User talk:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington/Archive/Archive12

Messages This is an archive of old discussions. Please do not modify this page. Archives: The Basement ? Vandalism Hi! Could you please take a look at the last two edits on Andy Fairweather-Low, which I have just spotted using WP:VP. I can't work out if its vandalism, a bad edit or a proper edit, but it seems odd to put a user IP address on an article page. Richard Harvey 13:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC) Reverted. {{spam}} — Nearly Headless Nick 13:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC) Thanks for that, I will note it in for future use. Whilst I'm at it could you take a look at todays contributions [1] from User:70.89.238.62 I tried to correct some vandalism from him with WP:VP but it first came back with the message 'user has already been reported', though there was none on his page relating to the specific article. I then noted he had vandalised several article today, so I tried again but only got error 9 from WP:VP in relation to his talkpage. Richard Harvey 14:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC) Vandalism by User:205.222.248.234 Just saw your warnings to this prankster...appears to be a pattern suggesting use of a school computer and similiar to Vandalism from other IP addresses (perhaps from same school...(Osawa?)?) Not sure warnings are doing anything nor are blocks if prankster is merely shirting to computers at school that are not blocked. Result is crude words and pranks lurking in dozens of articles. HJ 15:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC) Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Yandman Thank you for your comment there, you were right. I should have commented in anger there. I responded accordingly, but thanks for helping me remember that two wrongs don't make a right -- that was Yandman's time and all commentary should be about him and his actions and nobody else. Just H 15:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC) WP:EL issues and copyrights The phrasing " "Sites which fail to provide licensing information" never had consensus to be put in WP:EL (I think). The current draft in fact says that there is no ban on linking to google or youtube and that the relevant rule is that "If you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work." JoshuaZ 14:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC) Pursuant to that, I've gone through some of the recent removals and restored them. 6 or so of the videos appeared to be actual copyvios or very likely copyvios and I have therefore not restored their links. JoshuaZ 14:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC) In at least one case, you appear to have removed what is actually a) not even a copyvio issue since its a user page on youtube, and b is in fact officially run by and endorsed by the group in question. [2]. JoshuaZ 14:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC) Ah yes. I use AWB and am bound to miss a few things. However, Nobody's Watching is a television programme, so I assumed that it could have been a possible copyvio. Also, such websites do not provide licensing information and are less than reliable sources. A better way would have been to ask the uploader of those videos to upload the media onto the foundation servers. — Nearly Headless Nick 13:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC) The solution to that might be to not use AWB to do this. Many of the other videos you removed were private videos that claimed to have been made by the uploaders and similar situations. In general, we shouldn't remove links to youtube unless there is in fact strong evidence of a copyright violation (such as it actually being a clip from a television show or movie uploaded by someone not representing the owner). Also note that it isn't reasonable to to expect people to upload these videos onto the foundation servers- Wikimedia is not a video repository and neither the servers nor software is heavily optimized for that sort of thing. In summary, the current policy says we should remove actual likely copyvios not videos who have less than complete copyright info given. JoshuaZ 14:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC) The current policy is still under dispute. However, I do feel that Wikipedia is not a farm link for video sources like that. Most of such videos are bad-quality, unreliable (as in WP:RS), and severely undermine the reputation of Wikipedia as a free source. Most of them might not have been uploaded by their original authors. In copyright issues, we do not make presumptions about the copyright owners of the video unless expressly stated by them. Also, we cannot deal with plagiarism over the internet; like we do on-wiki. Also, can you have a look here, and tell me what you think? :) — Nearly Headless Nick 15:22, 26 January 2007 (UTC) Thanks! Hi, Thanks for meeting you in Ahmedabad. It was very nice. Your help is appreciated to complete m:Promoting the South Asian languages projects/Gujarati. Thanks again, Yann 17:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC) Patrick Tull YouTube video link You removed a link to a YouTube video of Patrick Tull reading. The reason given was "Sites which fail to provide licensing information". However, YouTube requires the person uploading a video to certify that he/she owns the copyright. The YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/t/terms Terms of Use) indicate that people may freely access their content through their site which is what that link did. It was not uploaded to Wikipedia, merely a relevant link. Why was the link removed. It was relevant, freely available and licensed by the site for access through the site. Dabbler 18:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC) The Producers (2005 film) Hi Nick. I noticed you've gotten semi-involved in this issue. An anon from a dynamic verizon IP seems to be re-inserting the same information to the article. The information is poorly sourced and contains citations to trivial web publications that do not meet WP:RS, WP:V, or WP:EL. I've tried to warn the anon [3] but they've since moved on to another IP. You warned the IP anon, but since they're on a dynamic IP I think they'll be unlikely to get the message. I've mentioned my objections in the talk page of this article. I do not want to risk 3RR over this. Do you think you could revert and s-protect the article while the discussion is ongoing and we can get the anon to see the