User talk:Nabla/Archive 3

Template:Bbblock

Nabla, I've restored this template that you deleted as a result of a TFD, please see the TFD talk for more information. Thank you, — xaosflux ^Talk 12:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Classical music in popular culture

After over a month without any activity, I've moved Talk:Classical music in popular culture to User:Edgarde/Classical music in popular culture. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Template:Bbblock

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Template:Bbblock. 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. — xaosflux ^Talk 04:11, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Premature Move

I think your move of Ulm Minster was a bit premature; I'm not really sure there was consensus on the issue. I'd request that you review your decision, perhaps by asking admins who are more familiar with the process. Respectfully, Erudy (talk) 12:24, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll reply there. Thanks - Nabla (talk) 23:17, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for All Stars (video game)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of All Stars (video game). 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. --Stormie (talk) 23:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Signature

I think it's alright actually. Not sure what happened with that edit. But I appreciate the heads up. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 23:38, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaned up

Hey, thanks for your close of that TfD. As you can see, it s probably ready for deletion now. --John (talk) 07:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks here too for the close. I saw the same whatlinkshere page and I deleted the template. Garion96 (talk) 12:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both for the assistance - Nabla (talk) 17:58, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you also for the close. You made the right decision. « Diligent Terrier [talk] 20:23, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Jack Wilshire

I have asked for a second deletion review of Jack Wilshire. 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. as fully expected he started today for Arsenal F.C.. Could an Admin please restore the article ASAP so as to not waste someone who knows no better's time starting to write a new article from scratch. Nfitz (talk) 18:46, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Original research tag on "Mutants (Judge Dredd)"

I noticed you put an Original Research tag on the article Mutants (Judge Dredd). Please note that Wikipedia policy states: "This template should not be applied without explanation on the talk page, and should be removed if the original research is not readily apparent when no explanation is given." (See Template:Original research.) Therefore please state your concerns on the article talk page. Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:These are not original research may help. Richard75 (talk) 20:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Been out for 6 months... I'm letting this one go! Thanks for the warning, still. Nabla (talk) 20:27, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:CommonsImageSummary/doc

Hi Nabla. Per this, it appears that this should be deleted. -- Suntag ☼ 01:10, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks. Nabla (talk) 20:26, 27 February 2009 (UTC) (PS:please use meaningful link words, not 'this')[reply]

Photovoltaics

You undid my edit with a wikilink to Solon SE, calling it an extra external links. Any particular reason for that? --STTW (talk) 19:56, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ooops. Sorry. I was removing external links that someone was adding to many pages (check the diff) and your edit was reverted by mistake. I have reverted myself, I hope it is OK now. Sorry - Nabla (talk) 20:07, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2009 swine flu outbreak chart

I restored this redirect that you deleted as G4 (recreated content). There was never a consensus to delete the target page which still exists at Template:2009 swine flu outbreak table, and this particular redirect was never previously deleted. A different redirect at this page was deleted when it was pointing into article space (and hence a cross-namespace redirect), but that is no longer the case. Dragons flight (talk) 23:22, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As far as strictly following rules go, you are right but... Could you point me any reason to have this redirect, that is not used at all? - Nabla (talk) 18:34, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template 911ct supporters / BLP concerns

Hi Nabla — I have seen that you have closed the TfD discussion on the 911ct supporters template. (I have created this template.) I agree that the template should be consolidated with the 911ct template, and that BLP concerns should be addressed. Because the title of {{911ct}} is "Part of a series on...", instead of the {{911ct supporters}} title: "Articles on...", I think that any BLP concerns are actually greater with regard to {{911ct}}. Who would want his or her biography be presented as "part of a series on" something else? In my view, the consensus of the TfD discussion was converging towards "merge", not "delete", meaning that the community demands that the templates would be consolidated, and that the duplicate template would be deleted after the merger. Also, {{911ct}} has a long list of approximately 40 people that are simply sorted by alphabet, which is not very informative for the reader. What would be your advice on how to proceed and to improve the template? Cs32en 23:38, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the consensus was to merge and then delete, I deleted imediatelly presuming whataver there was to merge was already done, as they looked just about the same, and I thought any remaining differences could be address without resorting to the deleted version. Anyway if undeleting temporarily to help merge anything leftover I have no problem in doing it (If I'm not around, as you see from this late reply I am not here everyday, certainly some admin will do it, just point him here)

As how to improve it, specially on the BLP concerns, that's a tougher call... I'd say making it collapsed by default, to remove some 'weight' would be a little help. Most of all I'd say the criteria for inclusion should be clear, and probably more strict. I took a look at Willie Nelson's article - as it was one of the feww names that were familiar to me, and it makes lkittle to no sense to include it in a "series about 911ct's"; the whole article has a single paragraph stating he once said there was something supisously looking about it. To me that is far from enough to include him - much more known worldwide for other reasons - in such a template. Maybe there are more of those?... I think only those that actively (say, writting a book, a series of articles, etc.) defended any such positions should be included in a template like that.

