Hello Nick,
Thanks for solving my problem with welcoming users, sorry this is my first time doing it and I can't seem to move the things to the right places. Can you show me how so I can speed up the process? Thanks ♠ K | ☢ 13:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Ah, nevermind; I figured it out. But thanks for helping me with about half of my errors =P. Later dude, ♠ K | ☢ 14:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC) P.S. I couldn't fix them all because it said something about telling a admin to do it, so I'll leave those to you since you're an admin. Send me a message if you fix the ones I couldn't.
Somehow this post got made to your archive 7 as well. Here it is again.
You were one of the respondents at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive241#Disruptive_edits_by_Tony_the_Tiger.
“ | If this article is going to be tagged by the Chicago Wikiproject, they need to be putting in time and effort expanding and improving the article. If they will do that, I see no good reason not to let them tag the article as coming under their project. I do agree it's a bit of a tenuous link though, but if they're going to help improve the article, don't look a gift horse in the mouth. -- Nick t 00:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC) | ” |
User:Pmanderson and I are preparing for WP:DR by attempting to understand each others arguments. You can see some debate at User:TonyTheTiger/DR_bot and more on his talk page. Actually, I am trying to understand his. It seems one contention may be that use of {{ ChicagoWikiProject}} conveys a promise or responsibility to actively edit an article.
As stated on his talk page, I actually believe that a tag is appropriate for other reasons such as cases where
I believe that a project could become active in an article for any of the above reasons. The categorical screening for articles where the above are likely to be true is what we have used the bot for.
The project from which I gained my assessment experience was Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography. They currently have 373,659 articles tagged. Even if they had 250 members each active enough to actively edit almost 100 articles they would need to remove their tag from about 350,000 articles if they were promising to actively edit the articles which they are tagging. I am not aware of any such promise. A tag is a statement of relevance in this case. It is not harmful to the article being tagged. The long and the short of it is if we tag an article we will at times take positive actions on some. For example, I nominated Hillary Clinton for WP:GAC because even though it is a mid priority article for us I noticed it was well developed. I make no promise to get any more involved in the candidacy than this. Right now our main task is to identify our Top priority articles and keep on top of new partially assessed articles. Can you give me some clarification. TonyTheTiger ( talk/ cont/ bio/ tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 19:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi Nick. Please use {{subst:nrd}} instead of {{ no rationale}}. Doing so, categorizes the image by date whereas {{ no rationale}} puts the image in an unsorted category. Thanks! -- PS2pcGAMER ( talk) 09:08, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
This is a request for the undeletion of the File:Underwood Carrie.jpg. It was deleted on May 12, 2007 by you for the following reasons: (Unused non free image). I believe the deletion was made in error. The reason is that proper procedures was not followed in the deletion process. The uploader user:Eqdoktor who is still an active editor was not notified of the deletion notice {{subst:idw|Image:Image_name.ext}}. The image was deleted from the two pages it was used in Wikipedia by an editor who appears to be out to make a WP:POINT - contributions or has an improper understanding of the deletion procedures and/or WP:FUC policies. If its at all possible, at the very least rescue the related talk page as it has extensive discussions on the implementation of WP:FUC and why the image conforms to the policy - Thanks -- Eqdoktor 06:33, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Carrie is not getting MY picture on Wikipedia? The horror! I'm crushed really... Image uploading... Why do they allow the peons to do it?... As you yourself has said, "We~ are trying to create a free encyclopedia here, not a pretty "ooh, look at all the pictures" encyclopedia." Nice... Talk down to the editor why don't you... I understand WP:FUC and the need for free images in Wikipedia well enough thank you - baby talk is not required. The point is rather your actions and the manner in which you perform your duties as an administrator.
~(is user:Eqdoktor included in this "we" you talk about?)
I am more disappointed and dismayed that an admin have taken such a high-handed approach to the whole thing.
Frankly, I don't know. I may not be up to date on the latest Wikipedia policies and if there is a special category in which certain administrators are free to ignore policies and procedures as they see fit - I apologize. As it is, I believe that this matter is being handled extremely poorly as the administrator. Do you agree that good faith attempts have been made to come to a mutually satisfactory outcome has failed and the next step is on to Wikipedia:Deletion review? -- Eqdoktor 17:58, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Image:Underwood Carrie.jpg. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Eqdoktor 18:22, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Nick, I understand that you closed the third AFD for Qian Zhijun based on the two previous AFDs. However, these AFDs were disputed at WP:DRV, a third AFD was opened by User:Viridae for the express purpose of letting it run its full course. Given the contentious history of this deletion, and in the interest of process, can you reopen this AFD and restore the article? -- DropDeadGorgias ( talk) 12:47, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
The Qiun Zhijun situation is at ArbCom, and you have been listed at a party. Please leave comments there. -- badlydrawnjeff talk 13:20, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Why are you deleting my messages left on your talk page? -- Eqdoktor 21:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. -- Eqdoktor 21:31, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
I didn't know whom to address this to, so I thought I'll pick an admin. Redirect me if necessary.
Look at: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=National_Public_School%2C_Indiranagar&diff=132042050&oldid=101770627 Isn't it not diffing correctly at least as far as the "School Events" (sub)section is concerned ?
I await a full apology for your behaviour today. And I demand an explanation for why on earth you responded to User:Throw's fourth unblock request, even 4 hours after he had been blocked from editing his user talk page for abusing the unblock system. Why has he gone totally unpunished for this?
I am mightily, mightily pissed off. You do not seem to even begin to understand why. That is a great shame. I have never come across you before, which seems odd given that you seem to be heavily involved in Scotland-related work, but I certainly hope that our paths cross infrequently, given today's performance. -- Mais oui! 13:59, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I noted your changed comments, but that you sustained your support. (If the concern is serious enough for you to switch to neutral or oppose, I would understand and take no personal offense.) I would like to better understand the situation, particularly in regards to out-of-process admin actions. Would you have the time and interest to explain a bit and maybe answer a few questions? I am available on-wiki, on IRC and via e-mail, if you would indulge me. Vassyana
Earlier this month, I asked:
...should high quality fair use images be used instead of low quality free images...
You replied:
Free images over fair use images any day of the week and under any circumstances. Wikimedia Commons is here - our sister project for collecting and cataloguing free images, media files and such. -- Nick t 17:20, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
At the time, I was asking just to become more familiar with the policies. Now, I have a real situation. There currently is no content dispute. I inserted a photo which was removed by another editor. It does not bother me that the photo was removed. Therefore, I am not asking your opinion to support a dispute.
The reasons given for a replacement photo is:
1. No free equivalent. All Singapore Armed Forces camps and bases impose physical security measures, just like any other military camps and bases in the world. These measures include:
No entrance possible for persons without official reasons;
No image-capturing devices allowed, regardless of military status, unless special approval has been granted.
As such, it is not possible for the uploader to obtain a free equivalent to this image. An exception would be when RSN ships participate in foreign exercises and images of the ships are taken by, for example, a United States Navy personnel. It is also noteworthy that unlike in the United States, works of a Singaporean civil servant produced during his/her course of work (for e.g. photographs) is not public domain. Perhaps the interested person objecting to the fair use status could find out when will the next foreign exercise be and request for permission to be onboard the foreign warship.