light? Thanks. —Malber (talk • contribs) 20:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC) It's sneaky vandalism, as I soon found out. Restrain yourself from passing 3RR though. I'll do something about it. Regards, — Nearly Headless Nick 13:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC) I see he has reverted you again. Try to look at the few links, and if they make sense, consider dispute resolution. [4], [5]. — Nearly Headless Nick 13:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC) I'm assuming good faith on this. I'm sure it's a newbie anon with a dynamic DSL connection. The edits aren't vandalism per se, but display a misunderstanding of what a reliable source is. He's put in some good citations from Salon.com and SF Bay Times (a publication which deserves an article). He put back in two of the questionable sources which I've removed. I placed something in talk and recommended it in my edit summary, so I don't think the article needs protection at this point. Thanks for looking into this. —Malber (talk • contribs) 15:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC) Try talking with the user, post a comment on the talk page. Ask other users on the talk page to remove the Tripod links. — Nearly Headless Nick 15:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC) Happy First Edit Day! Happy First Edit Day, Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington/Archive/Archive12, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Will someone tell me what a first edit day is? No matter, I'll give it out anyway :) Regards,   •The RSJ•   Talk | Sign Here 00:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC) Happy First Edit Day, Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington/Archive/Archive12, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Have a nice day!!!--GravityTalk 05:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC) Take a look at this, this, and this Thank you so much! Its being a pleasure working with you all! ^_^ — Nearly Headless Nick 13:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC) Happy Wikibrithday! Wish you another good year ahead on Wikipedia. Cheers Terence Ong 14:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC) Hello, I see you're in! I've heard alot about you! -I'm Working for Him 04:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC) So I made a few mistakes, but can you help me... (these are from the talk pages that I submitted to ChrisO yet i have gotten no reply, and you were second to last on the deletion log so now i come to you) I'm trying to flush out the entries for the Psychic Tv Discography and have had some posts deleted. Could you point me to some acceptable examples of how to add a small entry that won't get flagged for the speedy deletion, as most of the subject listings already exist but have no info in them. Some of them point to single releases and as such there won't be much content when finished. I think that if a release is already listed in the discography, then it should have at least a minimal entry as to the track listin, catalogue number, label and year of release. Also some entries may only be a re-release under a new name or label and as such would mostly contain a reference to the original entry. J mead 23 21:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC) Just saw that an entry that I had put up again after it's deletion for an erroneous flag of advertising has now been protected, A Pagan Day This was an entry attempting to describe an album that was released 22 years ago, and I believe it is notable in that it was a draft for the third Psychic TV album, and also for the fact that it was very limited in that the time for which record stores could place orders for it was less than 1 day. I can't talk to the sysop, Redvers, that protected it as it appears they have left Wikipedia. Trying not to be a pest, and I'm reading through the guides and tutorials so as to not violate any policies and such, but this can be frustrating. J mead 23 02:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC) please, if it's still possible look at the entry/article that was deleted and see if there is/was criteria for deletion, also please take a look at my contributions page, as I have continued forward and hopefully not repeated my grave error from before. I believe that my user page would allow you to send me a commment or something along those lines that would be helpfull. I'm only trying to put information out there. also any tips on how to cite a reference from an album cover sleeve or cd booklet would be apppreciated as this is the sole purpose of my posting to Wikipedia. i really don't want to be flagged or banned for not following the rules. sucks to be a noob. J mead 23 12:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC) Reverting twice to incorrect Wiki-entry Why do you (and Jerome - Jcw69) reverting back my addition (of an external link to Robert Jameson) at this page: Barberton to the 'wrong' Robert Jameson at Wikipedia? I'm not even going to 'prove' this is clearly a mistake (misleading people by sending them to a person that was not even alive when the flower was discovered\named - which is why I added birth- and death-year in second instance), but according to this page Resolving disputes an explanation would have been the least you (and Jerome) could have given: "Be respectful to others and their points of view. This means primarily: Do not simply revert changes in a dispute. When someone makes an edit you consider biased or inaccurate, improve the edit, rather than reverting it. Provide a good edit summary when making significant changes that other users might object to. The revision you would prefer will not be established by reverting, and repeated reverting is forbidden; discuss disputed changes on the talk page. First step: Talk to the other parties involved The first resort in resolving almost any conflict is to discuss the issue on a talk page." Looking forward to hear from you. Please review WP:V, WP:RS. Regards, — Nearly Headless Nick 13:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC) Absurd - is this a case of Wiki-centrism? Or big ego's? Just because there is an entry in Wiki, you link to it whithout verifying(!) its relevancy. Even when you have every reason and indication (and now information) to assume it is incorrect, you keep directing people to a non-related item - plus, there is no reference to the topic from which you are linking. So, in case an external link is not acceptable (as it can't be verified - which is highly arbitrary in the first place - who is the judge here?), you prefer to keep a demonstrable incorrect one... Instead of removing it to avoid any confusion - but now, verifiability doesn't seem an issue. Too bad - two people sticking to an opinion and not applying the same rules to themselves as they do apply to others. The beginning of the end of something great like Wikipedia? Like Orwell wrote: "Some are more equal than others." I am a little surpirsed that a simple reversion of edit was deemed appropriate here. I spent thirty seconds checking this edit, the reversion, the wikilink in question and some external sources and was utterly clear that the wikilink reverted to was incorrect. Fine, so the link provided to the Gerbera society might not fit into traditional WP:RS but what it did do (and dozens of other Ghits) was to clarify that reverting the wikilink as you did was wrong. I would recommend that 30 seconds spent doing some independent research would have prevented this situation - the botanist whose link you reinstated died about 30 years before the flower was discovered. Simple. Before simply referring users to WP:V and WP:RS, you ought to do a bit of research yourself. The Rambling Man 22:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC) And I am very suprised that you come here to point out my poor form(?) I was on vandalism patrol at that very moment. The user did not leave any edit-summary even after two edits. I was not warring with this user. I reverted only once. What else do you expect me to do? I reviewed the website, OK? It didn't look a bit like reliable source to me. Wikipedia is not a place for substandard links. The user was not logged on and editing through an anon IP which has a history of vandalism. I suggest that you find yourself a better past-time than leaving snide remarks with snide edit-summaries on my talk page. Good day. — Nearly Headless Nick 10:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC) Nothing snide intended. I was surprised that you had reverted to a version of the wikilink that was incorrect, that was all. The points you raise are all good, but the IP in question hadn't vandalised for a month, so the {{spam3}} seemed a little harsh, particularly as the spamming wasn't the same (suggesting a different user) and you once told me this. What I expected was that since the editor got in touch with you, perhaps you could have looked at the edit rather than just referring to policy. That's what I do if I revert what I consider to be vandalism (and, agreed, anon IP edits without summaries stink of vandalism) and someone makes a fuss (beside just insulting me, which happens more oft than not). I'm sorry if my remarks came across poorly. I just felt that the editor hadn't received his fair share of good faith. That is all. The Rambling Man 10:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC) My edits and edit-summaries were not made in bad faith, unlike yours. Take the user under your tutelage. The point is, I was not warring with the user and my reply to him, though short was not made in bad-faith. Start paying respect to other users and drop this condescending attitude. — Nearly Headless Nick 14:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC) My edits are never made in bad faith, nor was the 'bad form' summary, I simply felt that your reversion, spam warning and brief reply to the editor's question wasn't commensurate with what I've come to expect, particularly as you'd admonished me for similar erroneous behaviour a few months back. The Rambling Man 14:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC) Look, there is a good difference between what happened a few months back and now. You warned the user with a {{test4}} and reported him to WP:AIV, where a trigger-happy admin blocked him on site for a singular edit. Prima facie going with the facts of the case, my only mistake was not checking out what the article actually said. — Nearly Headless Nick 13:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC) Look, the edit where I placed a {{test4}} was five consecutive vandal edits which added the following to the Dumbo article: (Removed by zealous editor who believed it to be trolling. It was, in fact, real vandalism, but, in a way, I'm glad it's gone, being so offensive, for anyone interested, it's here.) After five edits (that's not singular, it's five consecutive vandal edits), that equates to either a t4 or a bv in anyone's books. At least I checked the edits and realised that adding such disgusting profanity to (in particular) children's articles, the 'trigger happy' admin did the right thing; not to mention the IP in question went on to vandalise another seven or eight times the same day (on Water and other articles). I'm glad you realise you actually made a mistake by not checking the edits in this case. Good luck in the future. The Rambling Man 22:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC) Thanks, Rambling Man, for making the effort to contribute to this page! Apparently it takes someone like you (a registered and respected Wiki-editor compared to an underling like me) to make acceptable edits - acceptable for Wiki-centric people like NHN, that is, as many others would have followed your route (and common sense): click on the added link, check the website (legit or just a spam-front), do a query on any search-engine and make a judgement in good faith. NHN's defense that it was anonymous editing, without summary and from an IP that has been used for vandalism are the typical excuses for someone that is abusing his self-perceived authority to justify indifference and lazyness - the type of people that stick to rules and regulations at all cost, without even wondering if they make sense or hurt an overall goal of improvement, to patronize non-members (of their elite). Then the 'justification': "It didn't look a bit like reliable source to me" - well, then 99% of the legit websites (again - who's the judge here?) become unreliable at this very moment - a website clearly stating real world addresses and contact details, its objectives, its non-profit nature, being a .org domain, without commercial offers, other than related to the main topic (selling some plants), with about 200 related pages, providing information for free - nope, then you are clearly a damn good spammer, trying to attract loads of visitors from some heavily visited Wiki page about one of the most popular topics on Wiki: a small, obscure town in the boondocks. And then, if that same 'ruthless vandalising spammer' makes the effort to write a comment about incorrect reversions by two different Wiki-authorities, (obviously only because they ruined his income), you still maintain you did so in good faith? Without even editing your own reversion into what Rambling Man did: a neutral statement? But hey, if you are on vandalism patrol then you have to take split second decisions, it being a matter of life & death: it's me or him. Right? Sorry - it's this attitude that makes life of the majority of people so much harder - not common sense prevails, but burocracy and rules that some people are too happy to enforce onto others. It's also this attitude of mental lethargy that ruins the faith in something great like Wikipedia - how many of NHN-SNdMP's (and JCW69's, of course) edits and contributes can be relied on? And how many Wikipedians are like them: "We know we are right, we don't make mistakes, we tell you the truth."