User talk:Nishkid64/Archive 39


Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

re: john edwards

THANK. YOU. --ffroth 03:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Title

When I look at your userpage on my IE browser it says "User:Nishkid64, your friendly neighborhood administrator! - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - Windows Internet Explorer" How did you get it to say that? I would love it if you could tell me. Dreamafter ⇔ 20:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! Thanks a lot! You are really fast!
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
For really helping a lot of users! Dreamafter ⇔ 20:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Signbot.

It's funny how Signbot messes up sometimes. I was about to block you for trolling. ;) Happy new year! · AndonicO Talk 21:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification, Molag. If you don't mind me asking though, if the image protection is so simple, why do the DYK instructions have four different image scenarios with four different processes? Why not just say it clear and simple: "Ignore the image, the cascading protection will take care of it."? · AndonicO Hail! 13:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DYK#Pictures. Okay, so pretty much the instructions cover the same two scenarios you mentioned, by listing four scenarios... · AndonicO Hail! 19:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well then, we both learned something. :) · AndonicO Hail! 19:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bot

Could you please block this bot as it is not preforming any tasks, but is editing, and not bot request pages. Dreamafter ⇔ 22:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And while your helping, could you delete this page for the reason on the page. Dreamafter ⇔ 22:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Edit War warning

The issue has been resolved. The user was disputing the use of the athletics infobox on the page. I have since made the changes to address his concerns. Absolon S. Kent (talk) 00:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion

Could you please delete this page for the reason on the page? Dreamafter ⇔ 00:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Awsome Vandal"

Aaaugh! You beat me to it; I e/c'ed with you with the exact same decline message, "No."  :-) — Coren (talk) 01:19, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

The Barnstar of Diligence
For quickly and discreetly fixing my photographic blunder due to my own stupidity, I, Sharkface217, hereby award you this Barnstar of Diligence. May all your Wiki-editing be pleasant. --Sharkface217 02:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

re: john edwards

THANK. YOU. --ffroth 03:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks regarding 1345. If you really do like it, you may want to say so on the article's talk page, though. I'm getting a lot of compliments on my page, but the article's talk page is a bit of a war. Wrad (talk) 22:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for reviewing it. --B (talk) 02:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fake report by User:Svetovid on 3RR board

Thank you for reading those reports with an open eye. This is not the first time a Slovak user tries to make a fake report after I go to sleep. He didn't provide diffs, you could have seen in the edit summaries that he actually tried to delete referenced material from a Featured Article without concensus. Squash Racket (talk) 06:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3RR editor blocked...now what?

I see that you blocked User:LGBTRights123 for 3RR. I was the editor who reported him to AN3RR. I am however a little unclear on what happens to the article at this point in the dispute. Do I or the other editor who opposed LGBTRights123's edit revert his last (4th) revert? Would that put either of us in 3RR jeopardy (we have each rv'ed the edit in question twice). Ford MF (talk) 06:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request for arbitration "Anti-Dominican racism"

I have issued a request for arbitration case involving you. Please see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Anti-Dominican_Racism. Zenwhat (talk) 19:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Simple English Wiki

Hi, I noticed that you have an account at that Wiki, and I was wondering what the policy was for copying pages from this one. Several of the pages there, including Homer Simpson, Maggie Simpson, Ned Flanders, The Simpsons shorts, List of The Simpsons Treehouse of Horror episodes, Marge Simpson and Lisa Simpson are pretty much EXACT copies of pages that I wrote for this Wiki. -- Scorpion0422 20:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But it isn't allowed, right? I mean, the Homer Simpson page is an FA there and it is practically a word for word copy of the page here (and even includes some pretty complex words) the only difference is that it doesn't have a Role in The Simpsons section. -- Scorpion0422 20:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A request for your consideration regarding CAT:AOTR

...My guinea pigs and the "A"s through "K"s having felt this message was OK to go forward with (or at least not complained bitterly to me about it :) ), today it's the turn of the "L"s through "O"s! I'm hoping that more of you chaps/chapettes will point to their own criteria instead of mine :)... it's flattering but a bit scary! :) Also, you may want to check back to the table periodically, someone later than you in the alphabet may have come up with a nifty new idea. ++Lar: t/c 00:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Hi I noticed you were online. Could you temporarily undelete Image:Yuliya.jpg? I need to fix the bad transwiki job that was done to Commons. -Nard 06:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2nd opinion as a WP:NPP, please

G'day, Nishkid64! I know that it violates WP:AUTO, but I'm trying to get a better handle on WP:BIO criteria, so I'm using myself as an example. ;-)

I would appreciate it if you would please take a look at this sandbox and comment on its talk page as if you had encountered it on New pages patrol in article space instead of user space … in particular, I'm interested in your opinion of whether the reliable sources cross the line of primary sources, I left some questions after the comments by another editor, but I don't know if they'll revisit the discussion.

Thnx in advance! —Dennette (talk) 13:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

gwu

Are you in the BS/MD program there? --'n1yaNt 10:32, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a senior and I applied to the BS/MD program this past December. Since you are Indian, I assumed you would be in it haha. --'n1yaNt 22:38, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's insane. 50k+ not to mention how much more expensive DC is compared to other areas. --'n1yaNt 22:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, is there anything you regret not doing in high school that you wish you had done in retrospect (academically speaking) --'n1yaNt 22:45, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, well your consolation for ADHD is being admin of wikipedia and having 35k edits! Anyways, is GWU generous in aid - to what degree from your experience? --'n1yaNt 03:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any wiki friends in med school whom I may speak to? thanks a lot for the guidance. --'n1yaNt 12:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked user

99.237.217.67 decided to try getting unbanned on #wikipedia. He was advised that he needed to rethink his editing style. Repeatedly. While he expressed disbelief that he couldn't call people "attention whore faggots" on Wikipedia talk pages. He left before we got annoyed enough to ban him.

Just thought you should know this guy's making attempts at being a persistent problem. -- Cyrius|✎ 19:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

primal therapy

hello sir/madam

I would like to inform you that twerges and grahame green have constantly been trying to remove critical content on primal therapy for at least a year or more. They delete sourced criticisms, and make up bogus manipulative reasons for doing so. They also add cultic pro-primal content that turns the wiki page into an advertisement for primal therapy. Thankyou for putting a lock on the edit war, but I urge you not to be persuaded by twerges or grahamgreen's diatribe about why criticisms should be deleted. They may have a vested financial or social interest in primal therapy, or may be a former or present cult member. Those criticisms must be allowed to stay because they are sourced, and from well qualified sources

Zonbalance —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zonbalance (talk • contribs) 01:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Belated) Happy New Year! spam

Here's hoping the new year brings you nothing but the best ;) Fvasconcellos* (t·c) 15:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The design of this almost completely impersonal (yet hopefully uplifting) message was ripped from Riana (talk · contribs).
Please feel free to archive it whenever you like.

Nair

Could you unprotect the page? I think the vandals have gone and it has been protected for at least two months now. --vi5in[talk] 19:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Polysynaptic

I have no problem with the block (he was edit warring and made personal attacks), but I was wondering where you found a 3RR violation by Polysynaptic (talk · contribs) on Ghaznavid Empire? I counted only 3 reverts. Nishkid64 (talk) 03:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    1. [1] - removed reference to Encyclopedia Britannica and mentioning of Ṣāmānī sultans
    2. [2] - once more
    3. [3] - once more
    4. [4] - once more
  • I am to lazy to seek who first introduced the reference to the Encyclopedia Brittanica and the sultans but obviously they have come at some stage Alex Bakharev (talk) 03:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Friendly chat

How are you Nishkid64? I believe that I have never had the pleasure of interacting with you before. I was looking over the situation of the "Anti-Dominican Racism" and I have to agree that it is a mess.

I believe that the Users involved got out of hand. The thing that I noticed also is that User: UnclePaco wasn't concerned enough to defend his position in the arbitration page. Has UnclePaco, been blocked for the same time as XLR8TION?

I would like to recommend that you lower the block dates on User:XLR8TION and the other party and have someone mediate between the parties involved. Also, I noticed that there has been a lot edit warring still going on with UnclePaco some other parties, including non-registered which seem to be sockpuppets in the "Dominican Parade Day" page. Maybe a semi-protect is in order until all those involved can cool off.

My opinion , Take care Tony the Marine (talk) 04:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hi, and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask one of the project coordinators, or any experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Kirill 05:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request for unlocking the primal therapy article

Sir,

You locked the article on Primal Therapy as a result of an edit war, with the hope of stimulating discussion between myself and Zonbalance. Unfortunately, I and others (on both sides) have already attempted communication with Zonbalance more than 5 times and he has repeatedly refused to discuss the issue. Zonbalance is apparently convinced that I'm a cultist with a financial stake in Primal Therapy who is bent on removing criticism against it (see his comments above), which probably explains why he has been reluctant to discuss the issue with me. Since Zonbalance has a very negative impression of my motives, it seems unlikely that he will agree to any kind of discussion with me in the future.

Anyway, I've decided just to relent on this issue, and all similar issues in that article. The issue is so silly and unimportant that I don't believe it warrants further opinion. As far as I'm concerned, the "Discover Magazine" editorial may remain in the "peer-reveiewed scientific journals" section, instead of the "criticism" section. Furthermore, I won't undo any changes made by "Zonbalance", regardless of what I feel about them.

By the way, I apologize for my violation of 3rr. The only reason I repeatedly reverted was because I already had obtained agreement from other editors and the issue seemed beyond reasonable dispute (at least to me). Sorry. I won't revert like that any more.

If you wish, you may feel free to ban me from making more than one revert to that article. However, I hope that you unlock the article! It seems that the reasons for locking it have been resolved, since I've agreed not to revert. Unfortunately, the article is in a poor state right now and I fear that locking it altogether will prevent other needed edits from taking place.

Thanks. Twerges (talk) 22:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Futurama episodes reviewed for WP:EPISODE compliance

Hi Nishkid, I wanted to let you know that TTN is preparing to review the episodes of Futurama for possible redirection. I suspect you're already aware of the arbitration case and various AN/I discussions on these types of actions so I think it's important that redirect or not we demonstrate that a serious discussions of article merits took place (as prescribed by arbcom). Since you are a member of WikiProject Futurama I was hoping you'd participate in the discussion and express your views on the articles as they compare to the various policies and guidelines, the discussion is located at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Futurama#Status of the episodes?. Thanks. Stardust8212 02:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Book references

Hello Nishkid64. How are you? I want to add more book references in the biography of John Bardeen. It is important to reference the specific sections of the book for the specific items that need a direct source. Should I include page number? Should I mention the name of the chapter? Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 13:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adam's Bridge

I was wondering if you could partially protect the page? It is being vandalized by anonymous IP's over the past few days, all intent on changing the name to "Ram's Bridge". --vi5in[talk] 21:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for acting so quickly! :) --vi5in[talk] 02:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

Hello Nishkid. Thank you for the reply. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 02:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ehud

Hi Nishkid. Please see this: [5]. Regards, Grandmaster (talk) 07:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nishkid, please note that Grandmaster claims that Ehud contacted him for help[6], but Ehud never provided an email address[7], neither did Grandmaster ever provided his email address in the public. I thought this was something worth notifying. VartanM (talk) 05:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And how would that confirm that his not a Adil. I could ask one of my friends to appear on a webcam and say that his not Adil Baguirov. VartanM (talk) 06:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you unlock the Primal Therapy article?

Nishkid64,

I've attempted to start discussion with regard to the Primal Therapy article. I wrote some sections on why I feel that "Discover Magazine" does not belong in the section for peer-reviewed journals, and I invited Zonbalance to respond. Zonbalance responded only with remarks about me: that I'm trying to confuse and manipulate people, that I'm just trying to suppress criticism, etc. He apparently has a very persistent and very unfavorable view of my motives, which I doubt I could change.

At this point, it seems very unlikely that a productive discussion will ever ensue between Zonbalance and myself. However I have agreed not to revert any of his edits.

As a result, I'd be grateful if you would unlock the Primal Therapy article. There are some pending issues by other editors which would improve the article (unfortunately, the article is in somewhat poor condition right now).

Thanks! Twerges (talk) 20:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bhindranwale

http://news.bbc.co.uk/player/nol/newsid_6570000/newsid_6572600/6572653.stm?bw=bb&mp=rm&news=1&bbcws=1

There was a link, but was removed.

It was a report by the BBC at the time, thus naturally reflecting more accurately the ideology that Bhindranwale stood for as opposed to your version —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.192.59.135 (talk • contribs)

2 weeks on XLR8TION?

That seems a tad high ... especially if, as is claimed and seems reasonable, the previous incivility was a misunderstanding. As a mitigating factor, the version that he is reverting is very biased in its presentation. That's not a permissible reason to ignore 3RR, but it's at least a mitigating factor. I'd really rather protect the article and get them to talk it out, but the thing is, I don't know if that would work - there's a good chance that whoever has the "right version" protected wouldn't have any interest in working it out. --B (talk) 06:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

checkuser A checkuser was already performed by admin B here [8]. I abide by the rules especially on controversial articles, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dominican_Day_Parade&action=history despite some of the personal attacks that I received as noted here [9]. My statement doesn't preclude you from doing another one. UnclePaco (talk) 06:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Please see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/UnclePaco and my comments at Blnguyen‎'s page. I'm all confused. :( --B (talk) 07:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's a certain irony in some of this ... if Mykungfu = UnclePaco et al, then XLR8TION was reverting the edits of a banned user ... which is exempt from 3RR limitations. (My head hurts thinking about it.) --B (talk) 07:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are we really sure that Mykungfu != UnclePaco? I think he is ... in fact, I'm about 99% sure he is. ReadyToLive (talk · contribs) edits Omega Psi Phi‎ and Talk:Alpha Kappa Alpha in February. His block causes Armyguy11 (talk · contribs) to be autoblocked and he gives his IP as 64.131.205.111 (talk · contribs) [10]. (Incidentally, it's a small encyclopedia - I am the one that removes his autoblock for him [11]) Freakin Fool (talk · contribs), who is also blocked as a sock of User:Mykungfu, makes a number of edits to Dominican-related articles. [12], [13], [14], [15]. User:Mykungfu never had any interest in Dominican issues, but he had so few mainspace edits that he may just not have branched out in that direction yet. Here's the kicker and I think this what clinches it - in UnclePaco's earliest edits (go all the way back to his first page of edits), he edits Iota Phi Theta‎ several times - that is an African American fraternity and African American fraternities were Mykungfu's primary interest. After reviewing all of their contributions, after seeing that they share a static IP and we know that he's had that same IP from the time Mykungfu was on it until the present, after seeing Freakin Fool have the same interests as both users, and after seeing that UnclePaco shares Mykungfu's interest in African American fraternities, I'm ready to call it - they are the same user. I'll leave up to you what you want to do about XLR8TION, but I would suggest a reduction or elimination in his block. UnclePaco was rather disruptive and now that we know that he was really just a banned user, that puts XLR8TION in a different light. I've been through this kind of thing once before with Jmfangio (talk · contribs) and when a banned user provokes a problem, even though the person they were having a dispute with may not have known they were a banned user, I find it hard to penalize them for it. --B (talk) 08:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would like some thoughts...

Hi, I see you're quite the hard worker on Wikipedia (being Admin) and you're very involved with Indian projects. For that reason, I'd just like some thoughts and advice from you, if you're willing... I've been working on the Akshardham (Delhi) article for about a week now, and I've been doing it in my sandbox (see here) as to so I can keep my work flowing. But that's not the point. I just wanted a reliable editor to tell me I'm going in the right direction for a better article. Granted, it's not finished. I've only done the parts which are referenced. But anything you can give me to make it a top article would be greatly appreciated. -- Harish - 15:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for getting back to me, bro. Appreciate the feedback. I'm glad you brought up the 'Creator' section as I was pretty clueless as to how to deal with it. Furthermore, I'm unable to find a quote on what Pramukh Swami Maharaj had said, except for the Inauguration DVD - would that count? About the quotations in references - I was trying to get a hold of the actual magazine that the statements are made from, and assumed it would be needed when I switch the references to that. Also, the web-copy of the article is pretty long, so I assumed that it would be easier to find the sources. Would that be wrong? And yes, the 'Temple features' is heavily in need of work - it's surprisingly a hard section. Would the entire section need references for the article to be considered 'Good', if not better?
Sorry, I know you wanted me to get back to you towards the end, but I just had to make sure. Thanks again!! -- Harish - 18:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're the Admin, so I'll go by your words on the quotations ;) - plus it'll help clear up clutter when editing. And yeah, it's on DVD (about the opening of the mandir) - thanks for the citation tip on that, can't believe I didn't notice that. Ooo, reminds me - one last question for today (promise, haha) - there's a video clip on CNN that I could use to reference for another article, and it's a news segment. Unfortunately, I'm not sure what he correct method of citation for that would be. Would you be able to advise? -- Harish - 20:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. -- Harish - 13:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Banglapedia

Thanks for taking an interest in the article on Banglapedia. But, it seems that you removed all the primary sources. Did you find that the policies/guidelines prohibit using primary sources? Are you under the impression that the publisher providing information - about who the writer is, or what format the book uses, or even who the publisher is - are not to be trusted? I am afraid that there may be a slight misunderstanding there. The article has gone through a Good Article review and has been identified as a Good Article by Wikiepdia standards. Would you, please, reconsider your judgment? Aditya(talk • contribs) 08:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC) <adding> I didn't notice that you left a note on the article talk page, and also delisted it from GA. I have tried to post an appropriate reply on that talk page. This may sorted out pretty quick, I hope. And, when that's done, do I resubmit it for a GA review? Aditya(talk • contribs) 09:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted a few questions on the article talk page. Would you care to take a look? Aditya(talk • contribs) 16:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And, could you make some time to explain the sweeping ref removal and delisting of Grameen Bank on the talk page of that article? This silent assassination is going very much against the spirit of collaboration. Aditya(talk • contribs) 17:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Should I follow your example and source the articles like you source the articles you created? Aditya(talk • contribs) 05:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would you be watching me (I am working on Banglapedia, unfortunately Grameen Bank is out my league) while I try to improve things? I might need a guiding spirit around (I promise not to pester too much). Cheers. Aditya(talk • contribs) 06:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the offer to help with Grameen Bank. I can't just thank you enough for the offer. It will be always cherished. God, that article is so difficult for me! And, if you don't mind me pestering you with another request, I'd like to draw you attention to the article on Sitakunda Upazila and its ongoing peer review. I am trying to prepare that one for a GA, and eventually an FA (hopefully). Cheers and thanks for all the fish. Aditya(talk • contribs) 07:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And, oh, before all that can you take a quick look at Bengal Assam Railway, too? An editor thinks it needs additional citations. I can't really see a reason for tagging it so, and that editor has not given a reason yet (though I asked for one many times). Aditya(talk • contribs) 07:31, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

Hi, I got your msg notifying me that Eleven Jones Cave made DYK, but there's a slight mixup: Eleven Jones Cave was nom by User:Bedford and I'm the nom for Hampton Mansion, not him. I don't know if this makes any difference, since both articles are now on DYK?, but thought I should mention it, in case the Cabal keeps track of such things! JGHowes talk - 06:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

re: AN3 / User:1csimfan

Given the discussion on 1scimfan's talk page, Bigskyblueeyes is also clearly this IP, and is probably this one, too. While there is no 3RR violation there, it comes close, and it's certainly disruptive edit warring. While I certainly support your blocking on the 3RR issue, I am going to warn this user about edit warring as well.

Cheers! - Revolving Bugbear 20:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Bigskyblueeyes = 216.237.51.74 = 192.197.54.41, so you might want to consider a block for edit warring. Bigskyblues knows about edit warring and 3RR (hence, his 3RR report on 1csimfan), so a block might be appropriate. Nishkid64 (talk) 20:57, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that had occurred to me, but as a new admin, I'm wary of the block button. However, he reverted again after filing the 3RR complaint, which makes two days in a row with three reverts -- good enough for me. I issued the block.
Thanks. - Revolving Bugbear 21:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3RR block on Brandek

I believe 68.122.122.227 (talk · contribs) is really Brandeks. If you look at the IPs contributions, they are exactly like Brandeks's, plus the similar manner of blanking the talk page when they are warned.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Runescape Great War.png

Could you crop Image:Runescape Great War.png, so it will just show the game screenshot? Thanks, Nishkid64 (talk) 06:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can, but this screenshot additionally illustrates the (now defunct) .exe standalone version of the game, as opposed to just loading it via webpage. Doesn't this add more encyclopedic value? Edit: As per your request, I have gone ahead and uploaded a cropped version of the image, and I do see that it would provide a better sense of symmetry to the article as a whole; however it does nonetheless lose the standalone aspect. Maybe the original would be more suitable for a gallery? --MaTrIx (talk) 07:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When changing the images out on the RuneScape article, I noticed that you rephrased the image caption that I added. Is it appropriate to apply the label "RuneScape Classic" to this image, even though it predates the title by several years? --MaTrIx (talk) 07:48, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

When I was informed of Wikipedia policy, I stopped reverting Ghandar Galpa. In contrast, he was blocked for 3RR as he ignored requests not to revert materially continually and blindly, as well as making wild accusations against me and others. I had put up a message on the administrators noticeboard asking for greater involvement in some articles to deal with the problems and someone else had put up a referral for comment, but they attracted zero attention. That's why the situation deteriorated. Following the expiry of Ghandar Galpa's block, he seems to be behaving in a more constructive and civil manner, using the talk pages instead of edit summaries. Now I am puzzled why you would want to renew an appeal when the situation is now more stable. It strikes me that the whole administrative process is chaotic and arbitrary, a situation that exacerbates the problems of "edit wars".--Conjoiner (talk) 11:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll bear that in mind if there are any future problems. Early intervention could have prevented blocks in the first place, but as far as I can see the situation has calmed somewhat anyway.--Conjoiner (talk) 15:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

Gah. I was just about to update it when you got to it. Are you going to be spamming the DYK thanks and DYKDate on to the user talk and article talk page? The Placebo Effect (talk) 14:59, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Nishkid64 this is me

I have already added you in my project team I am seeking help from some Wiki-Indian-Project- Hindi Editors to translate all news-reviews on Brhmaand Pujan & Naresh Sonee from my created site- http://brhmaandpujan-news-reviews.tripod.com/ . Your good self can also visit this link & please kindly help me out to open Naresh Sonee ‘s page with your lucky hands. Write two line on him please. I think I deserve your help & also kindly help me if some more Hindi translators comes forward to help the page grow. You should remain with my page for ever . God Bless U. --Dralansun (talk) 17:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: RuneScape EL removal

I got virus on 2 of my computers when I went to Zybez website. Some of Zybez's downloadable tools contain rootkit (I thought it was trojan horse at that time). As for RuneHQ, I thought it was safe until Javascap pointed out that he got multiple viruses from that site. OhanaUnitedTalk page 17:19, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, the rootkit was discovered by my antivirus program (AVG-Free) so I doubt that rootkit would be harmless. OhanaUnitedTalk page 17:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:XLR8TION in violation of agreement

Thought I would point this out to you: [16]. A personal attack by User:XLR8TION. 72.144.39.229 (talk) 21:34, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Religious violence in India

Hello. Do you believe the 1984 Anti-Sikh riots should be included in Religious violence in India as although a particular religious community were targeted, it was not one religion targeting another but more a political group targeting another community mainly because that community was linked to their political leader's enemies. Darrowen (talk) 21:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

Can you update the main page? (asked of 3 people, who will be first?) Mrs.EasterBunny (talk) 21:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:195.158.204.2

Hi! Saw you are on line. Please block this user. Thank you. Oda Mari (talk) 18:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Happy editing! Oda Mari (talk) 18:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

A belated thank you for your RFA support! Archtransit (talk) 21:13, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]