2. This image is produced here in a non-commercial nature with the illustrational and informational purposes.
3. Details of the copyright has been properly attributed to the copyright holder, SPG Media Limited.
4. This low-resolution image serves its purpose of illustration adequately.
5. This image has been published previously by SPG Media Limited in their official publications.
6. This image meets general Wikipedia content requirements.
7. This image is used in at least one article.
The photo that I took was a side view of a Fearless class ship (same class of ship as the fair use image). It is a free image because I took it and licensed it to Wikipedia.
My question to you is "Isn't a free image preferred over a fair use image whose fair use status is describe above?" If so, I may submit my photo for discussion on the talk pages to see if other editors are satified with the quality of the photo. I consider your opinion more important to help me know the policies of wikipedia rather than deciding if my picture is of good quality or poor quality. VK35 19:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Can You Just Unblocked Me and Let Me Out, So I Could Get Free To Go Now?. - 4.68.248.134 01:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
OK Nick. What do I have to do, who do I have to talk to, to get this (and Matthew Mancuso) restored.
I am beside myself with rage here. It took me a while to be calm enough to sit still to even log in. It has taken me fifteen minutes since then.
I do not edit much, this is true, but I read a lot and I know our policies. User:Phil Sandifer's deletion of this article WAS COMPLETELY AGAINST POLICY AND WITHOUT CONSENSUS.
The article was well-sourced, NPOV and had earned a B-class rating from WP:WPBIO. It dealt with a notable individual who, despite being a minor, had testified before Congress and been the subject of considerable non-trivial news coverage. Yet Mr. Sandifer, whose user page clearly indicates that he has a troubled relationship with policy and whom other admins have strongly suggested should resign his adminship, was simply allowed to delete it claiming "Grotesquely inhumane article in flagrant violation of the spirit and point of BLP. No compelling reason for us to compound the harm and intrusions into her private life suffered". If he was, as he has suggested elsewhere, concerned about the details of Masha's treatment at Mancuso's hands, that was a small detail which could have been cleaned up through the usual process of discussion on the talk page. Nothing in the rest of the article was intrusive (unless you consider posting about people's appearances on Oprah and Nancy Grace and testimony before Congress to be invasions of their privacy.
I am also unnerved that the Mancuso article was deleted; there had been discussions there about merging it but the consensus was in favor of keeping it separate as he had also molested his biological daughter as well. Again, this was deleted citing "serious BLP issues" without any elucidation of what those issues were. We have AFD to settle things like that if editors refuse to be specific.
Why is Mr. Sandifer allowed to retain his administrative privileges in any event despite clear deviations from policy? If it will take me starting an RfC to get him desysopped, I will do it. I will, in fact, do WHATEVER IT TAKES to get him desysopped. I never believed Wikipedia administrators were the kind of people who did things like this and got away with it. Until now.
I earnestly implore you to do this. I will talk to Jimbo, I will do whatever I have to. My trust in Wikipedia has been broken. Wiki'dWitch 02:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I never wanted to get involved in this one for some currently personal reasons, but I don't think I have any choice now.
The vast bulk of that article was devoted to Masha Allen's public speaking out. If there were concerns about this they could have been resolved on the talk page and that short section rewritten. That's all it would have taken. Why these bulk deletions? Daniel Case 02:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I think it's rather presumptuous of Wikipedia to presume to speak for victims who've chosen to tell their own stories by silencing them. Masha Allen was erased from pictures in an attempt to find her molester. Wikipedia erases her to satisfy the moral proclivities of some of its administrative elite.
I assume, also, that if the focus of that article is to be limited, that some of the material that was in it can be put in other articles? The effect this case had on international adoption of children from Russia cannot be underestimated (and I suppose it's time I sat down and created that one; I'm certainly an expert in the subject); it might also be worth a mention in trafficking in human beings now that Congress has criminalized trafficking for adoption purposes and we know Masha's case is not the only instance of a child being adopted for sexual purposes (that was in the article too). There are interesting and notable details I'm aware of which have not been made public yet but I would not hesitate to add to articles when reliable sources report them.
In sum, it seems to me, the ArbCom's feeling is that the only real problems with the article were 1. the details of the abuse and 2. having all this in an article with the abuse victim as the primary subject. There would be nothing to prevent notable and sourced information not part of 1. from being used in other articles where relevant. Am I understanding this correctly? Daniel Case 14:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Hey dude, before you drastically ruined my userpage you gonna msg me first.-- SuperHotWiki 04:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
DON'T START DELETING ARTICLES WITHOUT READING THEM, THANK YOU! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steffan_Todorovi%C4%87 - IT DOES SAY THAT THE PERSON IS A FICTIONAL CHARACTER!
THINK AGAIN, thank you!!!!! jesus christ, I see you have a way of beeing annoying by nature. you seem to get awefully lots of complains.
I was just reverting ANI with a WP:DENY summary, but I liked yours better.-- Isotope23 17:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
You should not delete an article when it is currently on AfD, is part of an arbitration case, and makes you part of a wheel war. violet/riga (t) 10:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
So you close with snow after less than 12 hours and with only a few votes? You didn't even give time for people to respond (I was asleep!) and your actions are premature. violet/riga (t) 10:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I happen to notice you restored this for history usage...is that done? Can this safely be re-deleted? ^ demon [omg plz] 10:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Care to explain yourself? I discussed this with David Gerard at User talk:David Gerard. The history was moved there for GFDL concerns. Gerard agreed it was a reasoanble approach. Mango juice talk 13:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm a bit confused as to why you protected the article, as there is no edit war going on. The image did get changed because the file was deleted, then reuploaded to commons. Right now we're trying to clarify the image's situation on the talk page, but there definitely isn't an edit war going on. -- Ned Scott 00:56, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Will do. User:Nighet Abbas is a sockpuppet of Lil Proton who is currently on a one week ban. He is also most likely the Emirates spammer from awhile back. Pcpirate16 20:06, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
What do you mean it's insufficient? I just worked my butt off putting it on all of the images I've uploaded so that I don't get anymore bot messages. What is all of this "Rationale" stuff these days? It didn't used to be required. 500x500 isn't considered low? I thought that Something like 2000x2000 would be considered high, not 500.
