User talk:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington/Archive/Archive11
|
|
|
|
- 10:07, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for helping me out! See, my sig works now: Rocket71048576 † Talk 11:11, 20 January 2007 (UTC)!!
- It sure does! — Nearly Headless Nick 11:11, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Greetings, You have just deleted the Proteus (WAM-V) article that I have been editing with the comment of "G11". Would you care to elaborate? I have included below the latest copy of my edit. Fosnez 12:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- Hello Fosnez. Please have a look here – WP:CSD#G11 and WP:CSD#A7. Warm regards, — Nearly Headless Nick 12:53, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for linking to the explination. I did put the "hang on" tag in there and was in the process of "rewriting in order to become encyclopedic". I believe that my edit that I initially posted below does "assert the importance or significance of its subject". May I please recreate the article? Fosnez 13:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- I can recreate it for you in your userspace, if you don't mind. You can work on the article there, and move the page yourself, when you think it's appropriately done. — Nearly Headless Nick 13:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- If you could that would be great. Once I have added my edit, could you please review it and let me know if it is ok? Fosnez 13:06, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- The page can be found here – User:Fosnez/Proteus (WAM-V). And yes, I have removed the Nazi symbol on the page, as it is not in accordance with Wikipedia's userspace policies. I hope you don't mind. Best regards, — Nearly Headless Nick 13:10, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- (I'm going to run out of colons soon...)I have added my edit. Could you please review the article and let me know what you think.
- Also, with respect, how is the usage of the free image on my talkpage against the Wikipedia's userspace policies? Nazi is not really a taboo word, examples would be The Soup Nazi and Grammar nazi. Fosnez 13:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not censored, however, there are allegedly people who get heart-attacks after seeing the symbol, even when it is used as a Hindu religious symbol. We are better off not using it. In case you do not agree, you can take it to WP:AN. Best regards, — Nearly Headless Nick 13:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- As for the article, it still fails WP:CSD#A7. You might want to take this to deletion review. Best regards, — Nearly Headless Nick 13:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- I have created the deletion review. Please feel free to comment/voice your concern. Salutations Fosnez 13:45, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Block Logic
I've explained my logic on the Transnistria page. Blocks aren't necessiarily meant to be preventatvie; they can (I hope) be educative. I've explained that I'll unblock within three days if this plan looks like failing. These guys have been discussing on the talk page for months and still come back reverting. Its clear that protection/discussion has failed on Transnistria.
I'm not usually stubborn on Wikipedia but I'm going to be on this one. If someone reverts my blocks/unprotection then I'll let it go but I'm not going to endorse such action and I'm not going to do it myself. --Robdurbar 13:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
How do I join
RE: User_talk:Travb/Archive_9#Mobile_01 (permalink)
What is the name of this channel, and how do I join this IRC channel?
I already have IRC. Travb (talk) 13:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- Click here – #vandalism-en-wp. I would also be available as Andy123 in #wikipedia-inTM. Regards, — Nearly Headless Nick 14:30, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
WP:RFI backlog
Hey, I’m writing a few admins because I’ve seen your good work on WP:AIV. Is there any chance WP:RFI could get some love? I know RFI is a lot more work, but it’s no less important. The reports are about editors who undermine the integrity of the encyclopedia as a whole, and the efforts of productive contributors. I don’t see a need for you to reply to me directly, but if you do, please do so by copying this whole section to my talk page and then replying to it. --WikidSmaht (talk) 19:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Page Deleted?
You deleted a page called "Stochocracy, reason G12, may I ask why Jeff503 20:17, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
It's border line spam for a prototype ship design, but I'll withdraw my objection to it being too new and untested as it's made enough press (if only because it looks like something out of a Bond film!) If you want to close the AfD early ... --Steve (Slf67) talk 02:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Heritage Guitars AfD and a few other things
I apologize for my not having replied to you apropos of this RfA sooner; I assure you that my failure to respond did not stem from my viewing your concerns as invalid or insignificant, but, rather, from my undertaking a few other tasks and allowing the issue to slip my mind (I will admit that I bristled initially at your terseness, but I gather that it meant not to convey the incredulity at my malfeasance that first I appreciated). In short, I did understand that my close was disfavored by DELPRO, but I thought it nevertheless appropriate, principally for the reasons I have set out at Daniel.Bryant's talk page (D.B, as you may know, took the issue to DRV, where the closure was essentially endorsed).
On an unrelated issue about which you wrote me a bit ago, you are quite right that the conduct referenced in one outside view to which I assented is not that to which WP:EDIT WAR means to speak, and to the extent that the outside view ascribes such term to your editing, I disclaim it. Nevertheless, I think that your Barrington Hall editing was probably other-than-desirable (per the spirit of, inter al., WP:1RR and WP:BRD, each of which, to my mind, goes to the proposition that, having been reverted by an editor acting in good faith relative to a content dispute, one ought not to return his edit in the absence of a consensus for such return; such an understanding, of course, requires that one's interlocutors be willing to discuss civilly and be themselves so bound not to edit, which situation doesn't necessarily seem to have presented itself here). You will have noted, I hope, that I also provided that I am quite certain that, having had occasion here to receive feedback from the community apropos of his (ostensibly generally quite fine) use of the tool, [Nick] will follow Theron’s prescription [that [he] tak[e] DRV reversals into account in making future AfD decisions], at least for some non-trivial period, and that I heartily endorsed the outside view of Shimeru, which I think to be the best statement of the situation; several of the issues raised at the RfC, to be sure, were quite overbroad and overwrought, and I hope that I limited my involvement to those issues that touched substantially on your use of the sysop tools.
Finally (I’m fairly certain this note alone will comprise 30 KB, and so you should, of course, feel free to remove it after [or, hell, before] reading it), since performing a revision deletion on a page has the effect of removing any instant protection, your edits to User:Superman.1984, on which I happened from the AN/I thread, undid Asterion’s full protection. I don’t know that we generally, absent some reason, protect {{indefblockeduser}}ed temporary userpages, and I see no particular reason for which protection was employed here, but I suppose I ought to let you know in any event. Cheers, Joe 03:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
I have no objection to the increase of the block duration. I only request that you mention it on the AN/I report on this user (here) and explain to the user why you are lengthening the block (which I imagine you would do anyway). Thanks. -- Merope 11:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Smile
James, La gloria è a dio has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Also keep up your good work here. Its nice to see that you are a rouge admin who works outside of the policies. We are in need of more admins like that. Have a nice week and god bless. --James, La gloria è a dio 12:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
- WP:IAR is policy, so I possibly can't be working outside them. Although, I don't know which incident are you referring to. I hope you come back to clarify. Cheers! — Nearly Headless Nick 13:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Re:Checkuser
Not right now. Perhaps after I return from Delhi. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 11:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
- I complete 3 years on the 31st. Would like that to happen first. :) Then of course, I would like to be active when the debate is ongoing. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 11:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
- Mr.Nearly headless, i am sarvabhaum whom u blocked for editing chalukya for 4 times. Am I the one whom ur talking about? I hope not. 59.95.23.42 16:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
- It was not about you; however, circumventing a block to edit Wikipedia is unacceptable. — Nearly Headless Nick 13:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Hello
News! --Bhadani 16:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Newyorkbrad's RfA
Thank you for your support on my RfA, which closed favorably this morning, and especially for your exceptionally kind words accompanying your !vote. I appreciate the confidence the community has placed in me and am looking forward to my new responsibilities. Please let me know if ever you have any comments or suggestions, especially as I am learning how to use the tools. Best regards, Newyorkbrad 18:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
[Trolling and personal attacks by RCS removed] [3] — Nearly Headless Nick 13:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Why deletion
Hello there,
I recently uploaded a new version of a biography on the band Hospital Bombers. You tagged is as an A7 article, but I'm not sure I see why? Could you tell me why you specifically entered this wiki for a speedy deletion.
