User talk:HiDrNick/Archive 2

Archive 1Archive 2

Query on signature

Hello. Is there any particular reason you do not have a link to either your user or talk pages in your signature as specified by the guideline Wikipedia:Signatures#Internal links? Not sure why I never noticed this before, as I have seen you around for a long time (going back at least to the HeadMouse (talk · contribs) affair). Thanks, Kralizec! (talk) 01:54, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Oops, should be fixed now. I changed my preferences before I started Huggling and must have inadvertently changed it. Thanks for the heads up. Cheers, HiDrNick! 01:57, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
*facepalm* Of course, it doesn't show up as a link here. HiDrNick! 01:59, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
No worries, mate! It was your link-less, black-n-white text sig here at AIV where I noticed. --Kralizec! (talk) 12:52, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Reply to "October 2008"

But I did provide an informative edit summary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.162.12.26 (talk) 02:57, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The warning is a generic one. The content that you're trying to insert into the article needs to be backed up by a reliable source. Wikipedia does not public original research, which is what your assement of the outcome of the debate amounts to. Cheers, HiDrNick! 03:00, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Dude, the French-language leaders debate is very notable and there should be a section on it. Please stop deleting it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.162.12.26 (talk) 03:09, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
By all means, feel free to include a neutrally-worded section about the debate. HiDrNick! 03:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Pangya edit

In case you didn't know, Kagamine Rin and Len ARE both playable characters in the Japanese version of Pangya.

Just because you don't play the japanese version doesn't mean that noboday else does. 202.156.8.11 (talk) 03:41, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, this was just me getting in a hurry. I thought that your edit had the same line repeated twice, which is a quick way to spot a test edit that should be reverted. Now that I've looked again, I see that the character names were different. I've fixed it on the page. Cheers, HiDrNick! 03:48, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Steven N. Samuelian

How is a quote from a local paper vandalism? You do not even live in fresno. Exactly what is wrong with the information about the blow up doll? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.210.163.71 (talk) 03:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey all I ask is you check my source on references and determine if it is vandalism. This is a crooked politician who now peddles his influence. Do you support that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.210.163.71 (talk) 03:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

If you would research this creep you would find that you need to apologize to me. Your silence is deafening. 75.210.163.71 (talk) 03:54, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The anecdote about the blow-up doll is totally non sequitur in the middle of an otherwise coherent, neutral paragraph about the scandal. If you want to make a point about radio DJs being jackasses, by all means go do it in the article about shock radio. It has no place in this biography. HiDrNick! 04:03, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

You called it vandalism when it happened. Tried to bar me from wikipedia. This made the local headlines. Samuelian was a local politician.. You owe me an apology for the vandalism charge. We can have a disagreement about content for a page. I am expecting an apology. 75.210.163.71 (talk) 04:11, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

You called me a vandal when all I did was edit a page with proper sources. Is this how you became senior wikipedia staff? False accusations and misstatements? I would appreciate an answer before I complain about you to even more senior staff (geekier) 75.210.163.71 (talk) 04:18, 2 October 2008 (UTC) I think there can be a happy medium between people who have a grudge against the former assemblyman and those who want to turn it into a promo piece for California Consulting. Your guidance would be appreciatedFlackthehack2008 (talk) 02:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC) Dr. Nick, I reverted the Samuelian page to a previous wikipedia editor. Joshcc continues to turn Steve Samuelian's page into a promo for her boss!!!I thought it was against the rules to edit your own page —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flackthehack2008 (talk • contribs) 00:54, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

You really should check talk page histories

Ami Llort is at final warning since yesterday for this identical vandalism: I've reported at AIV. I also reported at ANI, because this seems to be a part of a pattern hoax ... probably 4chan or something.—Kww(talk) 03:44, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I've seen a lot of that tonight, but there's not much else to do other than revert and ignore. Perhaps you have put in a request for semi-protect. Cheers, HiDrNick! 03:52, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
I started at ANI because it looks to me like someone is trying to get the hoax to propagate. The results of doing a search for "Gerard Damiano" and "Beverly Hills Chihuahua" are already a bit frightening.—Kww(talk) 03:55, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Good lord, man! How are you not an administrator? HiDrNick! 03:57, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Hell, try nominating me. I think it would be fun to see how the RFA went, and, on the off chance I actually got it, it would make my day-to-day work easier.—Kww(talk) 04:03, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Just did it. Now we'll see how many friends and how many enemies I've made over the last couple of years.—Kww(talk) 05:18, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

You got a thank you card!

