about improving that implementation. -- SCZenz (talk) 14:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm unsure where the best place for a discussion would be - it does seem that STBotI is operating within the norms for the type of bot that it is, so a discussion at the Bot Approvals Group may not be the best place, but it's not really a non free content related problem, so some of those pages might not be suited to such a discussion either. Perhaps starting at the Village Pump and working out from there where to proceed to would be an idea. It also might be worthwhile trying to start a centralised discussion area for all such bots, to try and have them use a uniform format and edit summary for their work, and if that was the idea, a new page within the Wikipedia namespace, something like Wikipedia:Image helper bot discussion might be worthwhile. Nick (talk) 16:39, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

When you say "STBotI is operating within the norms for the type of bot that it is," does that include giving unhelpful and misleading messages? How can I find some examples of similar bots so I can take a look at what they're doing, for comparison? -- SCZenz (talk) 06:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

It's clearly not providing the most helpful of messages, but it's certainly not providing misleading and unhelpful messages. It's not saying an image is being tagged for deleted for being too large when it's tagged for not having a complete rationale - that would be a misleading message. Unhelpful - saying an image is lacking in a fair use rationale when an image has a partial fair use rationale - that's neither misleading or unhelpful, but I do agree that such a bot has been written from the point of someone who completely understands the fair use system, and I don't doubt that ST47 has coded the bot paying great attention to the messages it leaves, but writing messages for people with little understanding of the system from the point of view of someone who knows the policies and details inside out is always difficult. There's always room for improvement in that respect. I'd say using language such as misleading and unhelpful is just that, unhelpful. If you're looking for similar bots, a quick trail through Recent Changes showing bot edits should show any number of bots making similar edits, leaving fairly similar messages on talk pages. Nick (talk) 09:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Those bot messages go to new users in many cases, so WP:BITE applies. If the messages are incomprehensible to them, that by itself is a sufficient problem to halt the bot until the issue is fixed. Civility is not a small thing on Wikipedia, and I fear that you and others may be under the impression that it is far less important than efficiently enforcing the image licensing policies. But it's not an issue of relative importance—achieving both would be easy, if people (including yourself, frankly) would stop making excuses and think from the perspective of the folks who will read the bots' messages. -- SCZenz (talk) 09:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Edits to Don Eigler page?

I have copyright permission to use both the image of Don Eigler and his dog in front of the microscope, and copyright permission to use the quantum corral image. Yet they keep getting deleted. What am I doing wrong when filling out the copyright form?

Thank you JennyAlmadenJenny (talk) 00:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

You'll need to forward a copy of the permission (either an e-mail or a scan of the letter) to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, and I'll undelete the images, and add a special note which will confirm we've received a copy of the permission. The permission you've received will need to explicitly permit commercial use and derivative works, and a specific licence, such as the GFDL licence or the Creative Commons Attribution licences. All the information you'll need is at [20]. I hope this helps. Nick (talk) 00:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I entered in the permission information when I uploaded the photos. Can you tell me specifically why this didn't work, and why I need to forward an email or scan of permission?

To clarify: I am the communications manager for the IBM Almaden Research Center and as such am authorized to grant IBM photo use permission. Therefore, I believe I am well within my rights to grant permission to myself to use the photos I am trying to upload. I am experiencing this problem on every wikipedia site I try to edit (also Stuart Parkin's page and the IBM Almaden Research Center main page) and am finding it very frustrating. In addition, people keep changing my edits, which I wouldn't have a problem with, except they are changing things to reflect outdated, inaccurate information instead of leaving my most current information posted. Can you please help me?

Thank you JennyAlmadenJenny (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 20:07, 20 December 2008 (UTC).