Vala M 14:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Can you please tell me exactly which one of the Speedy keep criteria qualifies Wikisource to be speedily kept? I went through the criteria and here is what I noticed:
In re User talk:70.17.89.33, I have e-mailed Zumbrun at the Washington Post to get him to clear up which is his legitimate IP (though the WHOIS on the WaPo IP is pretty clear evidence, I just want to be sure there's not a mischievous co-worker involved). I'll let you know if I get a response. I was actually planning on a longer block if he confirmed, on the order of weeks or months given the gravity of the offense to prevent further malfeasance given that the user took several days between edits already. If you agree, I might lengthen the block if I receive a response. Otherwise, I'll let it be and watch the article. Thanks. · jersyko talk 21:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Nick, we don't admonish people who make good-faith nominations. ( messedrocker • talk) 23:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Nick, I can understand cleaning up articles with as you described it, "two lines of useful text". However, to properly achieve this goal, TTN would need to actually examine the individual articles. There is no indication that such a process is occurring, nor is any of the deleted information being moved to the "List" articles. This is just a wholesale elimination of thousands of articles - "Scrubs" and "That 70's Show" have been put on notice, among others, with more to follow. -- Ckatz chat spy 08:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi Nick. Re [1]. Whatever happened to WP:AGF and WP:CIV? This guy is a relatively new user who is doing lots of good work. I have seen no attempt by you or anyone else to explain to him why fair-use galleries might be a problem. At this time he's probably thinking WTF? How about helping a newbie? — Moondyne 13:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
The Special Barnstar | |
Your support is appreciated! MONGO 05:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC) |
Hi, please, block my user page. I am administrator in pt.wiki, and my page here is vandalised by IP. Thanks Adailton 11:22, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Was wondering if you could unprotect List of deaths in The Sopranos as the final episode has finally aired and there is no longer any reason to edit war. The Filmaker 03:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Wondering if there's any special reason that this well-sourced article was moved and history deleted? Generally I've seen discussion or at least announcement on an article's Talk when something this drastic is undertaken. I'd be interested to know what's up, not least because even the stub remaining contains several dubious points unsourced except to the subject. Robertissimo 10:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Psst, you may have already noticed, but user Anubiz is VERY suspicious. I think he really does suffer from a bad case of inferiority complex and maybe even split-personality disorder. Sometimes on his own talk pages, or the talk pages of his sockpuppet accounts, he talks and replies to himself, maybe forgetting to log in under one of his other user accounts. I know one of his sockpuppets was blocked indefinitely, but his other likely sockpuppet, Anubis-Entei, is still active. Some admins should really look into him. Thanks. Nintenboy01 19:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
I noticed that you deleted the entry on External Credit Assessment Institutions because "the bulk of it" was lifted verbatim from the Basel Committee's capital framework. As you will notice from the Basel Committee's copyright notice, exerpts of the report may be republished, provided a reference is made. The Basel Committee is a multi-government organization, and its framework is used, verbatim, in many countries' national banking regulation. Therefore it is appropriate, when defining what ECAIs are, to cite, verbatim, the language that the Basel Committee uses in defining this term. Accordingly, could you please return the deleted entry? Please let me know if you have any questions about what the Basel Committee framework is and how its applicable copyright might function in this case. Thanks. Epstein's Mother 20:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi Nick I wanted to let you know that [[]] is labeled as needing your comment. Please visit the above link to reply to the requests. Thanks! -- ST47 Talk 21:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I doubt that instituting a punitive method of behavior modification would have any positive effect. Creating an RFC would be a more productive and less reactionary way to go. ˉˉ anetode ╦╩ 23:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to appeal your decision to block JGoldwater based on the fact that there is an ongoing discussion at Talk:Fred_Thompson in which a sysop has abused his power in order to prevent people from posting information he didn't like. JGoldwater was up against 4 people acting in concert to make unjustifiable deletions of content. He merely reverted the deletions of the information that he himself posted. No reasons were provided for the deletions. BigDT and the people he recruited to promote his candidate have been acting like tyrants.-- 216.193.201.64 01:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Ty! Wiikipedian
Hey, I know you've blocked me, but can ya tell me how do ya add the online status to your page?
Thanks for blocking the page. But I believe that you blocked it in the wrong format.
I appealed to Wiki initially on June 15th, asking for page protection, after an anon's repeated deletions of properly sourced material, that is appropriate for the article (see the talk page for a discussion of that point. Below is some of the history.
The editor said that the anon was not changing the page enough for him to protect it (obviously, I was looking for him to protect it with the info in), so I might try another editor with new circumstances or try ANI.
I first tried another attempt for page protection, after the anon made more all cap reverts on the talk page. The second admin on that page also said that the anon had not yet made a sufficient number of reverts to semiprotect the page.
I then tried ANI, as suggested. If you look at the discussion below on the ANI page, you will see that I was encouraged to continue to RV the deletes, until the anon became tired or alternatively we had enough history to protect the page (presumably, including the properly sourced material).
I have followed all of the admins suggested steps. You have now protected the page, but not in accordance of all of the admin discussion as the page protection and ANI pages. Its deletion is not in accordance with Wiki guidelines, as I discuss on the Koplove talk page. As a second point, nor is there any consensus for deletion. Absent consensus, as with attempts to delete categories and articles, the Wiki approach is to not delete -- which you have done given the form that you have protected the article in.
Please look at the below discussion, and then I would appreciate it if you were to keep the page semi protected. Thanks.
Thanks. -- Epeefleche 17:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
The IP that keeps posting on Hkelkar's page redirects to New York. Hkelkar lives in Austin, Texas. The user BhaiSaab ( talk · contribs) (Hkelkar's nemesis) lives in New York. Can you look into that, I'm afraid BhaiSaab may be socking again. Baka man
Yes, I accept that he can't see the deleted material - hence why I have since voted Support on his RfA, after reading the answer. Personally I don't believe it's always necessary, or indeed productive, for a closing admin to look at the article itself when closing an AfD of that nature - if there are, say, 50 Keep !votes and 50 Delete !votes, all coherently argued by good-faith users, then the result ought to be No consensus, regardless of what the closing admin personally thinks. But I'm not going to make an issue out of this. Walton talk 19:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
the above link will probably be of interest. Spartaz Humbug! 11:33, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
I was just about to revert myself when we edit warred. I didn't realized he was banned until after I gave him a final warning. Lord Sesshomaru
If experienced editors act like new contributors and continue to violate WP:FORUM, despite friendly low key warnings, and do not comment when such warnings are altered like this, then they will get boilerplate warnings. LessHeard vanU 21:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
I've deleted this page as it's not appropriate for Wikipedia. Please don't recreate material such as this on Wikipedia. If you have concerns over another editors behaviour, there are several avenues available to you - Mediation, Dispute Resolution, a Request for Comment or an Arbitartion Request. Best Wishes. Nick 00:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Sure, if you'd prefer that. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Can you please change the wording of the intro. "Prime minister-designate of Britain" is an awful and incorrect phrase. Can it please read something like "soon to be Prime Minister of the United Kingdom" instead.
Archive your page! Miranda 17:32, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi,
The purpose of the recently-deleted User:Silly rabbit/Sandbox/Malicious Wikimedia exploit was to illustrate the problem with the "printfooter" CSS class. I was going to bring this up at the pump, once I established the viability of the concept. Presumably depending on the browser, it is possible for malicious editors to insert text into a Wikipedia page which does not render in any screen version of the page, but shows up in the printed version. Actually, I have considered using this "exploit" as a work-around for problems with the {{scroll box}} template, since this template breaks certain accessibility features. However, I noticed that the printfooter didn't show up in the screen-printable version. Only after printing the page did the missing text appear. I can't think of any reason that the printfooter should be invisible in the screen preview. Anyway, I will change the title of the sandbox article so that it doesn't show up to would-be crackers and vandals. Silly rabbit 14:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Nick... why did you assist in blocking the article on "THE WRINKLE - casino news publication". Just because you are not close enough to the Atlantic City Casino scene to be aware of a popular news source does not mean it is not valid as information. If I am wrong, please explain... I can have a petition signed by WRINKLE readers or send you back issues to validate its existance.
Dan
71.211.63.113 has continued to vandalize several articles since the block you placed on him expired. Please take appropriate action. Fullmetal2887 ( discuss me) 04:33, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
User talk:David Gerard:
Hi, I'd like someone to look into a recent edit with
m:OTRS as the reason just to get confirmation that the edit was appropriate. The ticket is
here. The edit was to
Sandworms of Dune; the quoted text was properly cited, is only 197 words and "is not used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media," so it doesn't seem like a copyright violation to me. Of course, I obviously have no idea what is contained in the m:OTRS file. Thanks in advance.
TAnthony
17:31, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you so much for your participation in my recent RfB. Though it closed with 72% support (below the required 90%), I'm still quite pleased at the outpouring of support shown by a fair percentage of the community.
I'm currently tabulating and calculating all opposing and neutral arguments to help me better address the community's concerns about my abilities as a bureaucrat. If you'd like, you can follow my progress (and/or provide additional suggestions) at User:EVula/admin/RfB notes. Thanks again! EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
You missed Kosmo The Fighter, another one of his sockpuppets. Cheers! P3net 23:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image: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 'image' 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 "Image" 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. BetacommandBot 01:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Felicity-serious-rgp.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 'image' 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 "Image" 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. BetacommandBot 02:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Hey, thanks for addressing my concerns with this article. -- Haemo 23:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Please use User talk:Nick/Delta Sigma Theta Nick 19:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Please stop
whitewashing the Al Gore III article. You are removing sourced material that meets
WP:V and is notable.
Robert K S
14:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Why is this article locked again? Is this how we deal with things on Wikipedia now? We edit articles until we agree with them and then lock them out so no further changes can be made? I do not mean to be rude, but I really would like an explanation on this. —
Steven Andrew Miller (
talk)
17:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Miranda
17:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Nick, again, respectfully, this characterization is untrue and unfair. While I have spoken out against the premature, one-sided administrative action on the article (conducted under the unjustified aegis of BLP), I did not edit the article following your substantial pruning; instead, I placed a warning on your talk page and expected to be able to talk through the issue. I trust you will review the article's edit history and offer an apology. Robert K S 02:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Hey Nick...it seems this guy is getting quite upset about his block, and I have reviewed one unblock request and declined based upon what contributions I saw. I'm asking for your help/guidance on what you think should happen next, if anything at all. I'm not worried about any legal action(s) as they claim, but as the blocking admin, I thought you should have this brought to your attention, aspecially since I am a relatively new admin, and am not as familiar with what to do in these situations. Any help, guidance, or advice would be greatly appreciated. Jmlk 1 7 05:46, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments in my recent RfA. However, it was unsuccessful. I am in no way disheartened, and I am working on all the constructive critisism I have received. If you have any further suggestions or comments, feel free to drop me a line on my talk page, and I will be happy to respond. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 04:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Please explain why you reverted and protected
User talk:Ced Diggory? It seems to me that
Ced Diggory was actually telling the truth in the edit you reverted.
Od
Mishehu
07:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Tnx for the info, I didn't know that. He sounded quite sincere on the IM, so I don't expect any problems though.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 17:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Commented on about this mess. Qst (Userspace) 11:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Hello, I am the editor who originally created the article Alfian Sa'at, which you deleted three days ago due to "BLP concerns". I have been away from Wikipedia for several months now, so I haven't been monitoring any of the pages on my watchlist, and the deletion came as quite a surprise to me, especially as I don't recall anything particularly controversial about the information that was on the article. I would like to seek clarification on why the said article was deleted, and (in the scenario that the original deletion was done in good faith but with lack of contextual knowledge) possibly give my insights on the matter. - ryan d 05:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Alfian Sa'at. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. - ryan d 11:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
I think the block on Trey is a tad excessive. An apology is in order, possibly even a 24 hour block, but indefinite, that is beyond harsh. Trey has only been blocked once before and that was something that I got him into and we both apologized to the user after our blocks expired. I would request that you rethink this block, knock it down to 12 or 24 hours and request an apology issued afterwards and let all be forgotten. Since this is an oversight, indefinite in too harsh. Trey is a very hard-working editor who keeps his nose clean and has a track record to back it up. Please reconsider.
Full disclosure, I am a friend of Trey's (online) but I was not asked by him to post this. - NeutralHomer T: C 20:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks in part to your support, I am Wikipedia's newest bureaucrat. I will do my best to live up to your confidence and kind words. Andre ( talk) 09:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
In all fairness I should be able to see this apparent "daming evidence" against me. It is rather apparent that you side on JzG on this one, maybe you even see me as a troll or vandal (two things I am not). But if you are to warrant yourself as a fair and impartial admin or wikipedian, then please play fair, and I'm asking you very nicely, please won't you show me what that link went to? Rfwoolf 19:23, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
With regard to the e-mail I sent you about Sputnikmusic's "professional" status. We have a staff that has been approved. Non-staff only should be deleted.
-Nick
Of course he walked away! He's the target of the compaint! Seriously, do you approve of calling someone (ANYONE) a whining twat? Don't we have rules here? ATren 22:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm rather concerned to see that you made this edit. [2] The original post was not vandalism. If you disagree with the poster please rebut the statement rather than blank it, particularly since the post was made to my own user talk page. Durova Charge! 18:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
David in DC seems to be having a legitimate problem with another user. He asked for advice and I suggest he take his dispute to the administrator notice board, but apparently you blocked him for an hour for doing so. I thought posting it on the administrator notice board would get the attention of some administrators to comment on it but I guess you didn't see it that way. I'm only posting this because I'm trying to find a solution to this problem. You suggested a WP:RFC but I think his request for help got several comments. Would you suggest an actual RFC? What do you think that would accomplish? Should he, if the RFC fails to solve the problem, go through a formal mediation? I'm just wondering what you would do in his situation. Thanks. Wikidudeman (talk) 12:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
As you probably know, ArbCom didn't take up the appeal for Trey. So, what's next? You said we would cross that bridge when we got there, well we are here. I can't tell you how upset I am about this. Trey was an editor, who had one other blemish on his record, and he was blocked as a "precaution". Complete violation of admin rules, as far as I know. Bad faith was thrown about throughout the whole thing and an editor who screwed up and apologized, was not only shown bad faith by admins who are supposed to show nothing but good faith, but he was not given a second chance. Second chances that are passed around like pennies, second chances that common vandals are given on a daily basis. Trey didn't get one of those.
So, I ask again and for the last time (as I am disgusted with the whole thing) that his block be lifted and he be given that second chance and an apology be issued from all involved. I think we owe him that. - NeutralHomer T: C 15:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Pulse_LED.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media 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. DieInquisitor 19:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:AAMilne_Myfarmpic.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media 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. DieInquisitor 20:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:27507849_bd736cb2ab_b.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media 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. DieInquisitor 20:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Mason_Williams_-_Classical_Gas.ogg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. DieInquisitor 20:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Heligoland_RfA_Voting.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media 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. DieInquisitor 20:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I have tagged Image:Three_promo_poster.jpg as {{ orphaned fairuse}}. In order for the image to be kept at Wikipedia, it must be included in at least one article. If this image is being used as a link target instead of displayed inline, please add {{ not orphan}} to the image description page to prevent it being accidentally marked as orphaned again. DieInquisitor 20:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Hello Nick,
Thanks for solving my problem with welcoming users, sorry this is my first time doing it and I can't seem to move the things to the right places. Can you show me how so I can speed up the process? Thanks ♠ K | ☢ 13:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Ah, nevermind; I figured it out. But thanks for helping me with about half of my errors =P. Later dude, ♠ K | ☢ 14:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC) P.S. I couldn't fix them all because it said something about telling a admin to do it, so I'll leave those to you since you're an admin. Send me a message if you fix the ones I couldn't.
Somehow this post got made to your archive 7 as well. Here it is again.
You were one of the respondents at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive241#Disruptive_edits_by_Tony_the_Tiger.
“ | If this article is going to be tagged by the Chicago Wikiproject, they need to be putting in time and effort expanding and improving the article. If they will do that, I see no good reason not to let them tag the article as coming under their project. I do agree it's a bit of a tenuous link though, but if they're going to help improve the article, don't look a gift horse in the mouth. -- Nick t 00:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC) | ” |
User:Pmanderson and I are preparing for WP:DR by attempting to understand each others arguments. You can see some debate at User:TonyTheTiger/DR_bot and more on his talk page. Actually, I am trying to understand his. It seems one contention may be that use of {{ ChicagoWikiProject}} conveys a promise or responsibility to actively edit an article.
As stated on his talk page, I actually believe that a tag is appropriate for other reasons such as cases where
I believe that a project could become active in an article for any of the above reasons. The categorical screening for articles where the above are likely to be true is what we have used the bot for.
The project from which I gained my assessment experience was Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography. They currently have 373,659 articles tagged. Even if they had 250 members each active enough to actively edit almost 100 articles they would need to remove their tag from about 350,000 articles if they were promising to actively edit the articles which they are tagging. I am not aware of any such promise. A tag is a statement of relevance in this case. It is not harmful to the article being tagged. The long and the short of it is if we tag an article we will at times take positive actions on some. For example, I nominated Hillary Clinton for WP:GAC because even though it is a mid priority article for us I noticed it was well developed. I make no promise to get any more involved in the candidacy than this. Right now our main task is to identify our Top priority articles and keep on top of new partially assessed articles. Can you give me some clarification. TonyTheTiger ( talk/ cont/ bio/ tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 19:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi Nick. Please use {{subst:nrd}} instead of {{ no rationale}}. Doing so, categorizes the image by date whereas {{ no rationale}} puts the image in an unsorted category. Thanks! -- PS2pcGAMER ( talk) 09:08, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
This is a request for the undeletion of the File:Underwood Carrie.jpg. It was deleted on May 12, 2007 by you for the following reasons: (Unused non free image). I believe the deletion was made in error. The reason is that proper procedures was not followed in the deletion process. The uploader user:Eqdoktor who is still an active editor was not notified of the deletion notice {{subst:idw|Image:Image_name.ext}}. The image was deleted from the two pages it was used in Wikipedia by an editor who appears to be out to make a WP:POINT - contributions or has an improper understanding of the deletion procedures and/or WP:FUC policies. If its at all possible, at the very least rescue the related talk page as it has extensive discussions on the implementation of WP:FUC and why the image conforms to the policy - Thanks -- Eqdoktor 06:33, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Carrie is not getting MY picture on Wikipedia? The horror! I'm crushed really... Image uploading... Why do they allow the peons to do it?... As you yourself has said, "We~ are trying to create a free encyclopedia here, not a pretty "ooh, look at all the pictures" encyclopedia." Nice... Talk down to the editor why don't you... I understand WP:FUC and the need for free images in Wikipedia well enough thank you - baby talk is not required. The point is rather your actions and the manner in which you perform your duties as an administrator.
~(is user:Eqdoktor included in this "we" you talk about?)
I am more disappointed and dismayed that an admin have taken such a high-handed approach to the whole thing.
Frankly, I don't know. I may not be up to date on the latest Wikipedia policies and if there is a special category in which certain administrators are free to ignore policies and procedures as they see fit - I apologize. As it is, I believe that this matter is being handled extremely poorly as the administrator. Do you agree that good faith attempts have been made to come to a mutually satisfactory outcome has failed and the next step is on to Wikipedia:Deletion review? -- Eqdoktor 17:58, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Image:Underwood Carrie.jpg. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Eqdoktor 18:22, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Nick, I understand that you closed the third AFD for Qian Zhijun based on the two previous AFDs. However, these AFDs were disputed at WP:DRV, a third AFD was opened by User:Viridae for the express purpose of letting it run its full course. Given the contentious history of this deletion, and in the interest of process, can you reopen this AFD and restore the article? -- DropDeadGorgias ( talk) 12:47, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
The Qiun Zhijun situation is at ArbCom, and you have been listed at a party. Please leave comments there. -- badlydrawnjeff talk 13:20, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Why are you deleting my messages left on your talk page? -- Eqdoktor 21:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. -- Eqdoktor 21:31, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
I didn't know whom to address this to, so I thought I'll pick an admin. Redirect me if necessary.
Look at: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=National_Public_School%2C_Indiranagar&diff=132042050&oldid=101770627 Isn't it not diffing correctly at least as far as the "School Events" (sub)section is concerned ?
I await a full apology for your behaviour today. And I demand an explanation for why on earth you responded to User:Throw's fourth unblock request, even 4 hours after he had been blocked from editing his user talk page for abusing the unblock system. Why has he gone totally unpunished for this?
I am mightily, mightily pissed off. You do not seem to even begin to understand why. That is a great shame. I have never come across you before, which seems odd given that you seem to be heavily involved in Scotland-related work, but I certainly hope that our paths cross infrequently, given today's performance. -- Mais oui! 13:59, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I noted your changed comments, but that you sustained your support. (If the concern is serious enough for you to switch to neutral or oppose, I would understand and take no personal offense.) I would like to better understand the situation, particularly in regards to out-of-process admin actions. Would you have the time and interest to explain a bit and maybe answer a few questions? I am available on-wiki, on IRC and via e-mail, if you would indulge me. Vassyana
Earlier this month, I asked:
...should high quality fair use images be used instead of low quality free images...
You replied:
Free images over fair use images any day of the week and under any circumstances. Wikimedia Commons is here - our sister project for collecting and cataloguing free images, media files and such. -- Nick t 17:20, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
At the time, I was asking just to become more familiar with the policies. Now, I have a real situation. There currently is no content dispute. I inserted a photo which was removed by another editor. It does not bother me that the photo was removed. Therefore, I am not asking your opinion to support a dispute.
The reasons given for a replacement photo is:
1. No free equivalent. All Singapore Armed Forces camps and bases impose physical security measures, just like any other military camps and bases in the world. These measures include:
No entrance possible for persons without official reasons;
No image-capturing devices allowed, regardless of military status, unless special approval has been granted.
As such, it is not possible for the uploader to obtain a free equivalent to this image. An exception would be when RSN ships participate in foreign exercises and images of the ships are taken by, for example, a United States Navy personnel. It is also noteworthy that unlike in the United States, works of a Singaporean civil servant produced during his/her course of work (for e.g. photographs) is not public domain. Perhaps the interested person objecting to the fair use status could find out when will the next foreign exercise be and request for permission to be onboard the foreign warship.