Good luck, Enjoy! - Nabla (talk) 18:58, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nabla — Thank you for your answer! I have seen that you have been cleaning up the TfD page, so you probably have taken care of that discussion during this process. This is a very complicated issue. On the one hand, {{911ct supporters}} has more weight, because it has the subgroups for the supporters. On the other hand, it says "Articles on" instead of "Part of a series on", and it is collapsed by default. I have formulated some more precise criteria for inclusion, though that was after the TfD has been opened. No merging has been taking place, as this would have possibly have been seen as preempting the discussion, and could have led to further conflict.

Some of the "proponents and supporters" that were listed on {{911ct}} earlier are advocating about every conceivable fringe theory there is out there, and I have removed those from the template that have only made casual or otherwise not notable remarks about 9/11. The list of about 40 names is still confusing, and some people seem to be advocating that list, because it allows to put all the people that are listed there in "bad company" and putting people like Edward Asner on the same footing as, for example, Lyndon LaRouche. I don't know whether to restore the discussion or re-closing the discussion as "merge" would really solve anything, as the editing process is overall not really conducive to any stable results. I also don't know whether the discussion could just remain "stale" or what happens when the decision is "merge" and nothing substantial happens after such a decision.

As for who is in the template, I think that those who want their support to be known to the public should be included, and others only if there is a compelling reason (and multiple reliable sources) to include them. Ed Asner has written an open letter to 9/11 activists - he is included, Charlie Sheen's position has been featured on major TV stations after he has been interviewed by Alex Jones - also included, Rosie O'Donnell has stated her view very prominently in "The View" - this is not mentioned in the WP article, however, so she is not included. I would take out Ahmadinejad, for example, because it is really is a minor issue among his various political views. Chavez has been taken out already for similar reasons.

"Part of a series" is, of course, a commonly used phrase for templates. It's unsuitable in this case, unless you would want to somehow convey the message that the people listed there are a somehow strange group of characters who belong to some underground network and have no life other than being part of that "series". Maybe its best to re-close the issue with some message stating "rework {{911ct}}", possibly with some advice. This is maybe a non-standard way to close the discussion, but better than the alternatives. Thank you for taking the time to help resolving these issues! Let me know what your ideas are on what to do with this. — Regard. Cs32en 20:31, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS invitation

The OTRS system is looking for trusted volunteers to help staff our Portuguese permissions queue. I would like to invite you to look over what OTRS involves and consider signing up at the volunteering page. Thank you. MBisanz ^talk 17:04, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but no thanks. I thank you for thinking of me, but I both have little time for WP (see this laaaaate reply) and also have an increasing bad feeling about it (too much garbage, low level politics and commercial purpose, include the message below in that). Maybe someday... Nabla (talk) 21:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Message regarding your use of the No Multi License Template

In case you are not aware, the Wikimedia Foundation has proposed that the copyright licensing terms on the wikis operated by the WMF – including Wikipedia – be changed to include the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike (CC-BY-SA) license in addition to the current GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) as allowed by version 1.3 of the GFDL. The community has approved this change with 75.8% in favor, and on June 15, 2009, the change will take effect.
You currently have {{NoMultiLicense}} on your user or user talk page, which states that your edits are licensed under the GFDL only. On or before June 15, this template will be changed to reflect Wikipedia's new licensing terms. If you accept the licensing change, you do not need to do anything (and feel free to remove this message); if you do not accept it, we regret that you will no longer be able to contribute to the encyclopedia. Please join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#NoMultiLicense template if you have any comments.