Thanks for the revert

Thanks for the revert your did earlier on the FIBT World Championships 1950 and the block you did on the nutcase user your did. I redirect the nutcase's talk page to his blocked main space as a matter of courtesy. I really appreciate it. Chris (talk) 14:05, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Protected Page

I was wondering if you could unprotect the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emarosa article? I realize that it has been created and deleted many times but i drafted the article on my user page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Chadpriddle/Emarosa I went through the unprotect process but cant get anywhere because they said my draft didnt meet band requirements but it clearly does. Please review it and let me know if there is something else i should do. thanks! Chadpriddle (talk) 08:14, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind, but if you could speak to the administrators who deleted the previous versions of the article too, and see what they have to say. If they're happy with re-creation, you can either tell them I'm completely happy with unprotection of the page and ask them to unprotect it for you, or come back and ask me to do so. Not being one of the deleting administrators, it's not entirely my place to decide on re-creation. Nick (talk) 11:33, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I will try that. Chadpriddle (talk) 23:08, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2021/03#GameStooge

Hi. Can you chime in on this whitelist request? I can't find any diffs or account names listed with this blacklisting; normally the blacklist log entry will link to some discussion that includes all that stuff.

Thanks, --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 04:05, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

If I am being inflammatory and rude

Would you kindly point to some recent diffs of this behavior? I'd really like to know what you consider to be bad behavior. Thanks. Mael-Num (talk) 16:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

A reminder...

... to use a block template in user's talk, so that blocked users may pursue an {{unblock}} request if they see that necessary. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

A note about your comments on Ironhold's RfA

Hi, I don't mean to be rude, but this edit you made at Ironhold's RfA concerned me somewhat. I realize we all get angry, but I think that comment may have been a bit excessive. Some of the tone - for example, the word "bloody" - seemed rather aggressive. Granted, comments on wikipedia are easy to misinterpret as they are text only. However, I felt I needed to say something to you when I saw this - in all honesty, this seemed to be headed towards an uncivil direction. I don't mean any offense by this comment, and I'm not trying to accuse you of incivility. I just thought I'd give a heads up that your edit looked rather aggressive to some. Thanks, CrazyChemGuy (talk) 01:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Atheist Userbox

Hi saw your post in the RFA and i wanted to bring your attention to Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Hexagon1/Imagfriend this for your opinon. Cheers,   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 03:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

My RfA

Thanks for taking the time to comment on it. Ironholds 20:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

User:JAF1970 being uncivil again

Since you blocked him in May, could you review his recent edits? My recent interactions seem to show he is still trying to claim ownership on the Spore (video game) article, as well as being uncivil on it's talk page. See his edits to that article, plus this: User_talk:JAF1970#June_2008, as well as Talk:Spore_(video_game)#Demo:_17th.2C_Full:_18th (where he yells at an editor about the talk page not being a forum, which he's done before on that same page). I've tried talking to him about it, but it doesn't seem to be getting anywhere. RobJ1981 (talk) 20:09, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

You might find that another administrator will be better able to assist you at this time. Nick (talk) 21:41, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Allegations of apartheid deletion notification

Some time ago, you participated in a deletion review concerning Allegations of Chinese apartheid. I thought you might like to know that the parent article, Allegations of apartheid, was recently nominated for deletion. Given that many of the issues that have been raised are essentially the same as those on the article on which you commented earlier, you may have a view on whether Allegations of apartheid should be kept or deleted. If you wish to contribute to the discussion, please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of apartheid (fifth nomination). -- ChrisO (talk) 18:27, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed with 90 support, 2 oppose, and 0 neutral. All the best, Ben MacDuiTalk/Walk 20:28, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

IRC

I wonder if I could enlist your advice? I noticed your post about WP:IRC. An issue has come up at at the talk page of Special:UnwatchedPages you may be able to assist with, or perhaps suggest someone who can. Ben MacDui^Talk/Walk 15:08, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

MFC's RfA

Hi. I want to thank you for this diff: [21]. I was searching for ages to see if I could find the original image on the net, and you eventually turned up the right source (with a date as well!) The image might well be real and not Photoshopped, though of course it's difficult to know for sure these days. - Richard Cavell (talk) 22:17, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Image...