? Scary - I think I rather stay anonymous now (ok, they know my IP address - by the way, another good 'argument': ever heard of rotating IP addresses, issued by your provider? Or using an anonymizer, meaning you hide your actual IP? So, don't rely on this to detect vandalism - it's not only completely unreliable, but also 'unfair' to legit posters - that is, if you want to be of good faith and if you want to use common sense, of course...). Thanks again Rambling Man - when I ever register, I will contact you: it's people like you that we have to rely on to fight the battle against dogmatists and zealots :-) Why have you blocked User:Mustafa Bhai I wrote an email to you but to no response..Why exactly have you blcoked me writing the block as spa troll , I believe because i reprsent a user that is not very friendly with your supremely trollish Hindu coreligionists 87.74.2.184 16:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC) If this user is the sock of banned user Mustafa Bhai, then action is needed. He has been using multiple ip addresses to WP:STALK and harass me. I have more information about him.Rumpelstiltskin223 21:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC) RSPP, administrators choose to revert, block and ignore. Ignore the trolls. — Nearly Headless Nick 15:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC) Heads up Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington —The preceding unsigned comment was added by HighInBC (talk • contribs) 17:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC). Heads up Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington] HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 17:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC) I came to mention the same thing. Maybe we should add to the headers on AN and ANI that when raising an issue about a particular admin's actions, the poster should make sure to let that person know. Regards, Newyorkbrad 20:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC) It was not a punitive block as alleged by my learned friend, Passcal. RCS did not show any inclination in discussing the article issues on the talk page, but resorted to reverting the article, even after being reported on WP:AN3. I will block again if he doesn't solve his revert-warring issues. — Nearly Headless Nick 14:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC) Should we remove our messages? Since there has been no response on Wt:Vand I think we should remove it but wanted to ask you first.--St.daniel 02:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC) Letting you know Heya, I just thought that I'd bring to your attention that in your comment here you include a link to ED, which should probably be removed as per the recent ArbCom ruling. Bitnine 01:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC) It's only temporary. Remove it, if you are so inclined to. But leave an explanation there. Best, — Nearly Headless Nick 12:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC) Someone wants to talk to you :) Hi Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington, Please see [6] --Aminz 07:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC) Nevermind him. :) — Nearly Headless Nick 12:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC) ED Could you email me a link to the article that you said was about me on ED? I've been able to find two mentions of me, but no article. (Of the two mentions, one is egregiously false and could easily be corrected by about 5 minutes of research. I'm disappointed in them) JoshuaZ 21:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC) I am sorry, I must have been mistaken. However, there have been comments made on you. Regards, — Nearly Headless Nick 11:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC) Sigh. No ED, no Daniel Brandt entry. The most I get is an entry on uncommon descent. Obviously I'm not doing a good enough job enforcing Wiki policy. JoshuaZ 00:02, 4 February 2007 (UTC) Unprotect The disputed image at Mika (singer) has now been deleted according to policy. ed g2s • talk 16:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC) Done. — Nearly Headless Nick 17:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC) Reverting back Iraq Would I be in violation of 3RR if I reverted that page to what it was before seeing that the user has been blocked? :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 16:56, 3 February 2007 (UTC) Obviously. As a sysop you shouldn't have reverted more than once. — Nearly Headless Nick 16:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC) Haha. I am a sysop now? This is news to me. :) :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 16:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC) Owww, wait. /me smacks head. — Nearly Headless Nick 17:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC) For a brief moment there, you had granted me powers of a supreme deity! :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 17:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC) With great power, comes great responsibility </uncleben> With great responsibilities, come great off-wiki stalking trolls. </unclenick> — Nearly Headless Nick 17:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC) Philwelch RfAr Sir Nicholas: I see you've put some time into the Philwelch RfAr request, but please double-check some of the links. For example, I think what is supposed to be the link to the discussion of the John Reid block on ANI actually goes to the Centrix block. I'd fix them myself rather than bother you with this, but you probably