All is for the best, in this, the best of all possible worlds

One of the advantages of not having many supporters at your RFA is that there are fewer people to thank at the end. Thanks for your support and your willingness to look at my complete record. I'm going to try to interpret this resounding defeat as a statement that I should choose my words more carefully in the future, and remember that every statement I make gets recorded forever, just waiting to get carefully transcribed onto my next RFA. I would go insane if I believed that it was repudiation of what I truly meant: that no editor should consciously and willfully ignore guidelines and policies, and editors that repeatedly do so should not be rewarded for or supported in doing so.

I'm sure I'll get back to full speed editing soone, because, after all, , every day, and in every way, I am getting better and better.—Kww(talk) 05:18, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Steven N. Samuelian still

Wikipedia's NPOV fundamental principle and cornerstone is being disgraced by Flackthehack2008. Wikipedia is a site that one is to use to receive viable and reliable information. That is why wikipedia is respected. Flackthehack2008 is using the wikipedia site as a way to carry on a mean spritied vendetta against Steve Samuelian and should be sanctioned. There is a simple fact that I would like to point out, Dr. Nick. If you go back to the history of Flackthehack2008 as I have, you will find that he has only posted negative information about Steve Samuelian. In fact, a search revealed that he has never posted about any other topic, issue, or item other that Steve Samuelian. It is very clear that Flackthehack2008 has a personal agenda. Josh (talk) 23:26, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the stray insertions of the allegations that have spilled over into other articles, and removed the unsourced statements from the article in question. I'll also remind the editor of the importance of our neutrality policies. I hope this helps; let me know if there's anything I missed. Cheers, HiDrNick! 00:22, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Dr.Nick I would point out that joshcc's only contributions are in favor of Steve Samuelian. I thought it was against the rules to edit your own site. Your guidance would be appreciated.Flackthehack2008 (talk) 08:47, 24 October 2008 (UTC)Dr. Nick just to let you know I am done editing the Steven N. Samuelian site. Please keep an eye on it.Flackthehack2008 (talk) 16:35, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

The conflict of interest guidelines recomend that anyone who has a personal interest in an article that they're editing make that clear on either the article talk page or their own user page, and recuse themselves from editing the article alltogether if they are unable to do so within the bounds of Wikipedia policies. I'll keep the article on my watchlist. HiDrNick! 18:36, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Question on Samuelian deletion

I am responding to the deletion of the Manningben revision made today, October 27th. I added to the California Consulting information and deleted a link to Alan Autry. Please let me know why this was deleted, and if it was unacceptable to add. Thank you. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_N._Samuelian Manningben (talk) 15:32, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Dr.Nick, Manningben has appeared from nowhere just to edit Steve Samuelian's site? I think Samuelian or his staff is editing their own page. I thought that was a violation of wikipedia's policy. A quick look at joshcc's first edit will clarify that they are trying to install a promo piece for their firm. This is an example of the august 25th edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steven_N._Samuelian&oldid=234156357 Flackthehack2008 (talk) 23:40, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Dr. Nick, Hacktheflack is obsessed with the Steve Samuelian site and needs to be blocked because of the point of view prohibition rules of Wikipedia. Everything that I have added was take verbatim from an official resolution passed by the California Legislature. I don't understand how hacktheflack can attempt to say that is unsourced material or does not belong on the page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_N._Samuelian Manningben (talk) 15:32, 31 October 2008 (UTC)


RfA thanks

Hi HiDrNick, and thanks for supporting my successful request for adminship. It was nice to see all the kind comments I got from my supporters and I hope that I will be more useful to the community now that I have the tools again.--Berig (talk) 15:47, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:ANI Elonka ScienceApologist WP:FRINGE