Yes, but if you would like to know the entire story feel free to contact Majorly (preferably privately). And there are no other copyright violations in my upload history. You may doubt me when I say this. Regardless, feel free to check yourself. Thanks, « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 13:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

vandalism report

Dear Nick,
this anonymous user 24.64.237.242 keeps vandalising the Germany national football team and Turkey national football team articles
he is inserting false stats such as the FIFA world ranking of Germany and other stuff
I hope you can do something about this
thnx Redman19 (talk) 17:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikijob

In response to your DRV closure, can I request that the article be userfied for me. I am willing to go through the article, make sure that material is reliably sourced and remove any inappropriately promotional content. 17:39, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Nope - you're overly involved with JzG and the deletion discussion. Nick (talk) 17:47, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

This makes both the AfD and the DRV closed against obvious consensus. You explained next steps, but didn't give a justification for it. (I've never seen the article, but given the AfD and DRV I don't see any justification for the deletion at this time, nor did you provide one in the close.) Could you explain your reasoning of closing the DRV early and against what was almost a unanimous overturn? Hobit (talk) 02:34, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I would just like to add that the articles are still protected from recreation but you seemed to be saying that anyone uninvolved is welcome to create an article there. If so would you consider removing the protection from at least one of the titles. Thanks. Davewild (talk) 07:04, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Take your pick and I'll unprotect. Nick (talk) 09:45, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Given I've permitted re-creation of the article, I think you'll find I've essentially overturned the deletion and followed consensus, but in this case, it will require an uninvolved editor to recreate the article in question, something the person responsible for the DRV is quite happy with. The reasoning for my closure of the DRV and the reason I did not take it back to AfD is rather obvious, mainly because I've permitted the recreation of the article, which is in line with consensus at DRV and AfD, the only difference is I'm requiring the article is re-created by an uninvolved third party. This is greatly beneficial - we won't have an article with obvious COI, it will be written in an encyclopedic tone, and it will follow all our various guidelines, given I'm making an effort to involve regular, knowledgeable editors with the re-creation of the article. The final reason for my closure was to try and make sure that we don't have people with obvious conflicts of interest involved with adding their articles to Wikipedia, but we don't exclude articles which actually meet our notability criteria and such, so at the end of the day, we're going to have an article on this subject, which is in line with consensus, it's just not going to happen instantly (though from people contacting me, it will happen fairly quickly). Nick (talk) 09:45, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The clearest possible consensus at DRV was to overturn the deletion, which is not the same as allowing the article to be recreated from scratch. I am a regular, uninvolved editor who has never seen the article in question. I will again request that the article be restored in mainspace, in accordance with community consensus on the matter. Alansohn (talk) 14:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're quite incorrect - reading the comments and not just the emboldened shouting at the deletion review, consensus was that the deletion should have been overturned and referred back to AfD. The comments at the deletion review and original request for deletion do tend to favour the view that Wikipedia should probably have an article on WikiJob or whatever it's precise name is - therefore instead of referring the article back to AfD but following consensus, I've actually reduced the un-necessary bureaucracy by removing the need for a deletion discussion which would most likely result in a decision that supports the inclusion of an article on WikiJob. Comments were made that the article had a problem with it's tone and content, and you yourself suggested such content could be edited out, but sadly that effectively goes against policy and guidelines concerning spam and conflict of interest, so a completely new re-creation from scratch by an uninvolved editor seems to be the best overall compromise. Editors are, as you can see from the discussion above, currently intending to re-create the article, which will therefore satisfy both the deletion review and the original deletion request (consensus was, after all, that Wikipedia should have an article on this particular website.) Now, what would you rather see - a well written and encyclopedic article written by a neutral and uninvolved third party, or a spammy, crufty article written with obvious conflict of interest that requires significantly greater effort to be re-written so it just about complies with policies and guidelines ? At the end of the day, Wikipedia will have an article on WikiJob, and by following my closure of the deletion discussion, it will be a well written, neutral and balanced article. Nick (talk) 16:25, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

While I am sure that you feel you have acted appropriately, I would much rather see that consensus is respected and that administrators fulfill their fundamental obligations to do so; If that means that "spammy, crufty" articles exist, then so be it. If, as you insist, the article would have survived AfD, restore it as is. If not, please point me to the next step to overturn your blatantly improper actions. Alansohn (talk) 17:03, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I never insisted the article would survive an AfD, I suggest there was a view that Wikipedia should have an article on WikiJob, two completely different points, although the do diverge somewhat. If you're not entirely happy with this, then I would suggest a further deletion review to specifically review the closure of the previous deletion review. You can, of course, take this discussion to the administrators noticeboard and see if you can persuade another administrator to overturn my DRV closure and undelete the article as you request. Nick (talk) 17:15, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I've chosen the noticeboard as the right place to put this. See here. I hope you find I summarized the situation correctly. Hobit (talk) 01:46, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Lets walk this through. Guy deleted the article and closed the AfD because he thought it was a recreation of deleted material - something others later disagreed with. In any event, he closed it after about 1 day instead of the normal five.

An editor brings that closure to DRV, which also normally runs for 5 days. A number of editors, including two admins, opine that the closure was out of order and one of the admins specifically says overturn. A few other editors also argued to overturn the AfD closure.

You say that your closure is "in line with consensus" because it permitted article recreation, even though above its pointed out that both were protected against recreation. Even assuming that your closure, which contradicted directly what the consensus of the discussion was shaping up to be, was correct --- what did you hope to achieve by closing it after 1 day? When someone is already complaining about an early closure, does it make sense to then go and close that complaint early? What harm would it have caused to allow the DRV to run its course, really?

You should revert yourself, and allow the thing to run for the full period. Someone else can judge the consensus of the discussion at that point, and hopefully people will be satisfied with the outcome. Avruch ^T 02:44, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree with the above comment. I request that you reopen the DRV, otherwise I will. --PeaceNT (talk) 05:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I have to confess to being disappointed that nobody waited for me to comment, or indeed, was prepared to wait for me to re-open the discussion. This all seems very cloak and daggerish, it's nothing more than process for the sake of process, that much is clear, and given the personalities involved, there's more than a passing chance much of what is being done is designed purely to piss off Guy. Given all that, I think I'll leave you all to it with this, sadly that means another 10 days of discussion instead of 10 days of editing the new WikiJob article that people are working on at present, but since neither of you are clearly interested in the article, only the process surrounding the deletion, I don't suppose you're overly bothered. Nick (talk) 09:47, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you draw your conclusions from - I didn't not wait, in fact I went to sleep without taking any actual action. I also don't have anything against Guy, and never have that I can recall. Between the two closures, yours was the more serious error. The subject of the DRV closure is moot now, but I hope that in the future you regard closing a discussion early as more serious and requiring of a substantial rationale. Avruch ^T 12:10, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm actually rather annoyed at your last sentence - I take every closure seriously and don't particularly appreciate the implication that I don't. Good day to you. Nick (talk) 12:59, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

"closing... early as more serious..." Italicized for emphasis. I'm sure you take closing DRVs seriously, I just wanted to emphasize that closing off a discussion period early is more serious than normal. Sorry for unintentionally giving offence. Avruch ^T 13:08, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I did realize it could have been more tactful to wait for you to comment/re-open the debate, but since consensus was clear, there was no reason to hold things up. Extended ANI discussion was hardly necessary while the DRV could properly proceed. I assure you that this is about following open and fair process, not about upsetting you (or user Guy, who I didn't notice was the AfD closer until you mentioned his name). I never said your opinion on the article was wrong, but that the close was incorrect. Simple rule to keep in mind: As a closer, you are restricted to interpreting consensus. If you have an opinion, please comment within the debate. I hope this clears things up. Regards, --PeaceNT (talk) 14:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Consensus is also for Wikipedia to have an article on the website WikiJob (if you look the comments at the deletion review, ANI and on the talk pages of those involved) so there's no reason to hold things up in that respect either. There can be no possible justification for you hurrying along the discussion at ANI when you refuse to let me hurry along the discussion surrounding the article in the first instance, that seems slightly hypocritical, as I am sure you're aware from the tone of your comments above.