2. This image is produced here in a non-commercial nature with the illustrational and informational purposes.
3. Details of the copyright has been properly attributed to the copyright holder, SPG Media Limited.
4. This low-resolution image serves its purpose of illustration adequately.
5. This image has been published previously by SPG Media Limited in their official publications.
6. This image meets general Wikipedia content requirements.
7. This image is used in at least one article.
The photo that I took was a side view of a Fearless class ship (same class of ship as the fair use image). It is a free image because I took it and licensed it to Wikipedia.
My question to you is "Isn't a free image preferred over a fair use image whose fair use status is describe above?" If so, I may submit my photo for discussion on the talk pages to see if other editors are satified with the quality of the photo. I consider your opinion more important to help me know the policies of wikipedia rather than deciding if my picture is of good quality or poor quality. VK35 19:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Can You Just Unblocked Me and Let Me Out, So I Could Get Free To Go Now?. - 4.68.248.134 01:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
OK Nick. What do I have to do, who do I have to talk to, to get this (and Matthew Mancuso) restored.
I am beside myself with rage here. It took me a while to be calm enough to sit still to even log in. It has taken me fifteen minutes since then.
I do not edit much, this is true, but I read a lot and I know our policies. User:Phil Sandifer's deletion of this article WAS COMPLETELY AGAINST POLICY AND WITHOUT CONSENSUS.
The article was well-sourced, NPOV and had earned a B-class rating from WP:WPBIO. It dealt with a notable individual who, despite being a minor, had testified before Congress and been the subject of considerable non-trivial news coverage. Yet Mr. Sandifer, whose user page clearly indicates that he has a troubled relationship with policy and whom other admins have strongly suggested should resign his adminship, was simply allowed to delete it claiming "Grotesquely inhumane article in flagrant violation of the spirit and point of BLP. No compelling reason for us to compound the harm and intrusions into her private life suffered". If he was, as he has suggested elsewhere, concerned about the details of Masha's treatment at Mancuso's hands, that was a small detail which could have been cleaned up through the usual process of discussion on the talk page. Nothing in the rest of the article was intrusive (unless you consider posting about people's appearances on Oprah and Nancy Grace and testimony before Congress to be invasions of their privacy.
I am also unnerved that the Mancuso article was deleted; there had been discussions there about merging it but the consensus was in favor of keeping it separate as he had also molested his biological daughter as well. Again, this was deleted citing "serious BLP issues" without any elucidation of what those issues were. We have AFD to settle things like that if editors refuse to be specific.
Why is Mr. Sandifer allowed to retain his administrative privileges in any event despite clear deviations from policy? If it will take me starting an RfC to get him desysopped, I will do it. I will, in fact, do WHATEVER IT TAKES to get him desysopped. I never believed Wikipedia administrators were the kind of people who did things like this and got away with it. Until now.
I earnestly implore you to do this. I will talk to Jimbo, I will do whatever I have to. My trust in Wikipedia has been broken. Wiki'dWitch 02:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I never wanted to get involved in this one for some currently personal reasons, but I don't think I have any choice now.
The vast bulk of that article was devoted to Masha Allen's public speaking out. If there were concerns about this they could have been resolved on the talk page and that short section rewritten. That's all it would have taken. Why these bulk deletions? Daniel Case 02:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I think it's rather presumptuous of Wikipedia to presume to speak for victims who've chosen to tell their own stories by silencing them. Masha Allen was erased from pictures in an attempt to find her molester. Wikipedia erases her to satisfy the moral proclivities of some of its administrative elite.
I assume, also, that if the focus of that article is to be limited, that some of the material that was in it can be put in other articles? The effect this case had on international adoption of children from Russia cannot be underestimated (and I suppose it's time I sat down and created that one; I'm certainly an expert in the subject); it might also be worth a mention in trafficking in human beings now that Congress has criminalized trafficking for adoption purposes and we know Masha's case is not the only instance of a child being adopted for sexual purposes (that was in the article too). There are interesting and notable details I'm aware of which have not been made public yet but I would not hesitate to add to articles when reliable sources report them.
In sum, it seems to me, the ArbCom's feeling is that the only real problems with the article were 1. the details of the abuse and 2. having all this in an article with the abuse victim as the primary subject. There would be nothing to prevent notable and sourced information not part of 1. from being used in other articles where relevant. Am I understanding this correctly? Daniel Case 14:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Hey dude, before you drastically ruined my userpage you gonna msg me first.-- SuperHotWiki 04:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
DON'T START DELETING ARTICLES WITHOUT READING THEM, THANK YOU! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steffan_Todorovi%C4%87 - IT DOES SAY THAT THE PERSON IS A FICTIONAL CHARACTER!
THINK AGAIN, thank you!!!!! jesus christ, I see you have a way of beeing annoying by nature. you seem to get awefully lots of complains.
I was just reverting ANI with a WP:DENY summary, but I liked yours better.-- Isotope23 17:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
You should not delete an article when it is currently on AfD, is part of an arbitration case, and makes you part of a wheel war. violet/riga (t) 10:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
So you close with snow after less than 12 hours and with only a few votes? You didn't even give time for people to respond (I was asleep!) and your actions are premature. violet/riga (t) 10:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I happen to notice you restored this for history usage...is that done? Can this safely be re-deleted? ^ demon [omg plz] 10:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Care to explain yourself? I discussed this with David Gerard at User talk:David Gerard. The history was moved there for GFDL concerns. Gerard agreed it was a reasoanble approach. Mango juice talk 13:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm a bit confused as to why you protected the article, as there is no edit war going on. The image did get changed because the file was deleted, then reuploaded to commons. Right now we're trying to clarify the image's situation on the talk page, but there definitely isn't an edit war going on. -- Ned Scott 00:56, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Will do. User:Nighet Abbas is a sockpuppet of Lil Proton who is currently on a one week ban. He is also most likely the Emirates spammer from awhile back. Pcpirate16 20:06, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
What do you mean it's insufficient? I just worked my butt off putting it on all of the images I've uploaded so that I don't get anymore bot messages. What is all of this "Rationale" stuff these days? It didn't used to be required. 500x500 isn't considered low? I thought that Something like 2000x2000 would be considered high, not 500.
