User talk:Nick/Archive13

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

Archives

Archives 1 to 16 are somewhat arbitrary Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 From Archive 17 onwards, each archive spans one year Archive 17 (2017) Archive 18 (2018) Archive 19 (2019) Archive 20 (2020) Archive 21 (2021) Archive 22 (2022) Archive 23 (2023) Archive 24 (2024)

Templates used script (2)

importScript('User:Splarka/temused.js')

That should do it. Currently it creates an extra tab. That could pretty easily be switched to a toolbox link, if you desire. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:58, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Genova and Dimirov article deleted

What is wrong and appears advertising to you in the following few sentences about the Genova and Dimitrov piano duo, that made you to delete the article and block my user account, which has nothing in common with Liuben: Genova & Dimitrov is a German piano duo.
The duo consists of Aglika Genova (born June 29, 1971) and Liuben Dimitrov (born October 12, 1969) and appears worldwide both at two pianos and at one piano four-handed with recital programmes, as well as with orchestra. Aglika and Liuben released CD recodings on cpo Classics.

Since the fall of 2008, Genova and Dimitrov became Associate Professors of the Hannover State Academy of Music and Theatre and lead the special class for piano duo performance.

Piano4ever —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.131.92.116 (talk) 23:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you would like to have an article on Wikipedia, you will need to ask at deletion review - your past attempts at creating an article have consisted of blatant advertisements and copyright theft, you also appear to have a conflict of interest, so if the duo (I'm assuming you're part of the duo or involved with them in some way) wish to be considered for an article, they will need to go through the proper processes, in the first instance, you're going to need to request an editor here write an article on Genova & Dimitrov before submitting it to the deletion review process (or contacting all the administrator involved with the deletion of the existing articles). You can request someone write an article about you by visiting Wikipedia:Requested articles. Please don't create any further accounts to post your article either. Nick (talk) 00:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Nick - I should have realised - "normal" CSD complainers aren't that persistent jimfbleak (talk) 06:56, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kanonkas

Thank you for voting in my recent successfully closed RfA! --Kanonkas :  Talk  18:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of Ikariam

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Ikariam, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Ikariam is an article about a certain website, blog, forum, or other web content that does not assert the importance or significance of that web location. Please read our criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 7 under Articles, as well as notability guidelines for websites. Please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources which verify their content.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Ikariam, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 13:20, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thank you

My RFA passed today at 150/48/6. I wanted to thank you for weighing in, and I wanted to let you know I appreciated all of the comments, advice, criticism, and seriously took it all to heart this past week. I'll do my absolute best to not let any of you down with the incredible trust given me today. rootology (C)(T) 08:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Ikariam

I have nominated Ikariam, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ikariam. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Aervanath (talk) 17:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Goodwin

My edit, as always, was in good faith. Please do not assume vandalism and read the edit history where you will see I have raised the issue on the article's Talk Page leaky_caldron (talk) 18:09, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We do not and never have used emotive language in articles - he's a banker, not a greedy banker or a useless banker etc etc - that's tabloid journalism, we're an encyclopedia. It's also vital we don't make such libellous statements on Wikipedia per our well known BLP policies. Nick (talk) 18:12, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

nevertheless, my edit and attempt to raise the matter through the article's talk page, were in good faith and not vandalism as you immediately assumed. I would expect a higher standard from an Admin leaky_caldron (talk) 18:15, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you care to read my edit summary, I never suggested you were responsible for the vandalism, simply that I was removing vandalism in my edit. Nick (talk) 18:17, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

and if you'd read the edit history and talk page you would have seen that it was not vandalism at all, but a well intentioned edit entered in good faith. I am very annoyed that you still refer to this as vandalism despite the wealth of evidence that it was inserted in good faith leaky_caldron (talk) 18:23, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Message

Thanks mate for that. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 23:36, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry message

This was a very well-presented message. It gets the point across without being bitey, patronizing, or disrespectful. I'm glad there are administrators like you that take the time to follow the spirit of WP:CIVIL, not just the letter! -kotra (talk) 21:17, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Blame LOLiver"

I've just replied to your message on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#.22Blame__LOLiver.22, the hacker has just come back. See here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Removed_the_resolved_tag. Thought you might want to be informed. Control-alt-delete ★ user◾talk◾favs 22:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I couldn't help in this case, I wasn't online at the time. I'm sure you already know, but in case you don't, the template that was vandalised was fixed by another administrator and is now protected to ensure further vandalism cannot occur. Thanks for the heads up though. Nick (talk) 09:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No worries ;) Control-alt-delete ★ user◾talk◾favs 17:41, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RFA thanks

My RFA passed today at 61/5/4. Thanks for participating in my RFA. I appreciate all the comments I received and will endeavor to justify the trust the WP community has placed in me. Have a nice day. :-) AdjustShift (talk) 21:10, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All done!

All done! --Mixwell!^Talk.css}} 18:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I think you might have a stray bit of code (.css}}) floating about in your signature though. Nick (talk) 18:33, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed! --Mixwell!^Talk 18:37, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jerly Lyngdoh

Sir, why is this article not eligible for speedy deletion? I agree the subject itself is notable, but the page as it stands does not indicate why its subject is important or significant, as per CSD:A7, so would appear to me to be qualified. ShakingSpirit^talk 20:05, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the subject is notable, why the interest in deletion ? Nick (talk) 20:22, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Islamist terrorists

Hi, if this category was deleted, shouldn't it be empty? Folk 55 (talk) 03:38, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It will be emptied when a bot gets round to removing the category from all the articles it is currently used on. There's too many articles to manually remove the categories that were deleted yesterday, so it'll need a bot, but things are a little more complicated because some of the sub categories were moved into the Terrorism category (those categories that listed people convicted or charged/indicted on terrorism offences). Nick (talk) 09:16, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Terrorists

A decisive and brave closure, well done. -- PBS (talk) 13:39, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Before going to DRV, I figured I would discuss this with you here. First of all, at the most basic level I count 11 keeps and 8 deletes. Of course, CfD is not a vote, so I won't dwell on that. In essence, all of the delete rationales (and your own closure) boil down to delete the category because it can be misused. Many categories have the potential to be misused, this does not mean we should delete them. Similarly, we do not delete articles on controversial people or topics simply because they are likely to attract NPOV problems and edit wars.

The claim was repeatedly made by those !voting delete that there is no "watertight" definition of terrorist. This is true, but there is also no "watertight" definition of athlete (what about someone who plays tennis on the weekends with his wife?) The fact of the matter is that, in many cases, there is consensus among reliable published sources about whether or not someone is a terrorist. Political science journal, newspapers worldwide (including in the Islamic world), and governments have all labeled people like Bin Laden terrorists. There is absolutely no debate among respectable scholars about this characterization (whatever the case may be on the "arab street"). Yes, there are borderline cases, but that doesn't mean there is a lack of clear cases.

In short, scholars worldwide devote considerable attention to the study of terrorism and terrorists. There is a broad consensus among these scholars in many cases. As I said in the discussion, I am not aware of a single reliable source that says bin Laden is not a terrorist. Deleting the category is fundamentally unhelpful and unnecessary, and I hope you will reconsider your decision. If not, I'm sorry to have to challenge you at DRV, but I feel that it would be appropriate to take the matter there. Cool3 (talk) 03:15, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion debate was fairly evenly balanced in terms of vote counting, but sadly a couple of those who commentated decided to make silly arguments, such as suggesting it was a bad faith nom, or using the rationale by the nominator as a reason to keep the categories - those added nothing to the debate, they gave no good reason why the categories should have been kept - and ultimately were not given the same weight as the other comments. I understand the concern that it was a bad faith nomination, but I have no evidence that Sceptre nominated the categories for any other reason than concern that they are problematic.

The most persuasive argument to keep the categories was yours, some of the other keep comments admitted problems and some of the delete comments suggested methods of improvement, such as the continued use of the Category:People convicted on terrorism charges and Category:People imprisoned on charges of terrorism which is fine and should be further encouraged.

I understand the argument you make, that scholars agree the definition of a terrorist, but the problem occurs when that definition is applied to an individual, some would agree that they fit the definition that scholars agree upon, and others would disagree. There are further problems, as argued in the deletion, that in applying a scholary definition of the term terrorist to an individual, there is original research. The categories as they existed when deleted provided no definitive definition of what defines a terrorist and unless the same scholars that are used to provide a definition of a terrorist are also used to determine which individuals would fall under the term terrorist, then there is always going to be an unacceptable degree of original research in deciding whether or not to place an individual in a category such as Category:Terrorists. I suggested in my closure that instead of using a catch all and vague category such as Category:Terrorists, we categorise individuals under more accurate categories that require no original research, such as Category:Persons convicted of terrorism offences in the USA, Category:Persons indicted of terrorism offences in the USA. Nick (talk) 11:33, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, it seems that Category:Canadian terrorists was properly deleted, but the sub-cat Category:Quebec terrorists was accidentally left behind. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 14:54, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up - it seems to have been improperly categorised which is why it didn't appear in any of the other categories that were emptied then deleted. It's currently queued up for emptying then deletion. Nick (talk) 16:19, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American right wing terrorists and Category:American left wing terrorists were also accidentally left behind. Thanks. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 02:29, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, yet another couple of categories that weren't correctly categorised, if you spot anymore, drop me a note. Thanks. Nick (talk) 08:56, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A few more... thanks. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 19:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:North Korean terrorists
• Category:Christian terrorists
• Category:Italian right-wing terrorists
• Category:Italian left-wing terrorists
• Category:American Islamic terrorists
• Category:Sri Lankan Sinhala terrorists

re:CSD Tagging

Hi, thanks for the note. I like to do my best, so constructive criticism is always welcome :). Could you please link me to the article(s) though. Cheers - Kingpin^13 (talk) 15:35, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They have been deleted, but not as vandalism - the main examples were Animalz Like Petz and HaX0Rzz which weren't specifically vandalism - one was more akin to a test page and the other was more incomprehensible/patent nonsense. The vast majority of your tagging is very accurate however. Nick (talk) 15:52, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Animalz Like Petz was deleted as g3 by Closedmouth, but not being able to remember the content of these two pages it's hard for me to say anything clever ;)... Lets see.... Animalz Like Petz was something made up. So the reason I used g3 (when I tagged it) was because of misinformation (although fair enough to say that the g3 warning is a bit BITEy, and a test warn or similar would have been better). And I recall that HaX0Rzz had very bad spelling (not really a suitable g1) but other then that I can't remember on that one. I do recall that after two g3 in-a-row I felt like there was probably a mistake ;). Anyway, thanks for the note - Kingpin^13 (talk) 16:04, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vandal

Thought I'd bring it to your attention that 71.145.166.33 is blanking people's user pages, talk pages, and is persistently vandalizing articles. Every time someone warns him, he blanks his own talkpage. Please block this user. Δnnuit Cœptis 19:24, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked this user for 48 hours - can't do much more as they're on an IP address, if you spot this user editing from a different IP address in the same range, please contact me again and I'll see what I can do. Nick (talk) 19:50, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:71.145.166.33

Does this merit a block extension? --Rrburke^(talk) 20:07, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, it would if it was a registered account, but it's an IP address that could easily be reassigned, and we don't want any user that is assigned the new IP address caught up in a longer block. I've semi-protected the talk page for pretty much the duration of the block though. Nick (talk) 20:27, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zapped Category:Chechen terrorists

Just a quick heads up, I deleted Category:Chechen terrorists, presuming you forgot to zap it along with the other terrorist categories you got (presumably from Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_April_27#Category:Terrorists). Anyway, if this was a mistake on my part, feel free to undo it. Cheers, =) --slakr^\ talk / 23:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zebruh

Two years ago you blocked Zebruh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for "POV and legal problems".[1] FYI, I just blocked Mikutyan (talk · contribs) as a block evading account of the same user. He has been recreating LS Studio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), an article originally created by Zebruh.   Will Beback  talk  05:17, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

For participating in my RFA. Even though it was a compelte and utter failure, I would like to thank you for the advice. I hope that I will be better for my next RFA. Thanks, Abce2|AccessDenied 22:58, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Nuvola

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Nuvola. 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. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Water is wet

"it's one of those things that's common knowledge and doesn't require a citation, just like water is wet and so on" Jan. 24

Have you been having a lot of success with "water is wet"-type facts? There is a page in Wikipedia where I added a fact like that, several times, and it would be deleted within 5 - 10 minutes. Finally I added it again, with a citation. It still got deleted because the "guardians" of that page happen not to like that particular fact. So, citation or no, out it goes.

The heck with it.

Varlaam (talk) 15:44, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Grue/ethics

Hi. Would you please consider commenting at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Grue/ethics. The page contains content related to yourself. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Location map Scotland

This doesn't get much vandalism. Please undo your lock at least reduce it to established editors can edit it. Nobody has been able to add a higher quality svg map because you locked it. Dr. Blofeld ^White cat 09:39, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've reduced the protection level at the moment, but the protection may need to be reinstated if there are further instances of vandalism affecting templates like location maps. Nick (talk) 11:08, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted Article: Cribbar

Jeez, give me a bit of time to complete the article. You deleted it about 20 seconds after it's creation!! At least give a warning that you're going to delete it unless I provide a good reason not too! I'm going to restart it and please give me more than 20 seconds to complete it!! Fletch 2002 (talk) 16:31, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adolf_Kurrein article

I realised that the creator had re-created this deleted article after I had modified it slightly - only after that did I see that you had deleted it!

However, the information came from kurrein The Jewish Encyclopedia, which is where the www.kurrein.com website got their information from.

The Jewish Encyclopedia is in the Public Domain (it was printed 1901-1906), and so usign text from it is acceptable - and in fact their is a notice at the bottom of the article acknowledging this as a source of information.

My understanding is that if it is PD, then it can be copied as-is, especially as the source is being openly acknowledge on the article. Am I correct in this thinking? As far as I am aware, there is nowhere in the world where this publication (which is now 103 years old!) is not in PD.

I look forward to hearing from you to clarify this misunderstanding! I should point out that I knew nothing about Herr Kurrein before I came across this article by chance, and personally I don't care if it's in Wikipedia or not (it's in the German wikipedia, as is also ackowledged on the article page) - but I do want to get to know the legalities better! This is a learning opportunity for me.

They say that you learn a new thing every day - I must be doing a hell of a lot of catching up on all the days when I learnt nothing, as I learn lots every day - not just from the articles on Wikipedia, but from other editors helping me to understand how to be a better editor - I hope you can help me with this too!

Regards, -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 17:39, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article is perfectly fine, I'm pretty certain when I deleted it, there wasn't the usual Jewish Encyclopedia source template on the page, when it re-appeared it had the template and a quick double check with the potential copyright source soon confirmed it was a straight copy from the Jewish Encyclopedia. There's certainly no problem with using content from there verbatim there, it forms the basis of a large amount of articles here and is in the public domain pretty much everywhere. Nick (talk) 18:00, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, Nick. I'm glad that I understood that bit of Wikipedia at least! -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 18:09, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Norton Canes services (2nd nomination)

I don't believe there was a consensus that was backed up with more than votes and opinions. There is no presented evidence these pages meet wp:notability requirements for individual pages. Just because a handful of very vocal editors FEEL they do, doesn't make a consensus for Keep on an AfD when there is ZERO evidence for individual notability of the MAJORITY of these service center pages. Your closure of this hours after it has been opened I believe to be in error. The majority of these pages can't stand up to an AfD on them individually, and that was the rationale for the bulk AfD to save time. Please explain where you see consensus that is more than just opinion? AfD's need to look at WP policy for inclusion not just look at the opinion of some vocal editors. — raeky ^(talk | edits) 21:43, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In addition not only did a few vocal editors like Kudpung troll (and here and here) for additional vocal editors to quickly flood the page, they resorted to personal attacks and brought everything under the sun unrelated to the AfD they could in, including insulting me based on my nationality and ignorance of things in UK. I'm definitely going to have to protest this closure and open a topic on Wikipedia:Deletion review if you continue with the closure just HOURS after it was opened based solely on a vocal group of editors that have no policy or evidence to back up their position that these service stations deserve their OWN page and not just general pages for them as a whole. — raeky ^(talk | edits) 21:58, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In addition not only was there a User_talk:Nev1#AfD_all_UK_Motorway_service_Station concentrated effort to derail the discussion, there was clearly personal attacks being said about me here. Even talk of blocking me for being an idiot when there is clearly an issue with notability of individual pages for these. — raeky ^(talk | edits) 22:08, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can confirm that the majority of these pages, arguably all of them, meet the requirements laid down at WP:N.

• Significant coverage - there exists no shortage of significant coverage listed in the AfD, articles in major national newspapers in the UK (and upon further investigation, there's widespread coverage on television, on radio, in books and in local press). This criteria is satisfied.
• Reliable sources - the significant coverage is eminently reliable, national newspapers, corporate websites belonging to FTSE listed companies, and in the case of the necessary Transport and Works orders necessary for their construction, these are indexed by HMSO and The Hansard, the official journal of the UK Parliament. This criteria is satisfied.
• Secondary sources - again, the coverage and the reliable sources as listed above come from a mix of primary sources belonging to the companies responsible for the sites, but also from national newspapers which make excellent, reliable secondary sourced. This criteria is satisfied.
• Independent of the subject - this follows with the above criteria, again the comments in the AfD provided no shortage of sources that are independent of the actual service stations and the companies that operate them. This criteria is satisfied.
• Presumption for inclusion - The above criteria being satisfied does not guarantee inclusion and editors can decide that even if the above criteria are met, inclusion should not occur, however in this case, there was a significant majority of contributors to the AfD who believe the articles should be allowed to stand and should not be deleted, therefore this criteria is effectively met by the consensus at the AfD to keep these articles.

I further note, that at Wikipedia:Notability (streets, roads, and highways), and I quote Named bridges and tunnels usually meet WP:N requirements and therefore can have their own articles.. I see absolutely no reason why that should not extend to motorway service stations in the UK given their size, naming, and of course, the fact they would normally meet the general notability criteria.

In short, looking very closely at the arguments, evidence presented and thoroughly looking through policy here as it stands today, I can see that the articles currently meet our notability criteria and under the current policy, are ineligible for deletion without a solid consensus opposed to the presumption of inclusion. I apologise for taking a little time to reply, but it was necessary to provide as detailed a rationale in reply to you as possible. Nick (talk) 22:11, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying there isn't notability of them as a group, but each individual 50+ of them are NOT notable in their OWN right and have not ALL gained Significant coverage in secondary reliable sources independent of the subject. To say so is fallacious at best. — raeky ^(talk | edits) 22:15, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly can't say one way or the other if every article has gained the necessary level of coverage in independent sources, but there's certainly a proportion of the articles you nominated that would pass the notability criteria and are most unlikely ever to pass an AfD, there's nothing to prevent you from picking individual articles and nominating them, one at a time, giving those interested parties a chance to try and demonstrate notability and a closing administrator a much more straightforward job of determining consensus and how each article fairs with the notability policy. If you do decide to do this, please don't nominate all the articles again individually, or nominate the articles you think are problematic all at one time. Nick (talk) 22:28, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was happy to see the AfD closed as it was becoming disruptive. I came here out of curiosity to see if anyone requested clarification on the closure. I am disgusted to see that Raeky characterises Kudpung's edits as trolling and it shows a clear lack of understanding of the term. Kudpung notified Jeni who has edited articles about motorway service stations before, so it was logical to let her know. As for the note left on my talk page, Kudpung could have had no idea what my stance would be on the matter. Kudpung made a grand total of two edits to the AfD. And yet the editor is characterised as vocal (which is used as a dirty word by Raeky)? Kudpung was a peripheral participant in the discussion and most of his edits were to post neutral messages on the talk pages of the affected articles in an attempt make interested parties aware of the AfD. To characterise such actions as trolling is an assumption of bad faith, pure and simple.

As for the section on my user talk page, if comments such as "I have been working on and off to improve these articles" (by Jeni), "The AfD has certainly motivated me to see what I can do with Knutsford services" (by Malleus Fatuorum), "I'd actually like to see the article for those services on the M61 improved, as they are without doubt the biggest toilet on the planet" (by Parrot of Doom) and "I can understand Raeky's arguments though I may disagree with them" (myself) are attempts to de-rail the discussion then I'm a can of tomato soup. Nev1 (talk) 23:02, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're comments wasn't unhelpful, but iridescent's are anything but. Definitely mean spirited. As for Kudpung he attempted to drum up a lot of editors to quickly flood the AfD with keeps, and even linking my user page across all the talk pages on the nominated pages. I'm meaning Troll (angling) that definition of troll, not the general internet meaning of trolling, fyi. — raeky ^(talk | edits) 23:38, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What does it matter if the comments weren't useful? It wasn't at the AfD and there was no conspiracy to bring the AfD to an end. Your suggestion is still ridiculous. If that's the definition of "trolling" you're using, I suggest you link it all the time as on Wikipedia most people will think you mean WP:TROLL. Even with that definition, I dispute your claims. It was only fair to notify the users who contributed to the articles, as you've noted before, so there's no problem there. Also, note the neutral tone of the messages:

The current AfD is part of a suggestion to have 50+ Motorway Service Station articles removed from the Wkipedia although many were kept by consensus on earlier AfD debates. See:

• User_talk:Raeky#AfD_Motorway__service_stations
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Norton_Canes_services_(2nd_nomination)

How many of the editors who commented at the AfD had received a message from Kudpung? Nev1 (talk) 23:52, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To quote Raeky, "In addition not only did a few vocal editors like Kudpung troll (and here and here) for additional vocal editors to quickly flood the page". I strongly suggest you retract the word troll, as I'm sure you didn't mean it that way. If you are going to accuse someone have being a troll, you need serious evidence to back you up. Upon first reading that I was extremely tempted to take it to WQA, but that wouldn't achieve anything. For what its worth, any editor worth their salt who remotely contributes to MSA articles will know that I am heavily involved in them, and I'd generally be one of the first users they notify about in such a debate. That isn't trolling, that is using common sense! Putting comments on article talk pages also isn't trolling, and Nev is also an obvious person to inform regarding a debate on a UK place, as he is involved in that area in general. Looking through the contributions of all those involved in the debate, I see no obvious trolling or (the bad form of) canvassing, all seems all above board. Surely if you'd have looked at the previous AfD debates (there are more than one), you'd see there is already a strong consensus to keep these articles, you could have saved all this agro without tarnishing your good name. Apart from todays incident, you look like a good editor with a lot of common sense, but I suspect the opinion of you by many users has now changed.

Thank you Nick for making the common sense call, for which you deserve a medal!Jeni ^(talk) 00:20, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. I'll buy you a curled-up cheese sandwich in Trowell services, if you're ever passing "thru"(sic).  Chzz  ►  01:12, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war/COI on WDTW-FM on ANI

I replied to your post on the "Edit war/COI on WDTW-FM" thread on ANI. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 03:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (File:Pink Floyd - Comfortably Numb.ogg)

⚠

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Parrot of Doom 18:22, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers Nick

Thank you for welcoming me back to Wikipedia.--Sky Attacker the legend reborn... 00:20, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously though, see WP:ENVIRONMENT_LAUGH--Sky Attacker the legend reborn... 10:46, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:215852581 d10c70a42b.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:215852581 d10c70a42b.jpg, 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. FASTILY_sock ^(TALK) 07:20, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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) 08:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (File:MG Rover Corporate Logo.jpg)

⚠

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. ZooFari 02:38, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Template:AbRejected

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

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

Thanks. GrooveDog FOREVER 23:29, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

British Rail Class 321

Hi there, someone on Wikipedia seems to think that it is the right thing to enter the wrong build dates for the British Rail Class 321 Electric Multiple Unit trains. They state incorrectly that these trains were built during the period of 1986-89. This cannot be possible, as during this time, British Rail were building the Class 317/2 Electric Multiple Units (1985-87) and Class 319/0 Electric Multiple Units (1987-88).

The correct build dates for the Class 321 are as follows:

• Class 321/3 were built 1988-90
• Class 321/4 were built 1989-90
• Class 321/9 were built 1991

I also include a reference, it is The Railway Centre 'Technical Data' <http://www.therailwaycentre.com/New%20EMU%20Tech%20Data/EMU_321.html>

Please can you ensure that no-one inputs the incorrect date?

Thanking you in advance.

--Peter Skuce (talk) 09:57, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for supplying further ciatations/reference.

From

--Peter Skuce (talk) 17:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Human Factors Lab

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Human Factors Lab. 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/Human Factors Lab. 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) 01:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More vandalism on AN/TPS-43

I just reverted vandalism on AN/TPS-43 and on talk:AN/TPS-43 both from User:190.147.13.211. This is not within the IP range you specified on the talk page, but I thought I'd let you know anyway. DES ^(talk) 17:36, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks David, I just don't get the fascination that article holds for one or two people. I'll keep an eye out for more vandalism and semi protect if necessary. Nick (talk) 17:45, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request of Jano rajmond

Hello Nick. Jano rajmond (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), whom you have blocked, is requesting to be unblocked. The request for unblock is on hold while waiting for a comment from you. Regards,  Sandstein  11:56, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:British Rail Diesel Loco/Info 66 0

Template:British Rail Diesel Loco/Info 66 0 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:10, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:WPSPAM Jan v Mar 2007.png missing description details

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as File:WPSPAM Jan v Mar 2007.png is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors to make better use of the image, and it will be more informative for readers.

If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:18, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Heligoland User Page 4.JPG missing description details

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as File:Heligoland User Page 4.JPG is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors to make better use of the image, and it will be more informative for readers.

If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:34, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

== File:Heligoland User Page 5.JPG missing description details ==

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as File:Heligoland User Page 5.JPG is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors to make better use of the image, and it will be more informative for readers.

If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:47, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Heligoland User Page 3.JPG missing description details

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as File:Heligoland User Page 3.JPG is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors to make better use of the image, and it will be more informative for readers.

If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:14, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:KB Bandmask.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:KB Bandmask.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:37, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request of User talk:Uga Man

Unblock request on hold, you were involved, so please comment, as I'm not comfortable unblocking without consulting those involved NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 05:55, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:BRPortalframeless

Template:BRPortalframeless has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 15:38, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for merging of Template:Di-no license

Template:Di-no license has been nominated for merging with Template:No copyright information. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. —Gh87 (talk) 23:32, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pagosa Springs Panoramic.gif listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Pagosa Springs Panoramic.gif, 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) 01:52, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image uploads

Thanks for your explanation - makes sense. Could you go through your uploads and paste that explanation on all the images that are like that? It would help future image janitors like me. Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:10, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 January 13 and Talk:British Rail Class 58 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mddkpp (talk • contribs) 02:04, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MSU Interview

Dear Nick,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the communityHERE, where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:

• Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
• Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
• All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
• All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
• The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at [e-mail] (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your nameHERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at [e-mail]. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.11.206.39 (talk) 03:35, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template un-protection request

Hi Nick, please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:US$#Protection.3F when you are able to. Thanks!
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 01:30, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Enoch Powell.GIF

⚠

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

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have questions, please post them here.
• I will automatically remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please ask an admin to turn it off here.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 13:46, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The origin of the legend of the origin of Arbroath smokies

Hi, I'm just looking at Arbroath smokies and notice your rewrite of 2006 added the "local legend" of their origin. It's unsourced — could you shed any light on the origin of the legend? I've added a query to the Talk page there. Alexbrn (talk) 13:30, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Takeaway

Hi Nick, Apparently Takeaway was displeased with some of my edits several years ago. He took revenge by auditing my edits, and reversing many of them. It would take hours to research them all, but it has discouraged me from any further contributions. On some pages about religious leaders, I would add a name, and he would delete it as non-notable, while leaving many other non-notable names on the same page. This is one example of his vindictive selective editing. There are areas in which I have expertise from my doctoral studies in which I made contributions, only to have this person revise them or start an afd. You can see from his page that he was reprimanded in the past. I stated my reason for leaving WP. I have much better use of my free time which I was happy to contribute to WP. I thought those who requested or followed my edits should have a reason for my inactivity. If you could get Takeaway to pledge to stop editing my edits, regardless if he thinks them incorrect (other editors also watch pages), then I would agree to take down my reference to him. รัก-ไทย (talk) 14:07, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is asking too much to leave my page as I edited until the issue is resolved? รัก-ไทย (talk) 14:14, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In a show of friendship and co-operation, could you possibly leave it blanked at the moment, and we will see what Takeaway says to the idea that he leaves you and your edits alone. I personally think that's the best approach, that both editors ignore each other and each other's edits on the site, so hopefully Takeaway will agree to that and we can all move on. Nick (talk) 14:44, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have stated several times in the past here on Wikipedia that I have checked up on Rak-Tai's edits because I was concerned about the way he edits. I did not try to hide this fact and admitting it seemed the honest thing to do as I really do believe that editors on Wikipedia should be honest and open about whatever they do. I have interpreted the Wikipedia guidelines such that it is permissible, and even recommended, to monitor suspect editors as is stated in WP:R Van. I have only in a few cases reverted his countless edits, there where I thought it was necessary due to blatant COI issues (which I can prove) and due to his censorship of legitimate information that didn't suit his taste or needs (see for instance his edit warring on the Pattaya article). Rak-Tai has dropped several hints as to who he is in reality, but then again denies his true identity in other posts because COI guidelines forbid him to be that person (if need be, I can provide difs but that would entail outing him). In doing that, one can only come to the conclusion that he sees no problem in lying to his co-editors here on Wikipedia.

As to Rak-Tai's message above, where he accuses me of selective editing as a sign of me harassing him, I only deleted that one name because it was made clear during an AfD that that one name that he kept adding to many different articles here on Wikipedia was non-notable (see List of Protestant missionaries in India, revision as of 16:27, 25 June 2012). As to the other names that I didn't remove, I had no way of knowing if these people were or weren't notable so I left them in place. For continually adding this particular non-notable person to articles and lists, he was already warned back in December 2009 by others to stop doing that, and again in 2010. Seeing how he operates, he will probably say that these people were in cahoots with me. I can only state that I do not gang up on people and, unlike Rak-Tai himself, I do not use meat puppets and/or sock puppets to further my goals on Wikipedia (note his "concerned neighbours" in Akron coming to the rescue during an AfD).

He seems intent on accusing me of being vindictive. It seems to me that if someone is vindictive, it would be him. Why else would he post nasty and unproven accusations about me? Not only once but several times over the past 3 years, and not only on his user page but also on my talk page as well as during discussions on articles and at the AfD that I had started on an article he had written where the only sources and references provided were all self-published or completely unrelated to the subject. In this he is also hypocritical to the extreme because he has himself often deleted content which he judged as being badly referenced (see for instance Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deeper Christian Life Ministry, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mario_Kleff and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skyline Church).

I had wished that this whole issue didn't have to come this far as I had hoped that he would amend his ways here on Wikipedia after discovering that his biased edits wouldn't be tolerated here. Unfortunately, more than 2 years after our first run-in, he still persists in bending the truth. All this takes up much of my time, time that I could have spent much more productively elsewhere.

I also do not understand why Rak-Tai chose to reply here instead of at the ANI page. - Takeaway (talk) 08:42, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nick, I suspected that you would get an answer that would further disparage my contributions. This is additional proof that he monitored my edits and that it is senseless to reason with some people. And it is also senseless for me to make any new contributions knowing that someone is looking over my shoulder. Sorry to have wasted your time. You are an excellent administrator, and I will respect your wise judgment. รัก-ไทย (talk) 12:07, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Finally! - Takeaway (talk) 10:11, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nick, Still no assurance from Takeaway that he would stop monitoring my edits. I have added my note again. Perhaps you could get him to agree to leave me alone. There are countless pages that need to be edited, but he choses to monitor me out of revenge for earlier edits with which he took issue. รัก-ไทย (talk) 10:47, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John Call Cook

Hello Nick, thanks for talking to CACook7 regarding the John Call Cook issue. You said at his talk page that you needed to understand the redirect issue. In order not to antagonize CACook7 any further I'll write here instead of at his talk page; if you feel he should be informed of this comment, please either do so yourself or tell me and I'll drop him a line.

From what I understand, CACook7 feels the article on John Call Cook should ideally be at John C. Cook; that place is currently occupied by unreladed John Calhoun Cook. CACook then deemed it fair that neither article should have pride of place, and he performed a cut and paste move of Calhoun to John Calhoun Cook while turning John C. Cook into a disambiguation page. I reverted that to maintain the integrity of the page histories and because I wasn't (and by now am even less) convinced that Calhoun shouldn't be considered the primary topic for John C. Cook: [2], [3]. CACook also created a duplicate disambiguation page at John C Cook and redirects from J. C. Cook and J C Cook to John Call Cook. I redirected John C Cook to John C. Cook and tagged the other two redirects for deletion because I felt that they might be more misleading than helpful; in fact J. C. Cook has incoming links that are meant for a football coach with the same initials. On advice of Thryduulf at the deletion discussion they'll probably be retargeted to Cook (surname)#J.