Delivered by The Helpful Bot at 20:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC) for the Village pump. Report errors here. [reply]

Wp has no respect for copyright. Once a set of images I've uploades had their copyright notice changed multiple times without any respect for the original one nor any warning to the uploader. Now you change the copyright of my (past?) contributions because a "majoirity" says so? Shame on you, WP. Nabla (talk) 21:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Battrick

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Battrick. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. <Karlww_{(contribs|talk)} 04:39, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Nabla! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 2 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

Ibolya Verebics - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 22:44, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of List of Firefox extensions

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is List of Firefox extensions. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Firefox extensions (2nd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:09, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Braille C3.png listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Braille C3.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files 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. Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:19, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

re: "IP claiming to be both an admin and a vandal"

Totally out of line and you know it. — Ched : ? 18:00, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Nabla and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks, NW (Talk) 01:15, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A request

Hi Nabla. I read your thread on the Village Pump with interest. I can understand your frustration with bot edits; I have battled bots myself when they falsely flag an edit as vandalism. And I can also sympathize with you regarding the extreme reaction you received there and at the administrators' noticeboard: while I certainly don't approve of the "bad edits" you discussed, I agree that the reaction is a bit disproportionate to the "crime", as it were.

But I would like to make a request, editor to editor, that I hope you will consider. If you don't plan on actively using the administrative tools, would you consider dropping by the stewards' desk and saying so? With the AN threads, ArbCom case, etc., it seems as though no one has simply come by here and politely asked you if you would consider doing that, so I am doing so now. It's obvious that despite the "bad edits", you care about the project, and I think you would agree that in the interest of avoiding unneeded drama, the best thing to do would be to turn in tools you no longer need, and let the community move on to more productive endeavors than ArbCom cases. I think doing so would be a very kind good-faith gesture on your part.

(And as a bot operator myself, I am always open to hearing about ways to make my bot edit in a more friendly and intelligent manner.)

Thanks for your time. 28bytes (talk) 16:27, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I don't think I did any evil doing worthy of this persecution. By giving in to shouts and threats I believe that then, yes, I would be hurting WP. Much, much more that a couple of bad edits did. Thank you for trying to help. It was not me that wished to take the case to ArbCom, or whatever, but I will not flee from it either. - Nabla (talk) 23:22, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. There are a number of good faith editors I respect who think your conduct was mostly harmless, who will be upset if ArbCom forcibly desysops you, and there are a number of good faith editors I respect who think your conduct merits a desysop (and possibly a block), who will be upset if ArbCom takes no action. My intent in posting here was to offer a path that would avoid hard feelings on all sides, but I understand that once the "shouts and threats" start, it is very difficult to avoid retrenching into a battleground mentality. 28bytes (talk) 00:16, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think I understand how you can be sorry this things happen. If I were an outside party I could find myself in your shoes, trying to defuse this. As I see it, I was dragged to ArbCom without anyone even trying to reasonable argue with me. I was declared guilty, period. And that I can not accept. I hope I am not going for battle, I hope I go for peaceful resistance :-) Thank you, and enjoy! - Nabla (talk) 01:17, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While I am not able to condone what you did, I think the community over-reaction is troubling. I'll support a proportionate punishment, but them I hope we do some thinking about how to address the problems that lead you to your actions, and a bit of introspection about why the over-reaction.--SPhilbrick T 20:33, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you 100% percent. Including in not condonig (some of) my actions :-) - Nabla (talk) 23:22, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No Sphilbrick, what's troubling is the number of admins who have no concept of trust and display such contempt for the community. A bit of introspection from admins would be more worthwhile - why are you so opposed to behaving in a trustworthy manner? DuncanHill (talk) 20:49, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds like a classic case of over-reaction. What on earth did I say that lead you to conclude I am "opposed to behaving in a trustworthy manner"?--SPhilbrick T 21:37, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That you don't understand the community reaction to Nabla's behaviour. You're not alone, many admins don't understand why so many editors get so upset by untrustworthy behaviour from admins. For my part, I don't understand how anyone can set themselves up as in some way more trustworthy than the rest of us and yet not understand the reaction to events like this. DuncanHill (talk) 22:01, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not "the admins" nor I am guilty of any wrong doing any other admin did, nor I used admin tools for anything wrong at all. So stop attacking me for whatever others did. You might be right that some admins abused their powers, I bet you are right! But you are aiming at the wrong target. You already insulted me twice, please stay cool. - Nabla (talk) 23:22, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I think a desysop is entirely too harsh as well, and stated so at the RFAr. Best of luck, and sorry it's been such a nightmare for you here. — Ched : ? 08:53, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. No problem; as you said before, I was out of line, so it is OK to have to stand some noise (though I hardly expected this much). - Nabla (talk) 23:26, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies if I didn't make this clear, but the specific reason I took this case to ArbCom was because it was obvious that the case was going to them sooner or later, and this way some drama is forestalled. NW (Talk) 13:03, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I guessed so. I think you acted correctly, thank you. - Nabla (talk) 13:09, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case Nabla closed

An arbitration request regarding User:Nabla has now closed and the decision can be read here. The following motion has been enacted:

(A) The Arbitration Committee reaffirms its, and the community's, expectation that administrators will observe all applicable policies, avoid inappropriate edits, and behave with maturity and professionalism throughout their participation on Wikipedia. While administrators are not expected to be perfect, severe or repeated violations of policies and community norms may lead to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping.

(B) Nabla's conduct in admittedly making several unproductive edits while editing as an IP has been subject to significant, and justified, criticism. The Arbitration Committee joins in disapproving of this behavior, but accepts Nabla's assurance that he will not repeat it in the future, even to express good-faith concerns or frustrations regarding aspects of the project.

(C) Nabla is aware from the ANI discussion and this request for arbitration that some editors' trust in his ability to serve as an effective administrator has been eroded, both because of his IP edits and because of his period of inactivity. If Nabla intends to resume active work as an administrator, he should first refamiliarize himself with all applicable policies, and we recommend that he focus initially on less controversial administrator tasks. To an extent, these recommendations apply to any administrator who returns after a long period of inactivity.

(D) Although not directly relevant to Nabla's situation, the Arbitration Committee is aware of the ongoing community discussion regarding inactive administrator accounts, and stands ready to play its part if necessary once consensus has been determined. Passed 13-1 with 1 abstention on June 27, 2011.

For the Arbitration Committee, -- Dougweller (talk) 13:30, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good to see it end. Fortunately there are enough sensible people around, I hope I will not disappoint you! Thanks. - Nabla (talk) 13:52, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A personal request

Dear Nabla, I write you this personal request in hopes of being both tactful and decent to you. There seems to be several vocal critics of the recent ArbCom decision in which you were not desysoped. I would like to request that you resign your tools and position as administrator as soon as possible. This would avoid a lengthy and potentially nasty request for comment about you, reduce drama and entirely quell the issue. I sincerely look hope you will consider this with all seriousness. Sincerely, Basket of Puppies 21:35, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The issue was taken to ArbCom asking "[...] whether they will consider a summary desysopping or if they wish the community to go through the request for comments process first." The issue was discussed, 2 motions were proposed, voted and a decisions was taken (as may be seen above). So as I see it, both possibilities, desysopping and RfC, were taken into account by the ArbCom and discarded. If anyone disagrees with the ArbCom decision I presume the correct action would be to appeal to it. As far as I am concerned the case is closed, I see no reason at all to do as you ask. - Nabla (talk) 23:34, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would you consider allowing yourself to go through a reconfirmation RfA? Basket of Puppies 03:45, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat, as far as I am concerned the case is closed. I ask you to move on and allow me to also move on, please. - Nabla (talk) 10:02, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From your reply I can assume your answer is 'no'. Shame. An RfC/U is forthcoming. Basket of Puppies 03:34, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I ask you to use your time, and mine, with something more useful. So far, in here, you did nothing other than proclaiming I am guilty and thus I should admit it and punish myself. You threatened and harassed me. You have not made the slightest attempt to discuss with me. Please stop, move on, and allow us all to do something more productive. - Nabla (talk) 04:49, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry you feel that way. We'll continue this discussion on the RfC/U. Have a good afternoon. Basket of Puppies 15:58, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What discussion? Anyone wanting to discuss does not start out with threats, as you did. Threatening with a "lengthy and potentially nasty request for comment", if I don't do as you tell me to, is not a discussion. That is a monologue. - Nabla (talk) 17:06, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More Than Words....

Sir/Madam, this is a 16 year old girl we are talking about. Her accomplishments cannot be put on the internet. And Sir/Madam this is middle east so you know there will not be so much popularity in worldwide. I am trying to show that there are hidden talents among us. I have provided a link where she was interviewed by an esteemed Newspaper Times Of Oman. Her Accomplishments listed here are very little. She has a CGPA of 10 in her 10th year of study. So please Sir/Madam, and this is my first article so it can have mistakes. She is not a celebrity, but I can guarentee you Sir/Madam that all the mentioned ones are real. So please reconsider. And please remove the messages.

Yours Sincerely, Anoop Teddy2020 (talk) 15:35, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

stray barnstar removed - please use the 'new section' link, not the WikiLove link :-)

Hello, Teddy2020. I do not doubt your good faith in adding this article. The warning messages are not aimed at deleting the article - quite the opposite, I removed messages asking for its immediate deletion. Anyway, being an article (also) about a person, and a young one, we do not want to expose her much more than she already is, for her protection (please see WP's policy about biographies of living persons). Also we want to be reasonably sure that the both her and her book exist and that it is worth including (please see Wikipedia:Notability). That's what the messages aim at: asking for the article to be improved, for its claims to be supported somehow. Otherwise, how can we tell it (or details of it) is not made up? Enjoy! - Nabla (talk) 22:24, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Nabla, Come to think of it, your right. Hmm okay. She was leaving our school so I wanted to do somethng special for the kid. You know what i will show her and tell her all this. She will understand. I will delete the article due to low on support documents okay. It has been a wonderful experience editing, talking with wikipedia officials. I will continue my work for editing other article which are in need of images and stuff etc. Thank you for the oppurtunity. After 1 or 2 days I personally will delete the article.

Yours Sincerly, Anoop — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teddy2020 (talk • contribs) 23:46, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I hope you do find something you'd like to add. If you need a hand, please ask. Oh! From your writing, and using my experience working with people about her age, I may guess in-between the lines, and bet she is outstanding. So wish good luck and a long and happy life to that young girl, coming also from some unknown guy from far away. - Nabla (talk) 01:15, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 July 29#FC Bashinformsvyaz-Dynamo Ufa

Good work! Thanks! Bridgeplayer (talk) 16:37, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. For the cooperation, and for taking the tame to thank me - Nabla (talk) 16:40, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Poonam Pandey

I think it satisfies the basic criteria of WP: Notability (people). Any suggestions what needs to be done to improve the article? Boolyme बूलीमी ^{Chat बोलो!!} 13:04, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article states she is "Known for: Stripping Claim". That is pretty dim, no? Been on a TV show... Still short, I think. - Nabla (talk) 17:32, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A cookie for you!

Hello Nabla! I hope you enjoy this cookie as an amicable greeting from a fellow Wikipedian, SwisterTwister talk 20:46, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Thanks. Know something? I always thought these stuff was kind of lame. And well... it is! But it is also nice, so, again, thank you. Please sit down, eat a cookie. I got a few fresh ones, y'a know?! (I presume our paths crossed around stubs?) - Nabla (talk) 19:07, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiglobaleditor

wants to communicate with you. Like I said - give it a shot. If you reach a point where you are confident in unblocking him, you don't need to refer it back to me. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:13, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll look at it. Thanks - Nabla (talk) 18:25, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Poke-man

Nabla, I respect the spirit of your comment directed to me on Wikiglobaleditor's talk page, which is why I am replying here rather than there. But I do think that your concern is misplaced. It is clear that there is a great deal about WP that Wikiglobaleditor does not know. Regardless of whatever else might be a source of conflict between him and me, his ignorance of WP is clearly the source of many of his problems. My adding the "welcome" template to his talk page was not a "poke" if by that you mean some kind of attack or provocation - I really wanted to provide him with all the links to pages on policies he seems not to understand. My comment that he could retreive History's deleted edits to his page, and seek Wikiquette assistance, was actually sincere even if as I suggested I do not think he has a valid complaint. the fact remains, he has the right to make a complaint but he seems not to know this. Finally, my point about e-mail was sincere too. He made it clear that he wanted to communicate with you privately but the way he expressed this made it sound as if he believed that this was not possible. But it is possible, and he should know this for his own sake.

You may feel that the way that i expressed these things was unhelpful. Maybe you are right. Out of respect for your opinion, I will not comment further on Wikiglobaleditor's page. But no one else put a welcome template on his talk page; no one else told him about the right to make etiquette complaints and the ability to retreive the evidence; no one else told him he could e-mail other editors. So I did. It doesn't matter what I think of him personally; he should know/have access to these things. Maybe it would have been better if someone else explained it to him. But no one had. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:07, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments includes the many good explanations and advices you gave, as you point here and I ackowledged already, I think. Your comments also included insults ("couch-potato"), general downtalking and ironic sentences added at the last minute. If for each good advice you present you also "bite", what are you really helping to get? a user around? Or blocked user? Let's see if elen, that pick it up again, closes this fine, I bet she will - Nabla (talk) 02:59, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Micky (singer)

I'm confused as to why you have repeatedly removed the {{Korean name}} template from the article Micky (singer). The subject is Korean and, as the documentation page states, the template is meant to placed atop all Korean biographical articles to explain to readers which part of a person's name is the family name. — ξ ^xplicit 01:44, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because the information about the name structure is (99.9%) irrelevant for this particular person. It is something that concerns all Korean (named) people. If the name structure was somehow fundamental for the biography, than yes, highlight it, otherwise, as it is, it has undue weight as a hatnote. And a reader interested in Korean names may search and find it quite easily. Note also that the documentation say the hatnote is to be used on Korean names, not on all Korean names. Anyway, want the article to look silly having a irrelevant hatnote? We do have worse than that... - Nabla (talk) 03:05, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When nearly every biography of a Korean person uses this hatnote, it really makes no sense to remove it from just one biography. This seems to be the accepted practice, so I think it would be best to follow it unless it changes. One can always raise the issue on the template's talk page or related WikiProject. — ξ ^xplicit 18:41, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

E pur si muove - Nabla (talk) 18:49, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Portuguese geography stubs

Good day Nabla. You will pardon me for sending this message to your user page, but I was not too sure about the protocol for the "stub types for deletion" page. In regards to your proposal to rename Portuguese geography stub categories: I concur that there is a need to rationalize for consistency, and I support the resumed format that you suggest. That is, going with "Madeira geography stubs", continuing with "Azores geography stubs", and simplifying the district geography stubs to (simply) "[place] geography stubs" (and dropping the unneeded use of "district" in the titles). Since the districts and autonomous regions are relatively comparable (barring the political autonomy aspects), it will encapsulate enough articles correctly. Now, if you could rename all the "Autonomous Region of..." categories within the Madeira category, that too is a little unnecessary: seems like "aggrandizement". By the way, I would be happy to add this support onto the "stub types for deletion" page. What is the protocol for contributions: how do I add my support? Ruben JC (Zeorymer) (talk) 09:32, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To give an opinion - support or not - simply do the usual in any XfD discussion: edit the section; add you opinion - usually starting with support/oppose in bold; say why and sign.

I took a look and there are two stub categories with the same naming issue. And the same also for two 'regular' (non-stub) categories. I'll take a better look later. At first glace maybe we don't need that many categories, I see many "XXX in Madeira" or "XXX in Azores" having only a couple articles. - Nabla (talk) 02:24, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign relations of Libya deletion

Hey, that page was actually supposed to be deleted so that Foreign relations of the National Transitional Council could be moved to that title. Do you think you could do that? Thanks. -Kudzu1 (talk) 20:05, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. More or less... I undeleted and merged the whole of Foreign relations of Libya history.then I moved it to Foreign relations of Libya (disambiguation) without a redirect. So right now Foreign relations of Libya is clean so that the main article may be placed there. I hope you - and others - will use it to have a steady article about Libya's relations, over time. Not as a new edition of last weeks relations. Sorry the eventually harsh words, I simply hope we get a good stable article with *historical* perspective. Good luck. - Nabla (talk) 20:17, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rail transport stubs

Sofar I have collected all trouble cases at Category talk:Rail transport stubs if you are aware of any more please add them there before I nominate the remainder. Agathoclea (talk) 12:29, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, the Pakistan ones were the first I've met. - Nabla (talk) 13:12, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RfC SfR

my short version of the rather long suggestions to RfC's, done by RFC bot (talk)

Talk:Sport in Australia - 1 October 2011
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide/Lists - 1 October 2011
Talk:Richard D'Oyly Carte - 1 October 2011
Talk:Coat of arms of Spain - 2 October 2011
Template talk:Infobox character - 11 October 2011
Talk:Paul Krugman - 18 October 2011
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons - 26 October 2011
Talk:Centre d'Etudes Diplomatiques et Stratégiques - 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Talk:OPERA neutrino anomaly - 10 November 2011
Talk:Joint custody - 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Talk:Implementation Force (IFOR) - 25 November 2011
Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 November 14 - 3 December 2011
Wikipedia talk:Binding RFCs - 10 December 2011
File talk:North Strathfield Bank.JPG - 18 December 2011

List of "Occupy" protest locations

List of "Occupy" protest locations Nabla. Please do not blank large parts of a page that passed a deletion discussion, and meets WP:LISTS requirements. See this diff.

See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of "Occupy" protest locations.

The topic is notable. All items on a list do not have to be notable. This is basic WP:LIST guideline info, and an admin should know better.