Vala M 14:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Can you please tell me exactly which one of the Speedy keep criteria qualifies Wikisource to be speedily kept? I went through the criteria and here is what I noticed:
In re User talk:70.17.89.33, I have e-mailed Zumbrun at the Washington Post to get him to clear up which is his legitimate IP (though the WHOIS on the WaPo IP is pretty clear evidence, I just want to be sure there's not a mischievous co-worker involved). I'll let you know if I get a response. I was actually planning on a longer block if he confirmed, on the order of weeks or months given the gravity of the offense to prevent further malfeasance given that the user took several days between edits already. If you agree, I might lengthen the block if I receive a response. Otherwise, I'll let it be and watch the article. Thanks. · jersyko talk 21:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Nick, we don't admonish people who make good-faith nominations. ( messedrocker • talk) 23:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Nick, I can understand cleaning up articles with as you described it, "two lines of useful text". However, to properly achieve this goal, TTN would need to actually examine the individual articles. There is no indication that such a process is occurring, nor is any of the deleted information being moved to the "List" articles. This is just a wholesale elimination of thousands of articles - "Scrubs" and "That 70's Show" have been put on notice, among others, with more to follow. -- Ckatz chat spy 08:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi Nick. Re [1]. Whatever happened to WP:AGF and WP:CIV? This guy is a relatively new user who is doing lots of good work. I have seen no attempt by you or anyone else to explain to him why fair-use galleries might be a problem. At this time he's probably thinking WTF? How about helping a newbie? — Moondyne 13:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
The Special Barnstar | |
Your support is appreciated! MONGO 05:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC) |
Hi, please, block my user page. I am administrator in pt.wiki, and my page here is vandalised by IP. Thanks Adailton 11:22, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Was wondering if you could unprotect List of deaths in The Sopranos as the final episode has finally aired and there is no longer any reason to edit war. The Filmaker 03:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Wondering if there's any special reason that this well-sourced article was moved and history deleted? Generally I've seen discussion or at least announcement on an article's Talk when something this drastic is undertaken. I'd be interested to know what's up, not least because even the stub remaining contains several dubious points unsourced except to the subject. Robertissimo 10:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Psst, you may have already noticed, but user Anubiz is VERY suspicious. I think he really does suffer from a bad case of inferiority complex and maybe even split-personality disorder. Sometimes on his own talk pages, or the talk pages of his sockpuppet accounts, he talks and replies to himself, maybe forgetting to log in under one of his other user accounts. I know one of his sockpuppets was blocked indefinitely, but his other likely sockpuppet, Anubis-Entei, is still active. Some admins should really look into him. Thanks. Nintenboy01 19:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
I noticed that you deleted the entry on External Credit Assessment Institutions because "the bulk of it" was lifted verbatim from the Basel Committee's capital framework. As you will notice from the Basel Committee's copyright notice, exerpts of the report may be republished, provided a reference is made. The Basel Committee is a multi-government organization, and its framework is used, verbatim, in many countries' national banking regulation. Therefore it is appropriate, when defining what ECAIs are, to cite, verbatim, the language that the Basel Committee uses in defining this term. Accordingly, could you please return the deleted entry? Please let me know if you have any questions about what the Basel Committee framework is and how its applicable copyright might function in this case. Thanks. Epstein's Mother 20:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi Nick I wanted to let you know that [[]] is labeled as needing your comment. Please visit the above link to reply to the requests. Thanks! -- ST47 Talk 21:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I doubt that instituting a punitive method of behavior modification would have any positive effect. Creating an RFC would be a more productive and less reactionary way to go. ˉˉ anetode ╦╩ 23:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to appeal your decision to block JGoldwater based on the fact that there is an ongoing discussion at Talk:Fred_Thompson in which a sysop has abused his power in order to prevent people from posting information he didn't like. JGoldwater was up against 4 people acting in concert to make unjustifiable deletions of content. He merely reverted the deletions of the information that he himself posted. No reasons were provided for the deletions. BigDT and the people he recruited to promote his candidate have been acting like tyrants.-- 216.193.201.64 01:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Ty! Wiikipedian
Hey, I know you've blocked me, but can ya tell me how do ya add the online status to your page?
Thanks for blocking the page. But I believe that you blocked it in the wrong format.
I appealed to Wiki initially on June 15th, asking for page protection, after an anon's repeated deletions of properly sourced material, that is appropriate for the article (see the talk page for a discussion of that point. Below is some of the history.
The editor said that the anon was not changing the page enough for him to protect it (obviously, I was looking for him to protect it with the info in), so I might try another editor with new circumstances or try ANI.
I first tried another attempt for page protection, after the anon made more all cap reverts on the talk page. The second admin on that page also said that the anon had not yet made a sufficient number of reverts to semiprotect the page.
I then tried ANI, as suggested. If you look at the discussion below on the ANI page, you will see that I was encouraged to continue to RV the deletes, until the anon became tired or alternatively we had enough history to protect the page (presumably, including the properly sourced material).
I have followed all of the admins suggested steps. You have now protected the page, but not in accordance of all of the admin discussion as the page protection and ANI pages. Its deletion is not in accordance with Wiki guidelines, as I discuss on the Koplove talk page. As a second point, nor is there any consensus for deletion. Absent consensus, as with attempts to delete categories and articles, the Wiki approach is to not delete -- which you have done given the form that you have protected the article in.
Please look at the below discussion, and then I would appreciate it if you were to keep the page semi protected. Thanks.
Thanks. -- Epeefleche 17:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
The IP that keeps posting on Hkelkar's page redirects to New York. Hkelkar lives in Austin, Texas. The user BhaiSaab ( talk · contribs) (Hkelkar's nemesis) lives in New York. Can you look into that, I'm afraid BhaiSaab may be socking again. Baka man
Yes, I accept that he can't see the deleted material - hence why I have since voted Support on his RfA, after reading the answer. Personally I don't believe it's always necessary, or indeed productive, for a closing admin to look at the article itself when closing an AfD of that nature - if there are, say, 50 Keep !votes and 50 Delete !votes, all coherently argued by good-faith users, then the result ought to be No consensus, regardless of what the closing admin personally thinks. But I'm not going to make an issue out of this. Walton talk 19:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
the above link will probably be of interest. Spartaz Humbug! 11:33, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
I was just about to revert myself when we edit warred. I didn't realized he was banned until after I gave him a final warning. Lord Sesshomaru
If experienced editors act like new contributors and continue to violate WP:FORUM, despite friendly low key warnings, and do not comment when such warnings are altered like this, then they will get boilerplate warnings. LessHeard vanU 21:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
I've deleted this page as it's not appropriate for Wikipedia. Please don't recreate material such as this on Wikipedia. If you have concerns over another editors behaviour, there are several avenues available to you - Mediation, Dispute Resolution, a Request for Comment or an Arbitartion Request. Best Wishes. Nick 00:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Sure, if you'd prefer that. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Can you please change the wording of the intro. "Prime minister-designate of Britain" is an awful and incorrect phrase. Can it please read something like "soon to be Prime Minister of the United Kingdom" instead.
Archive your page! Miranda 17:32, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi,
The purpose of the recently-deleted User:Silly rabbit/Sandbox/Malicious Wikimedia exploit was to illustrate the problem with the "printfooter" CSS class. I was going to bring this up at the pump, once I established the viability of the concept. Presumably depending on the browser, it is possible for malicious editors to insert text into a Wikipedia page which does not render in any screen version of the page, but shows up in the printed version. Actually, I have considered using this "exploit" as a work-around for problems with the {{scroll box}} template, since this template breaks certain accessibility features. However, I noticed that the printfooter didn't show up in the screen-printable version. Only after printing the page did the missing text appear. I can't think of any reason that the printfooter should be invisible in the screen preview. Anyway, I will change the title of the sandbox article so that it doesn't show up to would-be crackers and vandals. Silly rabbit 14:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Nick... why did you assist in blocking the article on "THE WRINKLE - casino news publication". Just because you are not close enough to the Atlantic City Casino scene to be aware of a popular news source does not mean it is not valid as information. If I am wrong, please explain... I can have a petition signed by WRINKLE readers or send you back issues to validate its existance.