Kind regards, Paul —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pauwl (talk • contribs) 10:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC).
- Kindly review WP:CSD#A7. Best regards, — Nearly Headless Nick 13:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
When speedy deleting an article listed at AFD, please remember to close the AFD with the rationale. It has been done for you at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Concierge medicine. Regards, Navou banter 10:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- Please remember to substitute templates you leave around. Cheers! — Nearly Headless Nick 13:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:List of media personalities who have vandalised Wikipedia
Yikes! Really bad idea. Thanks for alerting me on it. I don't understand pointless lists. It's real close to Wikipedia is not a place for indescriminate information. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 13:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks
for the support and congrats... --BozMo talk 14:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- Am in the process of activating email (I must admit I never realised it was off: its always been like that). Takes a few minutes for the confirmation to navigate through. --BozMo talk 14:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Your message to me
I replied to you on my talk page...I agree with what you said, but I'm really not sure how it was relevant to me? Seraphimblade 14:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
User:Rumpelstiltskin223
It is suspected that User:Rumpelstiltskin223 is another sockpuppet account of User:Hkelkar currently under 1 year ban and on 1 edit allowance along with those who reported him due to extensive edit warring on similar type of India related contentious pages. He has been blocked 4 times since Dec 16 and 3 times this month.I feel merely protecting the page is too lenient as he is a repeat offender as he did in Vaikom Satyagraha.Sorry to write for if repeated edit warring ws not stopped Wikipedia will suffer.220.226.140.53 15:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
- Kind of like you are a sockpuppet of Adyarboy (talk · contribs) or some other dravidian nationalist user? Good am I now a sockpuppet? I edit "contentious pages" as well, and I have edit warred with anti-Semitic trolls like BhaiSaab (talk · contribs) and anti-Hindu racists like TerryJ-Ho (talk · contribs). How about Dangerous-Boy (talk · contribs) ? Is he a sock? Turning pages into soapboxes for Dravida Munnetra Kazhagham propaganda is what makes wiki suffer.Bakaman 17:14, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
- And what makes you think I would be interested in all this? I have had enough of Hkelkar, BhaiSaab and their disruptive socks. If the community discusses, I will comment. This is not WP:ANI. Take this to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets. — Nearly Headless Nick 15:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- This [5]is what made me think you are still interested. (There was no community discussion there ) But you are entitled to change your mind and make your own decision of when you do not want to focus on an issue or which user's transgressions you do not want to focus on. So thank you for clarifying. Haphar 16:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Your tiny comment
What can I say? Tom Riddle was a major-league hottie. Too bad about our kid, though: I hear he's a real jerk.
I started using this username before HP:HBP came out, so I was extremely pleased to see my handle in print. Even if it's the name of the mother of the worst dark wizard in history. -- Merope 16:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with it
It's not worse than, say, disguising your real username in a signature (something -Ril- was brought to account for), assuming bad faith (you say that I have a "conflict of interest") or attempting to bypass an already closed AFD with a completely new one. - Ta bu shi da yu 18:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- Incidently, I have no intention of monitoring your talk page for a response. - Ta bu shi da yu 18:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
I think I've fixed the problem now. Thanks, Khoikhoi 18:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Your signature
Are you aware that your signature is very confusing, as your username is not User:Nearly Headless Nick. Please see Wikipedia:Signatures, and also Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/-Ril-#Sig_change. I personally find it confusing and distracting. Would you please consider changing it? - Ta bu shi da yu 18:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- Personally I don't see anything wrong with it as the other user account redirects back here so you are not exactly doing it to hide. Also, it is a rather good username/sig combo. Just my thoughts...-Localzuk(talk) 18:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
My RfA
Your edits to my talk page
I realize you may not agree with the position I've taken on the AfD, or agree with my being alerted to it on my talk page, but did it have to be reverted? (Edit: I did see your rationale for it, but I've read the canvassing page and it says nothing about people other than the author removing the comments.)Crystallina 23:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Edits To My Talk Page
Hi, whether or not you agree with something, it doesn't give you the right to revert someone's edit to my talk page. KTHXBAI! --DieHard2k5 00:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Dear Sir Nicholas, I ask if you might take a moment to reconsider your endorsement of FayssalF's summary, in light of the more detailed response to his diffs I have only now found the opportunity to put together.Proabivouac 09:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Care to revert your reversion of my mass deletion? I can see how it was mistaken for vandalism, but I've explained in the talk page that the vast pile of bumf that i deleted was irrelevant to the actual film, although it's relevant to the article about the battle. If you really mean to have that crap in the article, then this will turn into a content dispute, and I'll want justification? --Aim Here 13:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
- I have reverted myself. However, you need to discuss the issues on the talk page of the article, and point that out in your edit summary. Regards, — Nearly Headless Nick 13:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
- Cheers. I did edit the talk page, though fair point about the edit summary - maybe editing the talk page then the article might spur me to do things properly! --Aim Here 13:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
- And keep logged on, that way the administrators might not misconceive your intentions as willful vandalism. Regards, — Nearly Headless Nick 13:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
- Cheers. I did edit the talk page, though fair point about the edit summary - maybe editing the talk page then the article might spur me to do things properly! --Aim Here 13:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Ebionites protection
Thanks. Good idea. --Michael C. Price talk 13:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
- A better idea would have been discussion on the talk page of the article, rather than revert warring, which can get you and your partner blocked. — Nearly Headless Nick 13:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
- Have a look at the article's talk page; plenty of discussion going on. --Michael C. Price talk 15:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
- That is good to know, however I will not get involved for my lack of knowledge and interest in the matter. I hope you don't mind. Regards, — Nearly Headless Nick 15:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
- Hah! Of course that's okay -- and I detect a whiff of a long-awaited compromise arriving on the talk page, so the protection is working (perhaps). --Michael C. Price talk 16:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
- That is good to know, however I will not get involved for my lack of knowledge and interest in the matter. I hope you don't mind. Regards, — Nearly Headless Nick 15:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
- Have a look at the article's talk page; plenty of discussion going on. --Michael C. Price talk 15:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
- Please leave the protection on for awhile, until we can get some experts to weight in on the article. The edit wars are being caused by editors that know very little about the topic, and flaming is being used as a substitute for knowledge. There was as request for expert tag on the article at one time. Please reapply it. Ovadyah 16:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
- Just so there's no confusion: I endorse protection being maintained for the present. --Michael C. Price talk 16:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi Nick, the protection on the Ebionite article has been lifted (against the consensus of editors active on the talk page) and the edit war has restarted. Can you restore the previous version of the Ebionite article and reapply protection? Thanks. --Michael C. Price talk 11:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
- Already protected. — Nearly Headless Nick 14:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Request unprotection on anti-Judaism
The only editors discussing the issue of this page's existence have come to agreement that anti-Judaism is the more accurate terminology. -- Kendrick7talk 20:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi Nearly Headless Nick. I've been helping revert some edits to Microsoft by more than one user with their IP starting with 82. I'm not 100% sure it's vandalism though, as there seems to be some news about Microsoft trying to edit Wikipedia (it still isn't adequate for the article though). Should it keep being reverted? Thanks. | AndonicO Talk · Sign Here 14:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Snide accusation
Regarding [6], I will ask you to not defame me by making snide accusations against me regarding that whole ridiculous WP:ANI business. If you want the edit reverted then ask politely and I will do it, else do it yourself. Rumpelstiltskin223 14:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
- Gosh, I am sorry if you felt that way. I might have been a little blunt, but I was reverting lots of vandalism from the wiki at that time; I did not intend to be rude. — Nearly Headless Nick 14:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
- Ohh, bother. You are referring to the Hkelkar part. I am extremely sorry; its become a part of my subconscious after following the whole load of dispute. I have changed it, btw. :( — Nearly Headless Nick 15:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Hello, I'm confused by you move to revert back my editting of Information Age .... particularly the part concerning ICT within that page. Never had this happen before .... is it because I was editting from my local school (I'm a teacher) where obviously the IP address is banned due to vandalalism. However I logged in using secure HTTTP (which I was impressed by) and made my contribution. I have made a study of the origins of the term ICT and wikipedia itself differentiates between the synonym for IT and its use in education. Was this revert due to suspected vandalism or because you didn't agree? If it was the former then could you please re-revert. Thanks.Victuallers 17:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Sir, I am a major contributor to this article which is currently going through FAC review. I noticed that an anon user is trying to vandalise the article. Would you consider putting an anon lock on this article if the menace continues.thanks.Dineshkannambadi 23:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Breaking News!
I am not sure though I have information which i would like to share by "copy-paste";
I saw your message on my talk page: [7]. I have an important news to break: I have learnt from a reliable source that Jimbo may be in India (on his third visit within a span of few months!) on a day or two during the period (perhaps) 25th February, 2007 - 3rd March, 2007. Nothing is final yet - city, exact date, his schedules and so on. However, we should try to gather information and if his visit happens we should prepare for a meeting of Indian Wikipedians with him like the one we had at Bangalore on 29th September, 2006: An evening with Jimmy Wales. You may pass on the information to other Indian editors. I shall copy and paste this message on India Notice Board. His visit schedule may change too depending on many factors. I still remember few hours spent in your company at Bangalore on 29.09.06. Thanks and regards. --Bhadani 16:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
In case, I learn more or the date/ place/ schedule get crystallized, I will up-date the information. I would request someone to set up a separate page for this visit like this one: An evening with Jimmy Wales. I will try to contact someone to learn more about the visit if it happens at all. BTW, if this is not the suitable place for such information, kindly feel free to move to a better place. Thanks & regards. --Bhadani 16:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
- It has to be Ahmedabad, this time. Three admins from Ahmedabad, what more could you want? :D Also, Steward Yann was here a few days ago, and we had dinner together. ^_^ — Nearly Headless Nick 13:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I am new here and want to contribute to this project. Can we have the featured article on Constitution of India?? Regards, Niraj
- Hi Nearly Headless Nick. Wherever it will be held, Bhadani shall fly there to attend the meeting. I am trying to gather more information it will depend on Jimmy's schedule though I presume. Regards. --Bhadani 16:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Important news
Kindly see the link. As indicated by me above, World Wikia has given a tentative plan: Jimmy in Delhi. Let us be in touch with him and each other to organize a Meet. Regards. --Bhadani 02:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Sorry
I'm sorry. It's not a content dispute, I just had a doubt and I reverted it because the summary edit box has not been completed. If it is not a vandalism, I apologize. Martial BACQUET 11:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Eh, no biggie. Thank you for taking your time to help Wikipedia.:) — Nearly Headless Nick 11:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)- Aah! I see, snide vandalism. Keep up the good work! — Nearly Headless Nick 11:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Autoblock Lift
Hey! Thanks for the quick lift on the autoblock! That's the fastest admin work I've seen in a long time... Muchly appreciated! smileydude66 11:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- No problem-o! — Nearly Headless Nick 11:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Usernames
Just revising the old policy docs ... particularly the illegal usernames ... so doesn't "nearly headless" count as a disability? :) --BozMo talk 13:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- /me looks around. Shhhh! Don't tell anybuddy! Did you get a Gmail account yet, BoozeMo? — Nearly Headless Nick 13:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- It is no secret. Everyone knows that Nick doesn't have much inside his head. Tintin 13:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- I think you have been talking with Krishna on email. ^_^ — Nearly Headless Nick 13:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- It is no secret. Everyone knows that Nick doesn't have much inside his head. Tintin 13:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)