There is discussion here: Talk:List of "Occupy" protest locations#Blanking by Nabla. --Timeshifter (talk) 17:38, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First, the topic being notable (not questioning that) does not necessarily merit a list.

There is MacDonald's but no list of "Cities having a MacDonald's", why?

There is Church_(building) but no list of "Cities having a Church", why?

Second, I have not blanked the page.

Third, passing a AfD does not assert that all content should stay forever, only that it is a legitimate article.

Fourth, I performed no administrative action, nor edited against any policy or guideline, as far as I am aware.

- Nabla (talk)

Zamano notability

I have reversed your addition of a notability hat note to https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Zamano&diff=457133753&oldid=457133391 We already have problems with conflict of interest editing which questions of notability will only aggravate. There seem to be numerous references to the firm. User:Fred Bauder Talk 15:58, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, no problem - Nabla (talk) 23:49, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The strong unknown

There's another user that gathered 34 blocks (two indef), and we still don't know if he's banned or not. Mysterious are the ways of Wikipedia. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 10:11, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. But it is weird that so many people (delta/beta included) lost so many time over that. Well... editing IS also a loss of time, and I DO like a good debate :-) But 4 years with no real change?! I go in and out of WP for month at a time, and have done so for years. When returning I usually find out a few (subtle) changes, which is good, both in having changes and in being only a few. And then there are a few ever living constants, this debate is one of them! - Nabla (talk) 10:17, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrol survey

Hello Nabla/Archive 3! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.

If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only.
If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it.

Please access the survey form to take part.
Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback.

You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

VPP

Hi, I have posted a reply at http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28proposals%29#Online_Status explaining what is an idea of that extension, it seem you misunderstood its purpose, it doesn't introduce anything new, but rather fix what is already on wikipedia and does a mess in db, thanks Petrb (talk) 11:42, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

G6 moves

Your deletion and move of Misia as noncontroversial maintenance is not an appropriate action for an admin, I think. It is totally unchecked. We can't even see what was there before. Usually, a noncontroverial move is suggested at WP:RM, and another admin executes it if he agrees that it's noncontroversial, and there's a record of it, and a chance for someone to object. You shouldn't be judging your own proposal. That's abuse of admin power. Dicklyon (talk) 05:50, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I confess I can't tell what went on there. You did some deletes and Kauffner did some moves, deciding on a primary topic. But I can't find any record of why, or exactly how that went down. Maybe you can enlighten me. Sorry if I misinterpreted. Dicklyon (talk) 05:58, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please talk calmly instead of starting out with "not an appropriate action for an admin", "abuse of admin power", judging for one's cause, etc.? You then admit you don't know what happened, so why assume bad faith, and start out by shouting? I am trying to help, I am not here to be shouted at, nor falsely accused of wrongdoings. Me being an admin does not entitle you to freely target me with accusation as pleases you. That is not the way to get a good mood for contribution.

Plus, you admit you don't know what happened, but still you accuse me. I bet you can see some inconsistency there, right?

Also, you explain quite well part of what happened - someone did a move, I deleted the redirect - and you know I did it under CSD G6. There is a record of both at the page logs. The one thing you can not view is the G6 argument presented by the requesting user, which was: «Remove unnecessary disambiguation. (The Portuguese singer is less notable. As she has a diacritic in her name, her title is already disambiguated.)». (but you can see the same argument on Misia's page history) As a Portuguese I not that much sure Mísia is less notable than Misia :-) but I am sure the names are different. Also the page had no history other than the redirected.

I hope you are enlightened. I accept you disagree and suggest some further action (be aware I do not log in constantly). I hope you avoid jumping to accusations in the future, it is not polite unto those trying to help. - Nabla (talk) 06:40, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Usually uncontroversial moves are done without any long discussion, often with none at all. I think wp:RM is usually a process for *controversial* moves. - Nabla (talk) 06:45, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't shouting, and I fessed up as soon as I realized that I had probably misinterpreted. Thanks for the explanation. Dicklyon (talk) 03:51, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. No problem. - Nabla (talk) 18:39, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User Papaursa

Do you think Papaursa should be reported to the ANI? He clearly shows no interest in working along side fellow Wikiepidians, refusing to listen to any open suggestions, clearly this user values his own opinion over to those who have fresh ideas from what he says. I was offering some very useful suggestions at the WP:MMANOT's discussion page, as with the criteria as it is right now only whatever is considered a 'top tier' promotion is safe, whereas any other promotion, such as BAMMA and EliteXC are put on shaky grounds. He refuses to even acknowledge what I'm saying, going as far as saying that it is me who isn't open for suggestion. Now I've always had the best interests of all pages on Wikipedia, and I am a team player so I cannot see how he came up with that theory, just because I questions the criteria on WP:MMANOT, a page I should point out that HE created. I noticed that many of the users who offer suggestions always ask him, as if he owns the page, which is a direct violation of WP:OWN. No-one should have to ask for permission from him to edit the page, especially as it seems that he is the one with the final say everytime. Here is the last comment he put on that page -

'Actually, the reason I haven't bothered to respond to all your statements is because it would be a waste of my time. It's clear you have a viewpoint (which you repeat/repost over and over) and that no facts will dissuade you from your beliefs. Since you've made it clear you value no opinions but your own, why should I bother? Answer--I shouldn't.'

Now again it is like I said I've never had a problem with taking in other people's opinions, so this is insulting for me to read. I will, however, try to reason with a bit, if he refuses to listen and take in what I say, I may go a head and report him to ANI. (BigzMMA 10:12, 19 November 2011 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BigzMMA (talk • contribs)

I have no idea, and I have no intention in getting into such matter. Please see wp:Dispute resolution, there is a good chance you really need a wp:RfC or something of that sort, not a request at wp:ANI - Nabla (talk) 10:19, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ermmmm

What did you delete of mine? My sandbox??? Calvin • ^TalkThatTalk 16:34, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind starting messages with a meaningful tiltle, and with some text explaing your concern? It would be much friendlier and easier to address the issue. Thank you.

Yes, I did. It consisted only of a redirect to a history merge moved article to Loud_(Rihanna_album), plus a speedy deletion request. I'll restore if you wish, but I see little point, as there is nothing there. - Nabla (talk) 02:24, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Or ask any other admin, should I be away. I am perfectly fine that the deletion gets reverted. - Nabla (talk) 02:27, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Şükrü Enis Regü

started at User talk:Jimfbleak

Sorry, didn't pick up your decline. Restored now, but I'll leave anything else (despam, prod) to you Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:02, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, thank you - Nabla (talk) 13:28, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rodney Lewis

Moved to Talk:Rodney_Lewis

Thanks

Hello Buddy!

Thanks for deleting my sub user page. Ramesh Ramaiah^talk 14:22, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Thank you. - Nabla (talk) 15:52, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail

You've got mail- Ben.MQ (talk) 15:35, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NPP/S

I have left a reply for you here. I have largely withdrawn my support for this project due to unclear lines of responsibility for it. If I am provided with the information I designed the basic reearch project for, I may decide to continue with the initiative. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:16, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As IP addresses are shared sometimes by 1,000s of Internet users (I know mine is), t's unlikely that survey software will prevent multiple replies from an IP address. SurveyMonkey can however be overridden very easily in order to make multiple submissions, and it needs no technical knowledge whatsoever. I am more concerned why we were told to use it instead of LimeSurvey, while the recent Berkman survey launcged this week with the support of the WMF was allowed to use LimeSurvey, which in the words of one WMF employee: "limesurvey has some shitty scalability issues and security issues, do not use it", on a vast scale targeted at highly selected Wikipedia users. It asked for some extremely personal details, was extremely complex to complete, had no clear objective, and offered money for its completion. I believed at first it was a hoax until I read the complaints on the mailing list. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:22, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure I want to dig much into this, but yes, a recent couple of "contacts" (this and another study), and paid (paid!?) research, made WMF credibility go down, very much down, for me. Which is a pity. - Nabla (talk) 20:35, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

HEY!

stop deleting my articles! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pyromama (talk • contribs) 01:15, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Ozark outdoors

You deleted this page because of a blanked comment; however, it is a talk page and I'm fairly certain that the page shouldn't have been deleted in order to retain the history. Ryan Vesey Review me! 22:15, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I see it, it is a valid deletion under wp:CSD#G7 (single author request, and it is not a user talk page). I ackowledge my lapse in not checking the article page, as it was also tagged for speedy deletion and in the mean time it was also speedy deleted, by another admin. I have no problem to undelete so that you check: the the only history is the user contesting the speedy deletion nomination and then blanking it (and some user adding the csd template). And currently it also falls under wp:CSD#G8 (page dependent on a deleted page) - Nabla (talk) 14:45, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Richard von Krafft-Ebing

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Richard von Krafft-Ebing. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 13:17, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 02:16, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Archives