This is some unsolicited advice, in regards to your comments at WP:ANI about Elonka's ban of ScienceApologist. I stumbled across the discussion after I was involved in a discussion with SciApo at WT:ENC. I don't know the history (which I gather includes SciApo, Elonka, WP:FRINGE, various "fringe science" articles, various fringe loonies, ArbCom, maybe you, and $DEITY only knows what else), so I don't have any opinion on whether SciApo deserved the ban. Maybe he did, maybe he didn't. I am not going to get involved in that quagmire. But when your own commentary includes phrases such as "banhammer" and an apparently snide "... of course", you don't help your case. It makes you appear immature/emotional. Note that I'm not saying you *are* either of those things; I'm saying your use of such phrases make you *appear* that way to others. If you want people to consider your statements as fairly as possible, I would suggest being as polite, as professional, and as unemotional as possible. As the saying goes, "You'll catch more flies with honey than vinegar". · My advice is completely without obligation, of course, but I think you'll find using it gives you better results. · Hope this helps, and happy editing! —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 04:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the note, and I will take your advice in the spirit in which it was intended. There is, obviously, some history here, and the whole situation gets me a little riled up, but you are right after all. I'm just glad that some discussion is taking place, although I doubt that any suitable remedy will actually be found. Oh well. HiDrNick! 04:55, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the support!

Thanks for supporting my successful Rfa! Hope to work with you more in the future!--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 19:50, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

RSM Bentley Jennison

I think that this 'article' is really an advert: RSM Bentley Jennison. What should I do? Nominate for deletion, add 'citation needed' or something else? Thanks. Matt Adore (talk) 11:57, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I tagged the page for speedy deletion. An administrator will review the article to ensure that it really is blantant advertising and then delete it without the need for AfD. HiDrNick! 12:04, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. It has since been edited and, although far less of an advert than before as mentioned by the editor, it is now very poorly written. I will try to have a look at it at some point. Matt Adore (talk) 14:02, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

thank you

My RFA passed today at 150/48/6. I wanted to thank you for weighing in on the RFA--I will do everything I can to uphold the policies of this site, and try to make it a better place. All the comments, questions, and in particular the opposes I plan to work on and learn from, so that I can hopefully always do the right thing with the huge trust given to me. rootology (C)(T) 08:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Much obliged

Exactly the kinda thing I would've done if I wasn't, y'know. Involved a bit ;p –xenotalk 19:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Heh, no worries. I'm all for discussion and not a vote, but let's keep it about the candidacy, shall we? HiDrNick! 19:42, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Belated RfA thankspam

You participated in my atrocious RfA. I never said thank you, so I wanted to do so. Bushcarrot (talk) 02:54, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your reminds

I am a newcomer to Wikipedia indeed, while a lot rules here are still unfamiliar to me. I will pay more attention in the future. Thank you very much for your reminds. But, user Paul Siebert deliberately ignored my reference provided and pretended not to see it, I do not think this is a correct attitude. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vulturedroid (talk • contribs)

I understand that disagreeing with other editors can be frustrating at times. Believe me, I do it all the time. Still, though, Paul Siebert puts a lot of time into working on the wiki, as do you, and I find that it helps to assume good faith of the other editors you don't agree with. I'm confident that you can work out a compromise if you both keep in mind that the other one is only working to make Wikipedia better. HiDrNick! 04:13, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for catching my test edit

Hi thanks for catching my test edit. You beat me to my own self-revert. As it happens I am testing Google Chrome browser with a Javascript extension and it seems to have the embarrassing side-effect of treating the Show changes button as a Save page! I will now test further in a Sandbox. -Test84user (talk) 00:05, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Ha! No worries. I use Chrome for my everyday browsing, but still have to fire up the Firefox to edit Wiki. Too many extensions I just can't get working in Chrome. Good luck, HiDrNick! 00:08, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Frank Lorenzo