have a note of which archive everything is in which I don't, plus users aren't really supposed to edit another person's section in an ArbCom request. Regards, Newyorkbrad 17:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC) I think I just fixed it. Thanks for letting me know. Best, — Nearly Headless Nick 14:27, 4 February 2007 (UTC) Thanks for signing Thanks for adding to my sighall :-) —Malber (talk • contribs • game) 18:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC) My RfA Hey Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington, I just would like to thank you for your support in my recent request for adminship, which passed with a final tally of 54/13/11. I appreciate the trust expressed by members of the community, and will do my best to uphold it. Naturally, I am still becoming accustomed to using the new tools, so if you have suggestions or feedback, or need anything please let me know. - Gilliam 21:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC) re 3RR rule Could you please protect the article Kamelot as you did to St. Anger, as I feel that I am having a similar dispute there although I have even more of a case for the information and it is the same user who is constantly removing it and has left no messages on the talk page reguarding the issue.--E tac 02:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC) Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Philwelch Hello, An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Philwelch. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Philwelch/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Philwelch/Workshop. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Thatcher131 12:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC) Huseyincan Celil I would like this page protected until the editing dispute is resolved as other editors have decided that commenting on the talkpage is not a good use of their time. KazakhPol 03:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC) My last RfA/me Hi Nick! You opposed my last RfA in late November 2006. There were opposes citing civility and inexperience with policy. It's about 3 months after that, and I think I've gained more experiance in policy and more emotional stability on-wiki. Recently I've been doing a bit of Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam stuff, though this last week I haven't had a great deal of time. Anyway, I was considering an RfA in a month or two, and I wanted to ask a few people if they had any recommendations as to what I should to or criticisms over the last few months. Thanks for reading! ST47Talk 01:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC) My RFA Thank You, Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington/Archive/Archive12 for your Support! Thank you for your support in my RfA, which closed at 111 / 1 / 2. I am humbled and rather shocked to see such kind comments and for it to reach WP:100. Please feel free to leave a note if I have made a mistake or if you need anything, I will start out slow and tackle the harder work once I get accustomed to the tools. Thank you once more, I simply cannot express in words my gratitude. ...fly on littlewing. ~ Arjun 19:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC) Barnstar... The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar There you mate... you deserve this for reverting vandalism on my page! Amey Aryan DaBrood© 15:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC) Yeah, and perhaps one more for reducing your edit-count by 178 edits. D'oh. — Nearly Headless Nick 15:11, 10 February 2007 (UTC) Philwelch Do you want me to leave Wikipedia? Philwelch 23:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC) Yeaaaaa....nnooo. — Nearly Headless Nick 14:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC) MOSLOW Is it important to use the {{MOSLOW}} tag on filmographies that are not written in chronological order for example a tag that was added on Aishwariya Rai page and by reading the WP:LOW its hard to tell--Cometstyles 15:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC) I have never been much of an editor. Perhaps the YellowMonkey might be able to help you out. Best, — Nearly Headless Nick 15:29, 11 February 2007 (UTC) RfAr No thanks. ThuranX 15:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC) As you haven't removed me from the RfA, I have don so myself. leave me out of this, and far away from Phil Welch. ThuranX 19:12, 3 February 2007 (UTC) Nick, I am displeased. You made me a part of the PhilWelch RfA, and now he's coming after me with attacks. Please see the RfA, I have added to my statement.ThuranX 21:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC) Ignore him. Let the administrators do their jobs. — Nearly Headless Nick 14:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC) Your message First, what I don't understand is that, no matter how many times this comes up, and how many times it's pointed out that there is no policy – not even a guidline – that limits the use of rollback, people still make this sort of challenge. When even anons can use popups, and editors are reverting using "undo", it's especially difficult to see why anyone should even think that there might be a problem in the first place. Secondly, an editor suddenly reverted a lot of work copy-editing, wikifying, and MoSing, with a pointless and unrelated edit summary; I'm supposed to spend even more time than he's already wasted just because you and others are unaccountably squeamish about using rollback? I mean, you did look at what was involved, didn't you? I also explained to him, both at his Talk page and at the article page, why I'd done what I'd done. Is there a reason for your getting involved on the side of those who want to return the poor English, the incorrect wikilinks, and the lead that goes against the MoS? --Mel Etitis (Talk) 14:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC) First, I said "near-vandals", and I stick by that (it is, in fact, a mild term in the circumstances). One of the people involved referred to my edits that merely introduced better English, correct wikilinks, etc., as vandalism; I do hope that you wagged your finger there too. Secondly, if you want to change the guidelines or policy on rollback, go ahead and try (such changes have always been rejected in the past); until then, please stop pretending that your finger-wagging is backed up by anything but your own preferences. Thirdly, this dispute has been over for some time; why do you want to stir it up again? --Mel Etitis (Talk) 16:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC) Yes, yes, you do that. Now could you leave me to do things that are actually useful for Wikipedia? There must be lots of other people who are in desperate need of your finger wagging. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 15:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC) Advice is needed Hi. I wish to submit a complaint regarding one of the Admins' bullish behaviour, and abuse of his administrative rights (User:Mel Etitis); and, since I was unable to find the relevant page/form, therefore I am taking your time. I would be grateful if you kindly advice me by return. Regards Surena 20:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC) As far as I know, Mel has not abused his core administrative tools, such as the block, protect and delete buttons. Please assume good faith while dealing with other editors, and try to resolve disputes peacefully by using the talk pages of the articles for discussion. In case you are not satisfied by my answer, feel free to file an informal complaint on WP:AN or go to WP:RFC or WP:RFAR as you deem appropriate. Best, — Nearly Headless Nick 14:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC) Warning and blocking Sorry about that, I just saw that he'd been given an "only warning", and so reported him when he vandalised again. Otherwise, what's the point of the "only warning" at all? In general, I don't even like the "only warning" (although I have used it once), and am always fair with vandals. But since it was clearly vandalism (diff), and not an honest mistake in any way, I don't really think it's biting the newbie. ConDemTalk 16:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC) Query You said that you "have seen systematic reverts of other users' edits, without trying to engage them on the talk pages. The WP:CREEP incident would be a good example." Please take a look at the talk page of WP:CREEP and you will see that yes, I am engaging people and discussing the issue. I've been on the talk page since december 7th; the dispute with Jeff started several weeks later. >Radiant< 15:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC) Autoblock Thanks for removing the autoblock! What is an autoblock though? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC) It is a tool that blocks the IP address of the blockee. So, even if your account gets unblocked, you will not be able to edit until your IP address gets unblocked. The IP addresses are not available, even to administrators. They are identified with this tool – [7]. View my blocking log – [8]. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 13:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC) Thanks for the info. WP is more complex and sophisticated than I had thought. I learned something! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC) I was very surprised when I learned that you got blocked. I always took you for a smart-one. ;) — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 13:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC) Well, some people think I am smart. My girl friend thinks I am stupid and she got a kick out of my block. My cat did too, I think, he was giving me superior looks.  :) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC) CyberAnth Um, I thought in my 3RR reoort I indicated why a block would not be that necessary. May I ask why you choose to block her? JoshuaZ 15:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC) I guess I did not read your message very carefully. However, the version to which you were reverting was no WP:BLP violation, and the words were done fairly. In case you feel that it would be appropriate to unblock, please go ahead. I have no objections. Best, — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 17:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC) OK... I dont know who you are but please leave me alone. If you actually knew what you were talking about you would see that he personally attacked me first. Again, please leave me alone. I have work to do. WikiTony 17:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC) PS:I know you proably meant well but it certainly seems like certain parties who will remain nameless are ganging up on me. Again, i do not mean any hostility but i believe there is hostility being directed at me from various people. I just dont think you know the full story of what happened when you wrote what you did on my talk page. i have already left that guy a note to explain to him (politely) how i feel about the incident. WikiTony 17:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC) Responded on your talk page. I have watchlisted your talk page, you can respond there and I will notice any messages you address to me. Best, — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 17:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC) AfD closure? You recently closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people who became famous only in death with delete. I count 9 delete votes, 7 keep votes excluding a keep comment by a newly registered user: 56.25%. Wikipedia:Deletion_guidelines_for_administrators#Rough_consensus is relevant but I note the relevant article, Consensus_decision-making#If consensus is not unanimous, who must agree?, states Rough Consensus is the process used by the IETF working group, where there is no specific rule for "how much is enough". Rather, the question of consensus is left to the judgment of the working group chair. While this makes it more difficult for a small number of disruptors to block a decision, it puts increased responsibility on the chair, and has frequently led to divisive debates about whether rough consensus has in fact been correctly identified. Wikipedia:Consensus states the numbers mentioned as being sufficient to reach supermajority vary from about 60% to over 80% depending upon the decision. Wikipedia:Supermajority - a rejected policy but perhaps the content is useful because it reflects past decisions, states consensus is two-thirds or larger majority support for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:AFD). Any comment?--Golden Wattle talk 22:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC) No comment. See WP:DRV. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 08:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC) I too find the deletion to be premature & inappropriate. The call had been made to edit/modify it until it was clearer, but instead it was deleted without that effort. --Duemellon 13:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC) CSD Hehe... Special:Recentchanges rocks. I haven't looked into CAT:CSD for a day or two... because I'm thinking how to defeat those stupid spambots and stop them from polluting our wiki with nonsense/w/index.php pages. :-) Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 09:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC) the noob I hearby request the noob be re-created in my userspace. Timmccloud 12:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC) Here you are – User:Timmccloud/The noob. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 14:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC) Articles for deletion/Starslip Crisis RE: [9] May want to have a look at this article. http://www.halfpixel.com/2007/02/15/delete-wikipedia . There is a discussion started more webcomics stuff. :( --Hu12 14:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC) I'll look into it. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 14:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC) thought you'd be interested since your mentioned in the article.--Hu12 14:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC) I think I made the decision by looking into the discussions and arguments, rather than counting fake WP:SPA account votes. The article did not pass the threshold of notability in any case. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 14:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC) Ditto. I'm also putting a note on the Wikipedia:Deletion_review page. --zandperl 15:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC) Roger, roger. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 15:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC) "I think I made the decision by looking into the discussions and arguments" - You think? You're not even sure? And what arguments persuaded you, anyway? The arguments were designed to be flawed. Boxjam 16:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC) The arguments were designed to be flawed. The sockpuppets seem to have a better grasp of policies then you do. Only the Alexa ranking bit was wrongly put. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 16:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC) You cannot be serious. Have you even read the article linked? If so what is your opinion?(reply here not on my userpage). Please also note that the WCCA comments in the delete were also by sockpuppets --Energman 17:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC) The nomination having been admittedly in bad faith and the deletion debate infected beyond redemption by gross misconduct, the deletion nomination and result are void ab initio and I have reinstated the article per WP:IAR. This is not to be considered an overturning of your close result, but a determination that there was never a valid deletion nomination and debate in the first place. No criticism of you is intended, who closed properly based on the views that had been presented. This is all, of course, without prejudice to a nomination from a contributor in good standing. Newyorkbrad 02:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC) Ever the diplomant, Brad. :) Would you not agree when I say that a lot of SPA trolling and socking is going around on AfDs? Each and everyone of them is organised, and this one got published on some blog. Should we even pay attention to them? I closed it within my reasoning, and if we are going to consider "votes" (as they all call it) that say keep on baseless grounds, it would be such a shame. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 10:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC) Freedom skies I will stay away from the "Indian mathematics" article for the remaining period of the block. Best Regards, Freedom skies| talk  15:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC) Hillcrest Christian School An editor has asked for a deletion review of Hillcrest Christian School. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review.. Meanwhile will you userfy to me, please? Bridgeplayer 16:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC) Sure. I have recreated the text here – User:Bridgeplayer/Hillcrest Christian School. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 16:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC) Thank you. Bridgeplayer 17:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC) DRV An editor has asked for a deletion review of The noob. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Balancer 21:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC) Latino Muslims AFD Where did you find no consensus in the Latino Muslims thread? It was 7-6 in favor of deletion, per the rules the thread needs to go.--- Skyhawk 22:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC) AfDs are not votes. Latino Muslims page probably needs to be moved to a moar appropriate title. It needs work and sources, but it is a perfectly encyclopedic subject. Give it some time to develop, sources would be available over the internet. Try using relevant keywords. Best, — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 10:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC) DRV note An editor has asked for a deletion review of List of people who became famous only in death. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. I have raised the issue also at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Consensus standards for deletion--Golden Wattle talk 22:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC) An editor has asked for a deletion review of Blood Red Sandman. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Blood Red Sandman Open Up Your Heart - Receive My EviLove 07:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC) 30LL An editor has asked for a deletion review of 30LL. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Kartrab 01:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC) Look What I Brought Home! Content of Look What I Brought Home! has been simply blanked and replaced with a redirect, and not merged with Keenspot per your closing comments... would you mind finishing that if that's what you really think should be done? FYI on that... As someone who commented but did not vote on that AFD, it is, upon examining the Keenspot article, not a good idea to set the precedent of sticking sections on every Keenspot comic worth talking about within the Keenspot article. Perhaps you should have just closed with a simple keep per the 7 rather than merge per the 2? Balancer 21:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC) Opinions of WP:SPA accounts are generally ignored. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 07:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC) Sorry, the 5 votes to keep rather than the 2 to merge, then, but the rest of those two questions still stands unanswered. Answer them. Please. Balancer 08:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC) AfDs are not votes, they are discussions. It lies on the discretion of the administrator to make a suitable judgment in the interest of the encyclopedia. Administrators may be wrong, but there is the WP:DRV process for that. My reasoning: The participating users did say that they found the subject of the article to be notable, but they did not indicate it in anyway. Have a look at this version of the article – [10]. It explicitly lacks the reliable sources that would jutify it's inclusion. The keep arguments also explained that Keenspot presence is sufficient for notability, I considered the arguments and observed that there was no multiple, non-trivial and independent sources on the subject of the article. However, the article could be redirected to the Keenspot article and the content be merged by the interested editors by substantiating it with appropriate links (probably from the keenspot website). Did I make myself more clear? Best, — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 09:15, 17 February 2007 (UTC) I had no objection in principle (based on the AFD) of merging, but the above explanation should have been included in the original closure. What is now clear to me in particular is the reasoning behind your AFD closures in general; it is apparent that you do not believe in the consensus principle of Wikipedia, and will continue to undermine it at every turn if you remain an administrator. Balancer 09:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC) An army of numbskulls does not imply consensus. Arguments should be within the scope of policies and guidelines and only then they are to be considered. Hope you understand. Best, — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 09:49, 17 February 2007 (UTC) If by "numbskull" you mean "experienced Wikipedia editor," or simply "anybody who disagrees with me on my interpretation of Wikipedia policy," then you will persistently violate Wikipedia:Deletion Policy. If you apply as a test It lies on the discretion of the administrator to make a suitable judgment in the interest of the encyclopedia to your decisions rather than At the end of the discussion, if a rough consensus for deletion has been reached, the page will be removed per Wikipedia:Deletion process; otherwise the page remains, then you will frequently violate (though, IMO, the decision to close as merge was not a violation of policy in this case; it was an appropriate closure even if the closure could have used a little more explanation in the AFD itself) the deletion policy of Wikipedia. Which I just quoted, and the incompatibility between your idea of policy ("I know what's best for Wikipedia and can freely ignore as many other editors as I like") and policy ("Wikipedia operates by consensus, i.e., agreement between editors.") is going to crop up in numerous closures you make in the future. This must change if Wikipedia is to have integrity as an online encyclopedia. Balancer 10:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC) Please don't assume anything on my part. Administrators are administrators for a reason. I do not chose to ignore comments by any editor. I have to reject them when they do not conform with policies. That is how we derieve consensus. Wikipedia is not a Democracy. Do you think I was involved in the webcomics saga before closing the few AfDs? In no way did I impose my will on other users. I interpreted the reasoning and the logic given by what you call "voters" (i.e. participants) and weighed the arguments and then came to a conclusion. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 10:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC) I'm not assuming anything on your part. I've asked for clarifications, and you have provided explanations of your reasoning, which in turn show that you are not following Wikipedia policy in your closures. This is, as I noted in The noob DRV, not about webcomics, but about consensus. It has come to my attention as a result of webcomics related AFDs, but I find that your disregard for consensus is not limited to webcomics related AFDs. Deletion policy is explicit as to the role of consensus in AFDs, and also explicit on the very few exceptions to a specific rough consensus of the editors on the AFD (copyvio, NPOV, and articles that cannot meet WP:V). Your role, per policy, is not to create a decision from scratch; your role is to interpret the consensus of the editors. I could attack your motivations if you really want, however, taking as a basis your recent votes in webcomic AFDs following the overturn in DRV of your closure of the Starslip Crisis AFD, but I'm not interested in picking a fight with you. You're starting to act tempermental and defensive about this; don't be. What I'm interested in is simple: Your current and future support for consensus on Wikipedia, including at a minimum compliance with Wikipedia's existing policies' support of consensus within process. Balancer 11:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC) I have clarified my stand, please stop making personal remarks. Another time, we will let users like yourself to close AfDs by counting votes and let consensus reign. I am sorry to say, but your actions depict that you are not much knowledgeable with respect to the notability guidelines. Please leave my talk page, I do not wish to continue conversation with you and end up following your circular arguments. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 11:21, 17 February 2007 (UTC) Graduation afd Since you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Graduation (The Suite Life of Zack and Cody episode) as delete, can you delete the other 2 eps that were listed with it? --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 22:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC) Done. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 09:49, 16 February 2007 (UTC) Thanx :) --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 15:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC)