Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi Nick :)
Thank you so very much for your kind vote. I hope that I can live up to the high standards set by others AC members, and help continue Esperanza down it's wonderful path. All the best, Thε HaloΘ11:52, 3 October 2006 (UTC)Reply
Me again, sorry... :-(
Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Sorry Sir Nick, it's me again, and still having the same problem. I didn't find any other administrator who wanted to help me, and I'm growing tired of being treated like garbage by the people at the Greater and Lesser Tunbs page. Only one friendly person turned up on the talk page and defended my work. Look at what happened. Since I started working on that page, they have blindly reverted me nine times. Today I made a big expansion of the article, backed up with lots of sources. ([1]) I'm actually quite proud of it, I think nobody can seriously say that isn't an improvement. But it was reverted too, blindly, even with all the factual uncontroversial corrections I'd made on the way. ManiF was clever enough not to do the revert himself this time, he sent somebody else to do it for him. But he endorsed the revert. And of course, nobody even bothers to argue what's wrong about my edits, or what's wrong with my criticism of the earlier version. They just won't accept anything that even hints at the possibility that anything other than the Iranian point of view could be taken seriously.
I even made a little correction about the Persian name, about their own language, and even that was reverted four times until ManiF finally admitted (well, sort of) that I had been right after all.
What can be done? I'm actually quite tired of the idea of having any further discussions with these people or doing "mediation" with them. They have been behaving abominably. Hah, I also found that page somewhere that says newbies shouldn't be bitten. Nice joke. I for one feel bitten for certain.
Oh yes, and I also found what you said about ManiF being on "Arbcom probation". You meant this here, right? Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Aucaman. Egad, what a mess. Now I understand what's been happening. So he can be banned if he edits disruptively? I mean, it's not for me to decide, but if this here isn't disruptive, then what is?
FellFairy22:23, 4 October 2006 (UTC)Reply
Harassment
Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi Andy.
Please check your E-mail inbox, I've sent you an e-mail. Also, please take note of the following harassing and condescending remarks by FellFairy. [2] Could you please remind the user, that such comments are borderline personal attacks, and not in line with the wikipedia rule to "Discuss the topic, not the individuals". I love genuine dialogue and debate about the topics dealt with in articles, but I'm not interested in personal petty arguments. I'd appreciate your help and advice. Thanks. Regards --ManiF07:13, 5 October 2006 (UTC)Reply
Thanks
Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Dear Hinduism Project members:
There is a controversy on the Hinduism regarding Raja Yoga. Please read the debate on the Hinduism discussion page. Your comments are requested on the Hinduism discussion page to help resolve the controversy. Thank you. HeBhagawan14:43, 8 October 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 18 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion
I find Alkivar's usage of an image in his sig far less disruptive than an admin who brakes WP:USERNAME and WP:SIG by obfuscating their real username behind a "nick" name. This borders on throwing stones. Leave Alkivar alone; there are bigger problems in the 'pedia.
An admin who hides behind a nickname lacks accountability. Please change it soon or request WP:CHU.
Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi. I know you have a right to ask whatever questions you see fit on RFAs, but I don't see what your question about WP:WONK is intended to achieve. Most Wikipedians - even admin candidates - just aren't that deeply involved in Wikipedia politics to know of that page or care about its contents. Furthermore, it's a personal essay that has no policy/guideline status. Finally, it should be blatantly obvious that pigeonholing people isn't likely to help the encyclopedia or productivity. If you want opinions on that essay why not just ask on the talk page? --kingboyk13:37, 15 October 2006 (UTC)Reply
Ho, hum. That personal essay makes much more sense than many other guidelines and policies. When I show my support or oppose an admin's candidacy – I must be clear about the particular user's thoughts. I am more of a process one, than a policy wonk. I believe that we are all here for making the encyclopedia than indulging in unneeded politics. :) — Nearly Headless Nick{L}09:50, 16 October 2006 (UTC)Reply
Thank you!
Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Please restrain your comments on Requests for adminship votes to either Support or Oppose. Comment's like Fuck yeah are childish and unprofessional. Thank you. —Malber (talk • contribs) 14:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 18 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
I've replied to your comments on WP:ANI. Now don't go sending your admin pals to post accusations of stalking and other semi-intelligent screeds on my talk page. Deal with things yourself. —Malber (talk • contribs) 14:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Thanks for protecting the article so that we may all calm down and argue reasonably. However, I do not believe that I was eit-warring as I was providing citations everywhere I made edits.Please take into account that I am asking for arbitration/mediation in the talk page for the Indian caste system.Hkelkar17:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for correcting me there...I was under the impression that once the image was under wikipedia then it can be used libereally on talk pages aswell. I will go through Fair use before I start doing anything stupid. bye for now. --IndianCow16:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC)Reply
Who am I to argue?
Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Yes, sir. I fully agree. However, he has refused to respond to my please for at least 3-4 days and continues to ePOV-push across wikipedia articles (see his POV-fork attempt on Bhindranwalehere).I have tried to plead with him on his talk page. he violated 3RR on Bhindranwale and I reported him.Hkelkar18:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)Reply
That's good then. But you should not try to assume the responsibility of trying to keep POVs from all the India-related articles. The disputes will be resolved in time. And you don't need to call me "sir". My name is Anirudh. — Nearly Headless Nick{L}18:45, 20 October 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I wish you all the best on your birthday and this Diwali day, I am sure that the light of hope, confidence, and all positive attributes shall always remain inside you – lighting your path and guiding you to attain higher and higher levels of excellence in all your endevours! All the best! --Bhadani03:16, 21 October 2006 (UTC)Reply
My RfA
Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hey Andy! Thank you for the confidence shown in me during my recently concluded RfA, which succeeded with a final tally of 77/2/0 . I'm still exploring the new tools, so feel free to point out any mistakes on my part. In case you need help with anything, just drop me a message. Thanks again; and here's wishing you and your loved ones a very happy Diwali!--thunderboltz(Deepu)11:25, 21 October 2006 (UTC)Reply
PS: The wonky question was tough. Do ye fit into either, Sir Nicholas?
Happy Diwali!
Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello Anirudh,
I wish you a very happy Diwali! May you enjoy yourself on this day commemorating good over evil. Cheers! --May the Force be with you! Shreshth9112:31, 21 October 2006 (UTC)Reply
Another Diwali greeting!
Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Mauco here. I am certainly eager to work well with everyone, and in particular with editors that I disagree with. If someone believes that a particular edit of mine is NOT a "good faith edit", then I sincerely hope to hear about it with a personal message on my User Talk page. - Mauco16:35, 21 October 2006 (UTC)Reply
I guess it ok to Liable
Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
“Headless Nick” is a dque. Now, I can file it but it’s not relevant unless
a. it’s accepted by the Judge to be valid
b. It’s proven in a court of law.
In a political campaign, when such charges sprung in a October Surprise filing, considering that Peter Roskam has practiced law for over 15year with one blemish to his professinal record makes one thing its non relevent, at this time as will as opens wikipedia to the possibility of lawsuit for its inconsistent enforcement of WP:WP Consider Jimbo admonition to “get it right” it would safer to remove the malpractice charge until it gets to court.207.67.146.16616:43, 21 October 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks for letting me know, Nick! It's a big WP:POINT being made by the person filing it (but then, show me someone subject to the sharp-end of an RfC who doesn't say that! :o) and an attempt to avoid the block for disruption I warned the user that s/he was heading for. Nevertheless, it's worth seeing it play out. Thanks again! ➨ ЯEDVERS18:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Greetings, Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington. The judges would like to announce that the winner for the Esperanza User Page Contest has been chosen. Congratulations to MacGyverMagic for winning the contest. The winning entry can be found here.
I've refreshed DYK with new entries and the new pic seems to work fine on my screen. I hope this is the end of the problem. --PFHLai17:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 18 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Hey, I like very much the picture you put on your user page. I recognize the seal of the Templars of Jerusalem on the figure. May be he is a chief Templar like Geoffroy de Bouillon ? Nice picture. Really. TwoHorned16:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)Reply
Can't be a block gone wrong. Looks like I made a mistake. I wanted to remove that vandal reported by Nehwyn, because it had been warned only once in that day and removed yours by mistake. — Nearly Headless Nick{L}16:30, 26 October 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks for correcting the article in the light of reliable sources.That article is surely a casse tete and at times editors do get a bit defensive for various reasons.TerryJ-Ho20:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 18 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
Would you mind blocking him please? Thanks. By the way, I think that image can go as only he's using it, and not in a free-use way. yandman16:01, 27 October 2006 (UTC)Reply
Hopefully, I'll be far away from my computer by then. Shame they don't have a time limited protection option. Have a nice weekend. yandman16:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)Reply
about aksi/Hkelkar/RFCU etc.
Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Seriously what is your view on this whole thing? When you confronted me on Aksi's talk page, I meant exactly what I said, that I felt he stabbed me and other Hindu users in the back. Usually I have something better to do (more edits than BhaiSaab, TwoHorned, Hkelkar, and TerryJHo combined), but seeing Hindu users ganged up on by cabals of trolls does get my blood boiling.BakamanBakatalk22:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC)Reply
Bear in mind that my talk page edits regarding this matter were memos based on the suggestions of a mediator in an unrelated dispute.I will abide by your decision regarding this. If you think that Terry's edits are legitimate then OK.As of now, I believe that they constitute harrassment.Hkelkar12:14, 28 October 2006 (UTC)Reply
Removing warnings, whether relevant or not relevant isn't kosher. Although warnings by vandals can be removed, I let them be on my page and someone comes around and comments about its validity. — Nearly Headless Nick{L}14:15, 29 October 2006 (UTC)Reply
> Basically - the initial warning was this.The other two he marked above are warnings on removing the first warning a number of times on the pretext that Admins have agreed [implying that admins have agreed that it is right to say "SOCK ARMY"] - considering that the editor has repeatedly been asked not to use confrontational language, Wikipedia is not a battlefield and comment on content and not the editor - at the time of that remark he was still on a block for incivilty.Use of such language is not civil and remindful that he has not mend his ways.I could have been wrong to assume and that is why I asked him to seek an admins views before removing but he blanks out the warning saying he only "unrendered" the warning - in turn I got rewarded by this on my user pageTerryJ-Ho14:03, 28 October 2006 (UTC)Reply
Revert-warring is bad. If a user does something wrong, posting one warning generally does the job. There is no need to repeat it again as it only exacerbates the situation. Instead leave an edit summary with the word Warning and report it to the admin who comes to the concerned user talk page. — Nearly Headless Nick{L}14:39, 29 October 2006 (UTC)Reply
I agree with you in theory, but this user had two prior blocks and a whole bunch of test4s on his/her talk page. It did, in fact, look to me like a "long abusive past." The edit I was warning against was this. And the test4 did, in fact, stop any further vandalism from that user yesterday (it began again today, resulting in a different admin giving a third block). Thanks, NawlinWiki15:37, 31 October 2006 (UTC)Reply
Its only because I hold you in utmost respect. I am a process wonk and that page, in my opinion, is a waste of wikipedia's resources. I hope to see your comments on the MfD, for which I have requested the other user to present evidence of solicitation and advocacy. Thank you for your time. — Nearly Headless Nick{L}15:34, 1 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Your block of User:Kunstgebit lists "(I just love vandals who leave "vandalism" for editsummaries.)" as the reason. I checked, because I was curious why someone would do that. His edit summary of "vandalism" refers to this
edit where he complained on an IP talk page that that user had vandalized. I checked his other contribs and I saw no vandalism and no talk page warnings. Am I missing something? Cheers Dina17:30, 1 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
Please stop using euphemistic sentences in front of me. I think you may have made a mistake; There is no question of may! I did make a mistake. So, unblocked. Thanks for pointing this out – I couldn't have kept this on my conscience. :P — Nearly Headless Nick{L}17:38, 1 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
Okay, no more euphemisms! If I catch another one, I'll give it a much blunter title. Thanks for fixing it, I felt a bit bad for the guy, his vandal message was kind of endearing. Cheers. Dina19:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for supporting my RfA
Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thank you for your support in my RfA, which passed with a final tally of (56/0/2). It was great to see so much kind support from such competent editors and administrators as commented on my RfA.
I know I have much reading to do before I'll feel comfortable enough to use some of the more powerful admin tools, so I'll get right to it.
Admin Coaching needs coaches!!! If you are an administrator, or even a generally experienced user, do consider signing up to be a coach.
Admin Coaching, now being coordinated by HighwayCello, is a program for people who want help learning some of the more subtle aspects of Wikipedia policy and culture. People are matched with experienced users who are willing to offer coaching. The program is designed for people who have figured out the basics of editing articles; they're not newcomers any more, but they might want some help in learning new roles. In this way, Esperanza would help keep hope alive for Wikipedia because we would always be grooming the next generation of admins.
What's New?
The Tutorial Drive is a new Esperanza program! In an effort to make complicated processes on Wikipedia easier for everyone, Esperanza working to create and compile a list of tutorials about processes here on Wikipedia. Consider writing one!
A discussion on how Esperanza relates to the encyclopedia has been started; please add your thoughts.
Many thanks to MiszaBot, courtesy of Misza13, for delivering the newsletter.
The list of proposed programs has been updated, with some proposals being archived.
There is now a new program: the Tutorial Drive! Consider writing a tutorial on something you are good at doing on Wikipedia.
The suggestion of adding a cohesive look to all the Esperanza pages is being considered; join the discussion if you are interested!
In order to make a useful interlanguage welcome template, those involved in translation projects will be asked what English Wikipedia policies are most important and confusing to editors coming from other language Wikipedias.
Shreshth91 informed everyone that he will be leaving the Esperanza council as life is rather busy; his spot will be filled by the runner up from the last election, HighwayCello.
Although having the newsletter appear on everyone's userpage is desired, this may not be ideal for everyone. If, in the future, you wish to receive a link to the newsletter, rather than the newsletter itself, you may add yourself to Wikipedia:Esperanza/Newsletter/Opt Out List.