I realize you might not want to get bogged down with a biased editor, but you want to know that Airguy (talk · contribs) reverted your edit (the fourth or so revert to the article) and is still pushing his POV. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 00:06, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll look into it. HiDrNick! 00:09, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
The more I see, the more problematic the entire situation is. There are credible accusations of sockpuppetry going back months, a series of IP edits that show the same bias, and lots of comments on the talk page about the obvious bias of certain pro-Frank edits. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 00:20, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Airguy

HiDrNick - i was told by another editor to cite that quote. I did so, and he reversed it saying the cite was not specific enough. I then got the specific site, so that it would not be reversed again. Please advise if this is not correct procedure. I am simply trying to follow the other person's request for a cite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Airguy (talk • contribs)

When you find yourself in a situation where you are frequently undoing other users' edits, you need to step back and take your concerns to the talk page. Edit waring on the article is a quick way to find your editing privileges removed. Raise your concerns on the talk page and other editors will address them; continued reverting will not advance your point-of-view. HiDrNick! 00:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


Ok, I will follow up on the discussion page next time. I didn't realize that it would be an issue. Thanks for the head's up and sorry to waste your time.

Follow-up: This is most likely the work of a relatively experienced SPA editor. See the list of probable sockpuppets. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 20:17, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks.

Thank you for reverting the vandalism done to my talk page. - Zhang He (talk) 00:50, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Content dispute--response to ANI

Hi Hi, I hope you don't mind if leave you this message privately. I'd prefer not to clutter up the ANI thread with the secondary issue of whether or not my rollbacks constituted abuse. My response to that issue is already several pages long and will get its own space in due course, because enough people, even administrators, are so misunderstanding the circumstances that it may be worth discussing. When I made the protection request, Alison treated the issue too simplistically. I got the impression she thought, "Ho hum, another case of two Wikipedians bickering at each other and making a mess. Standard stuff." The case wasn't like that at all. So to address your question in brief, when we talk about a content dispute, we're talking about two editors, or two sides each comprising perhaps multiple editors, differing on a point of content in an article. If the system works well, consensus is eventually established, aided by guidelines and the facts available, and content stabilizes. Sometimes a compromise is reached and everybody goes away more or less happier than they were before. Other times, the article stabilizes more to one side than the other--that is to say, one side "loses" the dispute. If the "loser" waits two years and then begins to reintroduce the same edits that "lost" before, is this a content dispute, or is this unproductive editing? If the "loser" promises to prevail this time by virtue of "mobilizing" his sympathizers, is this a good faith attempt at article improvement, or vandalism? If the "loser" has a clear and stated purpose of bias--in this case, ethnic bias--does assumption of good faith still hold? At what point does assumption of good faith become suspension of disbelief? After extensive prodding on my part, and only after she took the step of revoking my rollback, Alison tried a turn at entering the discussion. I think she quickly realized that this was futility. Just take a look at Talk:John Vincent Atanasoff. Well, cheers. Robert K S (talk) 13:16, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I understand where you're coming from, believe me. You feel that once Alison warned you to cut it out, she was policy-bound, or honor-bound, or something, not to discipline you until you roll something back again. And "discipline" is a deliberate word choice, because that's how you see it right now. You seem feel like Alison is trying to punish you, and maybe she is, and maybe she's isn't: it doesn't matter, it won't influence the discussion or the outcome.
You refer to "the secondary issue of whether or not my rollbacks constituted abuse". This is the primary issue. If you can bring yourself to realize that your use of rollback in this situation was ill-advised (hint: it was), it will be trivial for you to regain the permission and move on with your wiki-life. Rollback is for edits like "HiDrNick sucks big WANG" and not much else. HiDrNick! 13:35, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I don't think she was policy-bound or honor-bound, nor do I feel like Alison was trying to punish me (though I do think it's clear that she was motivated to revoke the credential out of personal vanity rather than out of administrative responsibility). Your interpretation of the use of rollback is not supported by the rollback policy, and that may be part of the problem. Rollback is an expedient undo to be used when it is absolutely clear that the reversion is a proper one. I appreciate that some editors still aren't seeing that, and that's why I'll put up more on this. The history of facts in the case supports my exercise of judgment: this was clear ethnic boosterism vandalism. Cheers, Robert K S (talk) 13:48, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry, as long as you maintain that position, you are unlikely to have the permission restored. Best, HiDrNick! 13:50, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
I see where you're coming from, and I hope to persuade you otherwise, or at least temper what you have to admit is a knee-jerk reaction that doesn't include all the facts. It's quickness to judgment and intransigence of understanding on the part of administration that is at the root of all of this. Thanks the same, Robert K S (talk) 13:55, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