Dan
71.211.63.113 has continued to vandalize several articles since the block you placed on him expired. Please take appropriate action. Fullmetal2887 ( discuss me) 04:33, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
User talk:David Gerard:
Hi, I'd like someone to look into a recent edit with
m:OTRS as the reason just to get confirmation that the edit was appropriate. The ticket is
here. The edit was to
Sandworms of Dune; the quoted text was properly cited, is only 197 words and "is not used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media," so it doesn't seem like a copyright violation to me. Of course, I obviously have no idea what is contained in the m:OTRS file. Thanks in advance.
TAnthony
17:31, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you so much for your participation in my recent RfB. Though it closed with 72% support (below the required 90%), I'm still quite pleased at the outpouring of support shown by a fair percentage of the community.
I'm currently tabulating and calculating all opposing and neutral arguments to help me better address the community's concerns about my abilities as a bureaucrat. If you'd like, you can follow my progress (and/or provide additional suggestions) at User:EVula/admin/RfB notes. Thanks again! EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
You missed Kosmo The Fighter, another one of his sockpuppets. Cheers! P3net 23:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image: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 'image' 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 "Image" 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. BetacommandBot 01:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Felicity-serious-rgp.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 'image' 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 "Image" 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. BetacommandBot 02:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Hey, thanks for addressing my concerns with this article. -- Haemo 23:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Please use User talk:Nick/Delta Sigma Theta Nick 19:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Please stop
whitewashing the Al Gore III article. You are removing sourced material that meets
WP:V and is notable.
Robert K S
14:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Why is this article locked again? Is this how we deal with things on Wikipedia now? We edit articles until we agree with them and then lock them out so no further changes can be made? I do not mean to be rude, but I really would like an explanation on this. —
Steven Andrew Miller (
talk)
17:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Miranda
17:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Nick, again, respectfully, this characterization is untrue and unfair. While I have spoken out against the premature, one-sided administrative action on the article (conducted under the unjustified aegis of BLP), I did not edit the article following your substantial pruning; instead, I placed a warning on your talk page and expected to be able to talk through the issue. I trust you will review the article's edit history and offer an apology. Robert K S 02:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Hey Nick...it seems this guy is getting quite upset about his block, and I have reviewed one unblock request and declined based upon what contributions I saw. I'm asking for your help/guidance on what you think should happen next, if anything at all. I'm not worried about any legal action(s) as they claim, but as the blocking admin, I thought you should have this brought to your attention, aspecially since I am a relatively new admin, and am not as familiar with what to do in these situations. Any help, guidance, or advice would be greatly appreciated. Jmlk 1 7 05:46, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments in my recent RfA. However, it was unsuccessful. I am in no way disheartened, and I am working on all the constructive critisism I have received. If you have any further suggestions or comments, feel free to drop me a line on my talk page, and I will be happy to respond. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 04:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Please explain why you reverted and protected
User talk:Ced Diggory? It seems to me that
Ced Diggory was actually telling the truth in the edit you reverted.
Od
Mishehu
07:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Tnx for the info, I didn't know that. He sounded quite sincere on the IM, so I don't expect any problems though.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 17:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Commented on about this mess. Qst (Userspace) 11:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Hello, I am the editor who originally created the article Alfian Sa'at, which you deleted three days ago due to "BLP concerns". I have been away from Wikipedia for several months now, so I haven't been monitoring any of the pages on my watchlist, and the deletion came as quite a surprise to me, especially as I don't recall anything particularly controversial about the information that was on the article. I would like to seek clarification on why the said article was deleted, and (in the scenario that the original deletion was done in good faith but with lack of contextual knowledge) possibly give my insights on the matter. - ryan d 05:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Alfian Sa'at. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. - ryan d 11:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
I think the block on Trey is a tad excessive. An apology is in order, possibly even a 24 hour block, but indefinite, that is beyond harsh. Trey has only been blocked once before and that was something that I got him into and we both apologized to the user after our blocks expired. I would request that you rethink this block, knock it down to 12 or 24 hours and request an apology issued afterwards and let all be forgotten. Since this is an oversight, indefinite in too harsh. Trey is a very hard-working editor who keeps his nose clean and has a track record to back it up. Please reconsider.
Full disclosure, I am a friend of Trey's (online) but I was not asked by him to post this. - NeutralHomer T: C 20:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks in part to your support, I am Wikipedia's newest bureaucrat. I will do my best to live up to your confidence and kind words. Andre ( talk) 09:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
In all fairness I should be able to see this apparent "daming evidence" against me. It is rather apparent that you side on JzG on this one, maybe you even see me as a troll or vandal (two things I am not). But if you are to warrant yourself as a fair and impartial admin or wikipedian, then please play fair, and I'm asking you very nicely, please won't you show me what that link went to? Rfwoolf 19:23, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
With regard to the e-mail I sent you about Sputnikmusic's "professional" status. We have a staff that has been approved. Non-staff only should be deleted.
-Nick
Of course he walked away! He's the target of the compaint! Seriously, do you approve of calling someone (ANYONE) a whining twat? Don't we have rules here? ATren 22:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm rather concerned to see that you made this edit. [2] The original post was not vandalism. If you disagree with the poster please rebut the statement rather than blank it, particularly since the post was made to my own user talk page. Durova Charge! 18:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
David in DC seems to be having a legitimate problem with another user. He asked for advice and I suggest he take his dispute to the administrator notice board, but apparently you blocked him for an hour for doing so. I thought posting it on the administrator notice board would get the attention of some administrators to comment on it but I guess you didn't see it that way. I'm only posting this because I'm trying to find a solution to this problem. You suggested a WP:RFC but I think his request for help got several comments. Would you suggest an actual RFC? What do you think that would accomplish? Should he, if the RFC fails to solve the problem, go through a formal mediation? I'm just wondering what you would do in his situation. Thanks. Wikidudeman (talk) 12:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
As you probably know, ArbCom didn't take up the appeal for Trey. So, what's next? You said we would cross that bridge when we got there, well we are here. I can't tell you how upset I am about this. Trey was an editor, who had one other blemish on his record, and he was blocked as a "precaution". Complete violation of admin rules, as far as I know. Bad faith was thrown about throughout the whole thing and an editor who screwed up and apologized, was not only shown bad faith by admins who are supposed to show nothing but good faith, but he was not given a second chance. Second chances that are passed around like pennies, second chances that common vandals are given on a daily basis. Trey didn't get one of those.
So, I ask again and for the last time (as I am disgusted with the whole thing) that his block be lifted and he be given that second chance and an apology be issued from all involved. I think we owe him that. - NeutralHomer T: C 15:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Pulse_LED.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media 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. DieInquisitor 19:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:AAMilne_Myfarmpic.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media 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. DieInquisitor 20:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:27507849_bd736cb2ab_b.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media 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. DieInquisitor 20:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Mason_Williams_-_Classical_Gas.ogg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. DieInquisitor 20:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Heligoland_RfA_Voting.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media 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. DieInquisitor 20:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I have tagged Image:Three_promo_poster.jpg as {{ orphaned fairuse}}. In order for the image to be kept at Wikipedia, it must be included in at least one article. If this image is being used as a link target instead of displayed inline, please add {{ not orphan}} to the image description page to prevent it being accidentally marked as orphaned again. DieInquisitor 20:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)