Deletion Review is solely to determine whether or not a deletion was performed correctly, and from the comments left there, it wasn't performed correctly, the next course of action after closing the deletion review would have been to refer the article back to AfD for a full discussion. That isn't strictly necessary - there were sufficiently well versed opinions that demonstrate the site is notable and that any AfD would not result in the article being deleted, on the grounds of notability. There are, however, those who would wish to see the article deleted due to the author being involved with the website, given the available body of opinion, it is possible that should the article be referred back to AfD, it would be deleted, not on notability grounds, but because of the spammy nature of the article. The sensible solution to this problem was to close the deletion review with a novel (and patently unsuccessful) plan whereby the deletion was effectively overturned, but on the condition that an uninvolved editor recreate the article. As you can see above, I've been contacted by a couple of editors who are interested in writing a totally new version of the article, though it now appears this work has stopped because of the uncertainty over the future of the article. If you hadn't bothered re-opening the deletion review, it is highly likely there would be a new version of the article on WikiJob, this would of course save the project time and effort on holding a deletion review and subsequent request for deletion. Finally, you need to stop treating your fellow administrators like children when you're talking to them, I would also remind you that administrators have discretion make unusual or innovative closures at things like deletion review and requests for deletion, and that deletion review and requests for deletion is not a vote - comments made there and elsewhere that are related to the discussion can be considered when closing such a discussion. Nick (talk) 16:20, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

RFC/U MFD

Boy, people love to throw POINT around, do they? It's not disruption to create a point at all - I gave a very good reason for using MFD: q.v. Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_February_20, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Community sanction noticeboard, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Community sanction noticeboard (second nomination), Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Esperanza. Please re-open it. Thanks, Sceptre ^(talk) 16:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Personal attack intervention noticeboard too. Sceptre ^(talk) 16:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

No. I've told you what to do. Please follow the instructions I left during the closure of the MfD. Thanks in advance. Nick (talk) 16:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, remove "as a POINT nomination". It's a personal attack because I nominated in good faith. Sceptre ^(talk) 16:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

It is not a personal attack, and judging your recent edits, it was a POINT nomination. - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't you think you're poisoning the well? Just because I may have violated POINT recently, does not mean I've done it now. The nomination was in good faith, and disputing RFC/U is in good faith. Sceptre ^(talk) 16:55, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes please, Nick, remove the "as a POINT violation". It makes no sense. A POINT violation is when somebody does something he doesn't really mean, to illustrate how bad it is when people do such things. Like, if I was upset people AfD all my articles, and I started to AfD all their articles as a revenge, "to make them understand how it feels". That's what POINT is about, nothing else. If Sceptre really thinks RFC/U ought to be deleted, it may be some other form of disruptiveness but it's not a POINT violation. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:18, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I would have re-moved it had Sceptre asked, but since he's gone and removed it and others have reverted his edits, I'm not entirely comfortable removing it now, as it does seem I'm not alone in believing Sceptre is disrupting the project to try and prove some sort of point. Nick (talk) 17:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't you think that's a bit punitive, though? It sounds like something a parent would do: "I would've got you that bag of sweets if you asked, but since you put them in the trolley, I won't get you them." Sceptre ^(talk) 17:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Sweets aren't good for you. They rot your teeth, you know. Nick (talk) 17:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

It would be nice if you did remove it, because there is a bit of dispute over whether it was POINTy or in good faith. Sceptre ^(talk) 17:55, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

If I do remove it, will you agree to stop edit warring and generally nominating stuff for deletion for a few weeks ? Nick (talk) 17:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll stop edit warring and nominating non-mainspace and criticism pages at the level I have done, but I don't wish for it to encompass places where I should revert (BLP violations) and AFD nominations where things should be deleted. Sceptre ^(talk) 18:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good.Nick (talk) 18:08, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Question about banned user

Recently you indefinitely banned User:Barryispuzzled. I also blocked a bunch of sockpuppets he created to vandalize Baconian theory. He has now returned as User:Puzzledbarry claiming a "commuted sentence" at Talk:Baconian theory. I'm just curious about the accuracy of that statement and whether you have altered his indef ban. Thanks. -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Nope, he remains indef banned. Nick (talk) 16:20, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I blocked Puzzledbarry and someone else filed Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Barryispuzzled‎. -- Ed (Edgar181) 16:59, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Just thought I should let you know that Barryispuzzled/Puzzledbarry is asking to be unblocked at User talk:Puzzledbarry. Feel free to comment there. -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:55, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Newspamdalogo.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Newspamdalogo.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 00:43, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Nick_at_Laptop.JPG listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Nick_at_Laptop.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 00:55, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Commons

Someone has hacked some of the most highly visible pages, like Upload & Admins Noticeboard, but I didn't want to shout about it per WP:DENY. Looks like a template hack. --Rodhullandemu 21:42, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Louis R. Vitullo