Vintagekits

Just for the record, I am not accusing you in this edit [1], but I have been about Wikipedia long enough to know when something is just not smeling quite right. By the way congratulations on your daughter, "I had a baby girl about a year ago" Not only becoming a father, but making medical history too ;-) Giano (talk) 17:55, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

No offense taken, of course. Please do keep up the good work. HiDrNick! 19:43, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikidads kick back

So almost a year old now? You're fairly close to the stage where you get to clean coins out of your CD-ROM tray. Have fun! –xenotalk 19:45, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Not at a year, that comes at 18 months. I love them at a that age, they smile, toddle about and hold your hand. Then they learn to speak and it's "Dadda" and more smiles. Then they learn to comprehend and asnwer back and it all goes horribly wrong for the next 18 years. Enjoy it while you can. Giano (talk) 19:52, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, she's just a little over a year old now. Many new teeth coming in at once, and she has finally started toddling. She sleeps like a rock, too, always has. She finds pennies on the floor though like a bloodhound, although at the moment, they go straight into her mouth, or as we think of it around the house, the choking hole. HiDrNick! 19:56, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, mine was an early bloomer I guess =) And yes, he still puts coins in his mouth, despite my best efforts to teach him that they are not food. –xenotalk 19:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Oh that's so nice; I wish I could have a few more - just for the first three years. Mind you. we had one that never slept (at all) for 18 months, it became very hard to keep my sweet nature.Giano (talk) 20:01, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
I too find myself getting a little frustrated when trying to put him to sleep and he's doing all kinds of foolishness to keep himself awake. (He just turned 2). –xenotalk 20:15, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
When he gets to 17, you will find yourself doing all sorts of frustrated things to get him awake. Giano (talk) 20:41, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

RFA spam

Thank you for participating in WP:Requests for adminship/Kww 3
Sometimes, being turned back at the door isn't such a bad thing
—Kww(talk) 18:14, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Happy Halloween!

File:Halloween Hush Puppies.jpg
Photograph of my Halloween-themed Hush Puppies plush basset hounds in my bedroom.

As Halloween is my favorite holiday, I just wanted to wish those Wikipedians who have been nice enough to give me a barnstar or smile at me, supportive enough to agree with me, etc., a Happy Halloween! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 20:20, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

And to you too. I know you're not too keen on your previous username anymore, but I always enjoyed it; I thought it was particularly festive.  :) Cheers, HiDrNick! 20:57, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Just not keen on using it here, unfortunately. Anyway, have a good one! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 21:20, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop

As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker (talk) 08:10, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Happy Thanksgiving!

Happy Thanksgiving!

I just wanted to wish those Wikipedians who have been nice enough to give me a barnstar or smile at me, supportive enough to agree with me, etc., a Happy Thanksgiving! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 19:21, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

A NobodyMy talk is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

To those who make Good Arguments, who are appreciative, or supportive. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 16:54, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Community de-Adminship - finalization poll for the CDA proposal

You are recieving this notice as you have participated in the Admin Recall discussion pages.

A poll was held on fourteen proposals, and closed on 16th November 2009. Only one proposal gained majority support - community de-adminship - and this proposal is now being finessed into a draft RFC Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC, which, if adopted, will create a new process.

After tolling up the votes within the revision proposals for CDA, it emerged that proposal 5.4 had the most support, but elements of that support remained unclear, and various comments throughout the polls needed consideration.

A finalisation poll (intended, if possible, to be one last poll before finalising the CDA proposal) has been run to;

  • gather opinion on the 'consensus margin' (what percentages, if any, have the most support) and

VPC

— raekyT 23:43, 1 August 2010 (UTC)