To make matters worse, CACook and I had interacted at the IRC help channel #wikipedia-en-help ^connect where he apparently felt antagonized by me, strongly objected to me copyediting his article (not because of what I changed but because by editing the article I "wasn't giving him a chance" to make it the best possible article himself), and ultimately accused me of lying because at that time I didn't have much of an opinion on whether Calhoun should be the primary topic for John C. Cook. I still don't quite understand why CACook7 felt my stance was aggressive, but by now I accept I should give him a wide berth to prevent further drama. Even those of my edits I considered the most obviously innocent are seen as either stupidly misguided or actively malicious.

I'd be grateful for some advice. Should I simply remove those articles and redirects from my watchlist and disengage entirely, or is it appropriate for me to continue to edit them, calmly explaining my edits in hopes of reaching some kind of common ground? I don't doubt what CACook7 whould prefer, but with the exception of the initial copyediting, all my edits to date addressed issues where I felt that CACook7's edits were harmful - not deliberately so, but through inexperience. Again, thank you for taking the time to look at this mess. Huon (talk) 03:06, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

:One other point I wanted to mention is that I have asked at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Physics for comments from uninvolved editors, experienced in this field regarding whether this bio meets WP:PROF or GNG. --_nonsense ferret 12:12, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think after today's edits I'm withdrawing support for cups of tea all round. Quite simply nothere. --_nonsense ferret 17:18, 10 April 2013 (UTC) [reply]

My comments now superseded by further discussion. Not sure if you are watching, but I think the user is trying to contact you on his talkpage - consider this a courtesy talkback on his behalf! --_nonsense ferret 14:52, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Multimedia University of Kenya

Hi

You have deleted an article I am working on on grounds that it is copied from here: http://www.nairobicity.com/entries/multimedia-university-college-kenya

Please note that they have copied the content from here:http://www.mmu.ac.ke which is the Universities main page.

I was laying it out first then re-writing it. Please restore it so that I finish it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sosha (talk • contribs) 11:57, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kiefer block

Hello,

How long is Keifer supposed to be blocked? It reads indefinite, but I am assuming it will be reverted by you after some time, right?

Thanks, TheOriginalSoni (talk) 00:25, 19 April 2013 (UTC) [Talkback please!][reply]

Kiefer Block

Are you planning on offering an explanation? Most administrators who aren't abusing their tools don't clear a talk page and place an unexplained indef block notice. Ryan Vesey 00:25, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't appreciate the accusation that I'm abusing my tools. There's an issue with disruptive editing, there's an additional issue with Kiefer allegedly outing an individual on the talk page (with edits awaiting oversight, requested by the individual concerned) which is why I've cleared it and prevented talk page access. It does, sadly, make things much more difficult in communicating with Kiefer and gaining the necessary assurances which would permit unblocking. If you don't agree with any part of the action I've taken, you're free to revert some or all of it however.

I don't really see what else could be done with such an extensive history of disruptive editing and previous indefinite blocks, a short block really isn't going to prevent any more of the sort of disruptive behaviour, as far as I can see (I could well be wrong). Nick (talk) 00:34, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My message would have been unnecessary had you given a block rationale. I'm unsure why you blanked his talk page, so I restored it. Your initial block threat was not in line with policy and I'd be more upset with the block if you hadn't claimed he outed someone. It would have looked a lot better had you noted that in the block summary or the note on his talk page, we have a template for doing that you know. Can you restore talk page access so he can request an unblock? Per our blocking policy, "editing of the user's talk page should be disabled only in the case of continued abuse of the talk page" (referring to continued abuse after the block). Ryan Vesey 00:59, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The block rationale was disruptive editing, I don't believe screaming OUTING in block summaries, in edit summaries and the like is necessarily a good idea, especially when it's not entirely clear cut. I have traditionally preferred a low key approach to this sort of thing. I'll let Kiefer edit his talk page on the understanding that access will likely be revoked if he discusses any editor in such a way as to risk outing them. Nick (talk) 01:05, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I sent you an email. Ryan Vesey 01:10, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't appreciate it then don't abuse your tools. Malleus Fatuorum 01:12, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of User:AutomaticStrikeout's page

Did the user contact you and ask you to delete the page? Given that the user has been highly active for a while and has a pretty good discussion going on about RFB's I don't think its appropriate to delete the userpage. Protecting it would be better but even that isn't really necessary. Kumioko (talk) 01:37, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't deleted. Ryan Vesey 01:39, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Noted thanks. It seems to be back now. Kumioko (talk) 01:42, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was not deleted. The page deleted was User_talk:Automatic Strikeout (note the space) TheOriginalSoni (talk) 02:05, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh ok got it thanks. That must have been it. Kumioko (talk) 02:31, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kiefer block revision deletion

Hey, Nick, what were you trying to remove in your revision deletions of Kiefer's talk page, and why did you remove the user name and edit summary? In this diff in particular I can't see anything wrong, and I don't think it's a good idea to have revisions of an indefblocked user deleted without reason. What's going on? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 02:28, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That one doesn't make sense to me, either, but the others I've looked at (and I don't know if I've looked at all of them) make sense if you agree with Nick's reasoning, and I'm not expressing an opinion on that one because I haven't probed the history of the issue.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:36, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If his reasoning is as I understand it, he missed many revisions. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 03:44, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the revdeleted edit isn't blockworthy outing, none of it was. Even if someone wants to make the argument that using his username incorrectly constitutes outing, a simple warning would have more than sufficed. Ryan Vesey 03:45, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If an admin determines that the outing was intentional, then policy requires an "immediate block."--Bbb23 (talk) 04:17, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm actually legitimately confused though, because in an email Nick let me know that the revdeleted material contained additional material someone could use to discover gwickwire's identity. Ryan Vesey 03:47, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there seems to be little purpose in removing those diffs. Kevin (talk) 02:33, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If those diffs weren't outing, why is he still blocked? Ryan Vesey 02:34, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is that why he was blocked? The block summary says "disruptive editing", which I assumed was the hatting/unhatting of his comment on ASO that I would have asked him nicely to quit if I hadn't been doing dinner, drinks, and bridge. I don't see anything in the revdeleted edits that looks like outing; can someone fill me in? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 02:44, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See Kiefer's talk page for that. Kevin (talk) 02:51, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have, but I still don't see any outing. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 02:53, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neither do I. It seems Nick listened to gwickwire's ranting and went from there. Kevin (talk) 02:56, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can we just unblock and tell him not to edit ASO's talk page? In any case, ASO authorized the collapsing so we can say it's his action by proxy and then it falls within talk page guidelines to collapse it. Ryan Vesey 02:59, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and did so. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:53, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Ryan Vesey 03:56, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've re-revdeled a batch of edits, which should hopefully bring it in line with what Nick intended. This is not any particular sing of approval from me about the propriety of the revdel itself; I don't think it's right, but it's whatever. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 04:21, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You and I must have very different understandings of what Nick was trying to achieve. I'm going to bed.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:24, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bizarre. I had stopped editing Automatic Strikeout's talk page before I was blocked. I had thought of filing a edit-warring complaint before I realized that it was a waste of my time.

At the 3RRNB, you stated you were indefinite blocking me because of my history of disruptive editing. When you returned to [whatever you do here], you changed your story.

The kid with the stupid user name should quit using that account. The kid who complained about renegades running good editors off the site should man-up and name names. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:36, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Random ramblings

I don't necessarily want to say too much, as there are still allegations of a possible outing swirling around, but I volunteered to help an editor who was having trouble, initially, with a talk page being edited against the user's wishes. I would have locked the talk page and perhaps issues a 24 hour block to Kiefer to persisting in editing it against the wishes of the user in question, and there's an issue with a couple of editors effectively tag teaming which would have been dealt with too, but then things got a bit more complicated. When I looked into it and asked Kiefer to stop editing the talk page, I was then informed that a person's initials were being used, ostensibly in contravention of the outing policy, I know it's pretty borderline but I believe it's wise to take a precautionary view and given there was already a request from the editor to Kiefer asking not to be referred to in such a manner, it did seem like a deliberate behaviour rather than an accidental incident, which effectively forced my hand into an indefinite block until something could be done. I rev-deleted edits by Kiefer and the editor in question confirmed that the necessary personal information had been removed, I apologise to Write Keeper, Kevin and particularly the editor who felt they were being outed if the personal information remained after I had tried to delete it. I've since been informed that there's a history surrounding the editor in question, potential outings and there are claims the Arbitration Committee are involved, I had no idea I had stumbled across anything more complex than an editor initially involved in a frankly silly edit war on the talk page of a retired user and later, a rather pointy if not entirely conventional attempt to out, or at least irritate and intimidate another editor. I'm glad that the block has been rescinded, I would hope that the editor who feels they were outed might consider doing something about their identity to make it both more difficult to out them in future and to make it clearer if there is an outing issue, and I would again hope that Kiefer, when asked not to refer to someone by a different name or set of initials, heeds that request. Anyway, thanks to all who have sorted everything out, it wasn't my intention for this to end as messily as it did. Nick (talk) 09:50, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The history of alternating between cookie-plating sweetness and nasty attacks before running away is troublesome, but to call it "borderline" seems to be a personal attack. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:39, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you had heeded the warnings given by myself, others and had refrained, initially from editing a talk page in a way that the user specifically did not want you to do, then making matters much, much worse by calling an editor by a name they did not wish to be called by, none of this would have happened, to try and blame your problematic behaviour on others and to then make allegations of a personal attack is unhelpful. I don't see anything that can be construed as a personal attack above, as I have explained, an allegation was raised that you were in breach of the outing policy and action was taken on that basis. If you disagree that you were in contravention of that policy, that's fine, and whilst I would kind of like to hear why you felt it OK to call an editor by something other than their username when asked not to, that's needlessly causing more trouble in terms of outing, so it's best I don't know. I know it was far from clear what your intentions were and whether you were outing someone or not, but ultimately a better safe than sorry approach is sensible when there's an editor about who claims his real life identity is likely to be discovered owing to the behaviour of another editor. Blocks can be rescinded any time, the trouble that can be caused for editors in the real world cannot.

And I apologise if you felt I ran away, unfortunately I cannot be online 24 hours a day, 7 days a week to deal with any issue, which is why I left specific instructions for any other administrator to do what they felt was right without having to contact me, wait for my thoughts etc. As far as I'm concerned, the matter was referred to the Arbitration Committee by the user concerned and given I seem to have been dragged into something that's more complicated than a one time issue, I'm happy to leave it to others more experienced in the what's all going on to deal with. I consider the issue resolved. You're unblocked, the potentially problematic edits have been removed and in theory, everybody should be now in a position to move on. Nick (talk) 11:21, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]