I've just checked back on this article which I created back in 2006. It seems the cached versions of the newspaper articles are dead, so I'll be trying to find online versions again (sigh), but why I contacted you is that I noticed this edit in the history referencing an OTRS number. I'm pretty sure the info I had down was correct (directly from an obituary), so can you disclose who gave you the new information? (If you can't share it on-wiki, feel free to email me) -- Mgm|^(talk) 23:32, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

It was a relative, and it was just a minor correction concerning a mix up between his daughter and his daughter-in-law's names. Nick (talk) 23:51, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

• Is there some printed publication that gets it right? Otherwise, we're not citing our sources properly. Perhaps we should link to the OTRS ticket or something... (please leave a note on my talk when you answer here). PS, Does the relative happen to be called Mark? - Mgm|^(talk) 13:53, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not aware of any printed publications that carry a "correct" obituary - I couldn't find any when we were e-mailed earlier this year, but I really I don't have any reason to believe the e-mail isn't genuine. The relative is a chap called Tristan, as I recall. I don't see any reason why we couldn't cite the OTRS ticket either, as it's our own source of information at present for the names of his children. Nick (talk) 19:15, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

• Technically, we shouldn't cite primary sources, but if you're sure they're genuine, I don't see why we shouldn't rectify an obvious error. It's not likely the history will grow very fast, but could you cite that OTRS on the talk page too so if it gets buried in the history, it's still easy to find (I have no experience with the OTRS template)? I happen to know the guy's grandson (a university teacher in the Netherlands) and I met his parents too (briefly). If we meet again, I'll doublecheck the correction with him just to be sure. - Mgm|^(talk) 20:36, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

i give you a cookie

Mike881270 (talk) has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

hi

Mike881270 (talk) 18:44, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback

Thanks for your input at my successful Rfa. I'm already thinking about working on my content creation. Hopefully in a few months, I'll have passed the point where you would've !voted Support. If you have any more suggestions on how I can improve myself as an editor, I'd be happy to hear them. Happy editing!--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 21:29, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

RfA thanks

		The RfA Barnstar
		Nick, I would like to thank you for your participation in my recent Request for Adminship, which passed with 112 supports, 4 opposes and 5 neutrals. A special mention goes out to Stwalkerster and Pedro for nominating me, thanks a lot for having trust in me! In response to the neutrals, I will try to double check articles that have been tagged for speedy deletion before I CSD them and will start off slowly with the drama boards of ANI and AN to ensure that I get used to them. In response to the oppose !votes on my RfA, I will check that any images I use meet the non-free content criteria and will attempt to handle any disputes or queries as well as I can. If you need my help at all, feel free to simply ask at my talk page and I'll see if I can help. Once again, thank you for your participation, and have a great day! :) The Helpful One 22:21, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

design by neurolysis | to add this barnstar to your awards page, simply copy and paste {{subst:User:Neurolysis/THOBS}} and remove this bottom text | if you don't like thankspam, please accept my sincere apologies

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 TalkContribs, 17:33, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

United World Chart

Can you delete User:Amapura as well? It's a copy of the last revision of United World Chart, GFDL violation and G4 apply. Also, kudos for putting otters on your page too. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 22:18, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikicup temporary deletion?

Err... I'm simply curious why you did this.   jj137 (talk) 23:27, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

User request - logged out edit. Nick (talk) 00:16, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah, that makes perfect sense.   jj137 (talk) 01:43, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

RE: E-Mail

Thanks for the note I've sent a response.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 11:07, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Your comment here

If that comment was directed at me, I'd like to ease your concerns. Was it? — neuro^(talk) 01:50, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Robert Beckford

Hi I notice you have edditted my contributions to the Robert Beckford article critism section and semi protected it. The reason I added that section was that the original title was "Criticism" and this seemed biased, as the criticism all comes from evangelical sources, so please dont let the title of the section be reverted to "Criticism", as it implies general criticism, and thats unfair to Robert Beckford's reputation. cheers 92.235.178.44 (talk) 22:04, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

The criticism from evangelical sources will be given no more and no less weighting than criticism from any other sources. The phrasing of the section is designed looks to be designed to belittle and brush off criticism from the evangelical church and that's not how Wikipedia works. Everything needs to be fair, balanced and unbiased. Nick (talk) 22:12, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

That was the whole point I had in mind in edditing the "criticism" section in the first place. As it stood, it gave the outer semblance of general criticism of the subject's work, when in fact it was all evangelical in origine. Therefore it is perfectly reasonable to highlight this fundamental aspect of the criticism, which is why I am happy to have the name changed to "Evangelical Criticism". Anyway somebody other than myself (with an account) seems to have taken umbridge at the section according to the talk page last time I checked. 92.235.178.44 (talk) 00:32, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Template:LinkedIn

All changes made to this template are complete. I am sorry but I don't know yet how to ask protection to a page. If you can please double check it (even though I already tested it and it is working perfectly) and protect. Cheers! OverMind (talk) 18:10, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Crying

Is that picture there because you cry a lot or something? It is alright to cry though.86.46.227.233 (talk) 21:40, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

It was a random find on Commons, just as the otters were. Nick (talk) 21:48, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

86.46.255.192 (talk) 20:37, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Matt Lee new DRV

This is a courtesy notice as you were involved in AFD, DRV or CSD's regarding various Matt Lee articles you may want to comment on the new DRV. Also, if you haven't already, you may also want to check out Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Redirect question and "Need history check for Matt Lee" ANI thread. Thanks. Soundvisions1 (talk) 18:23, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

RE: Robert De Niro

May I ask why you deleted Robert De Niro. Someone moved that page. Then it got deleted. So what I did was create a new one. --Xxxsacheinxxx (talk) 12:54, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry I got confused. --Xxxsacheinxxx (talk) 12:56, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Dear Nick,

Wishing you a happy new year, and very best wishes for 2009. Whether we were friends or not in the past year, I hope 2009 will be better for us both.

Kind regards,

Majorly talk 21:08, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

ANI thread

Hello, Nick. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Ironholds (talk) 23:25, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Talk deletion

Nick,

The email I quoted in part on the talk page for Basic Income in the Netherlands was sent to me by a now blocked editor (whose name I'll not mention here, and whose name I didn't mention on the page), who demanded that I make changes to the article--which one could suppose is an attempt to make me violate Wikipedia:Banning_policy#Editing_on_behalf_of_banned_users; he used the WP email function to send these requests to me. I don't rightly see how that's a copyright infringement--surely the email belonged to me, so to speak. I don't see how Wikipedia:CSD#G12 applies here; what I do see is the courtesy note, that it asks the deleter "to notify the page's creator when tagging a page for deletion under this criterion." Now, I'll be happy to edit or make changes, but I would have appreciated a message from you saying what you did and why, instead of letting me think I lost my mind when the whole thing had disappeared. Fortunately I still had the screen open so I could save it. Your response is appreciated. Drmies (talk) 20:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, with respect, the sender in question didn't email me to engage in private discussion--he only emailed me because he is banned from berating me in public. You saw his word choice: it was not courteous. I hope you've had an opportunity to look at the actual article he emailed me about: there's nothing polemic in there, and I also hope you understand that I don't agree with your word choice in the phrase "a very dim view of the behaviour etc." It's kind of a black eye, certainly after being badgered privately by an editor who was banned for very good reasons--badgering, editwarring, etc. And discussions on articles and their content, some of which can be quite personal, are common on talk pages and in AfD. I hope it wasn't the editor himself who prompted your quick action, but if it was, at least now I don't have to respond to him via personal email. I will address his comments again on the talk page, without citing him or anything else related to this conversation, and will copy my response to you on my talk page also. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 01:49, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I hope I won't hear from him again. Drmies (talk) 15:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

RFA Q

Regarding your question, isn't it more or less answered here and here?  Frank  |  talk  19:57, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I've yet to see any explanation being given for the edits not being disclosed when the RfA first started. That, specifically, is what I would like an explanation for, before I decide on how to comment in the RfA. Nick (talk) 19:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Gotcha. Thanks!  Frank  |  talk  20:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Templates used script

The script to pull the top revision for templates used on a page is finished. But I won't give it to you (or tell you where it is) until you archive your goddamn talk page. Good grief. --MZMcBride (talk) 07:34, 8 January 2009 (UTC)