1. August 2004 - February 2007
2. April 2007 - May 2008

Nabla, I've restored this template that you deleted as a result of a TFD, please see the TFD talk for more information. Thank you, — xaosflux ^Talk 12:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After over a month without any activity, I've moved Talk:Classical music in popular culture to User:Edgarde/Classical music in popular culture. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Template:Bbblock. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. — xaosflux ^Talk 04:11, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think your move of Ulm Minster was a bit premature; I'm not really sure there was consensus on the issue. I'd request that you review your decision, perhaps by asking admins who are more familiar with the process. Respectfully, Erudy (talk) 12:24, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll reply there. Thanks - Nabla (talk) 23:17, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of All Stars (video game). Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. --Stormie (talk) 23:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's alright actually. Not sure what happened with that edit. But I appreciate the heads up. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 23:38, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for your close of that TfD. As you can see, it s probably ready for deletion now. --John (talk) 07:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks here too for the close. I saw the same whatlinkshere page and I deleted the template. Garion96 (talk) 12:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both for the assistance - Nabla (talk) 17:58, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you also for the close. You made the right decision. « Diligent Terrier [talk] 20:23, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked for a second deletion review of Jack Wilshire. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. as fully expected he started today for Arsenal F.C.. Could an Admin please restore the article ASAP so as to not waste someone who knows no better's time starting to write a new article from scratch. Nfitz (talk) 18:46, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you put an Original Research tag on the article Mutants (Judge Dredd). Please note that Wikipedia policy states: "This template should not be applied without explanation on the talk page, and should be removed if the original research is not readily apparent when no explanation is given." (See Template:Original research.) Therefore please state your concerns on the article talk page. Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:These are not original research may help. Richard75 (talk) 20:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Been out for 6 months... I'm letting this one go! Thanks for the warning, still. Nabla (talk) 20:27, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nabla. Per this, it appears that this should be deleted. -- Suntag ☼ 01:10, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Done. Thanks. Nabla (talk) 20:26, 27 February 2009 (UTC) (PS:please use meaningful link words, not 'this')[reply]

You undid my edit with a wikilink to Solon SE, calling it an extra external links. Any particular reason for that? --STTW (talk) 19:56, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Ooops. Sorry. I was removing external links that someone was adding to many pages (check the diff) and your edit was reverted by mistake. I have reverted myself, I hope it is OK now. Sorry - Nabla (talk) 20:07, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I restored this redirect that you deleted as G4 (recreated content). There was never a consensus to delete the target page which still exists at Template:2009 swine flu outbreak table, and this particular redirect was never previously deleted. A different redirect at this page was deleted when it was pointing into article space (and hence a cross-namespace redirect), but that is no longer the case. Dragons flight (talk) 23:22, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As far as strictly following rules go, you are right but... Could you point me any reason to have this redirect, that is not used at all? - Nabla (talk) 18:34, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nabla — I have seen that you have closed the TfD discussion on the 911ct supporters template. (I have created this template.) I agree that the template should be consolidated with the 911ct template, and that BLP concerns should be addressed. Because the title of {{911ct}} is "Part of a series on...", instead of the {{911ct supporters}} title: "Articles on...", I think that any BLP concerns are actually greater with regard to {{911ct}}. Who would want his or her biography be presented as "part of a series on" something else? In my view, the consensus of the TfD discussion was converging towards "merge", not "delete", meaning that the community demands that the templates would be consolidated, and that the duplicate template would be deleted after the merger. Also, {{911ct}} has a long list of approximately 40 people that are simply sorted by alphabet, which is not very informative for the reader. What would be your advice on how to proceed and to improve the template?  Cs32en  23:38, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the consensus was to merge and then delete, I deleted imediatelly presuming whataver there was to merge was already done, as they looked just about the same, and I thought any remaining differences could be address without resorting to the deleted version. Anyway if undeleting temporarily to help merge anything leftover I have no problem in doing it (If I'm not around, as you see from this late reply I am not here everyday, certainly some admin will do it, just point him here)

As how to improve it, specially on the BLP concerns, that's a tougher call... I'd say making it collapsed by default, to remove some 'weight' would be a little help. Most of all I'd say the criteria for inclusion should be clear, and probably more strict. I took a look at Willie Nelson's article - as it was one of the feww names that were familiar to me, and it makes lkittle to no sense to include it in a "series about 911ct's"; the whole article has a single paragraph stating he once said there was something supisously looking about it. To me that is far from enough to include him - much more known worldwide for other reasons - in such a template. Maybe there are more of those?... I think only those that actively (say, writting a book, a series of articles, etc.) defended any such positions should be included in a template like that.

Good luck, Enjoy! - Nabla (talk) 18:58, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nabla — Thank you for your answer! I have seen that you have been cleaning up the TfD page, so you probably have taken care of that discussion during this process. This is a very complicated issue. On the one hand, {{911ct supporters}} has more weight, because it has the subgroups for the supporters. On the other hand, it says "Articles on" instead of "Part of a series on", and it is collapsed by default. I have formulated some more precise criteria for inclusion, though that was after the TfD has been opened. No merging has been taking place, as this would have possibly have been seen as preempting the discussion, and could have led to further conflict.

Some of the "proponents and supporters" that were listed on {{911ct}} earlier are advocating about every conceivable fringe theory there is out there, and I have removed those from the template that have only made casual or otherwise not notable remarks about 9/11. The list of about 40 names is still confusing, and some people seem to be advocating that list, because it allows to put all the people that are listed there in "bad company" and putting people like Edward Asner on the same footing as, for example, Lyndon LaRouche. I don't know whether to restore the discussion or re-closing the discussion as "merge" would really solve anything, as the editing process is overall not really conducive to any stable results. I also don't know whether the discussion could just remain "stale" or what happens when the decision is "merge" and nothing substantial happens after such a decision.

As for who is in the template, I think that those who want their support to be known to the public should be included, and others only if there is a compelling reason (and multiple reliable sources) to include them. Ed Asner has written an open letter to 9/11 activists - he is included, Charlie Sheen's position has been featured on major TV stations after he has been interviewed by Alex Jones - also included, Rosie O'Donnell has stated her view very prominently in "The View" - this is not mentioned in the WP article, however, so she is not included. I would take out Ahmadinejad, for example, because it is really is a minor issue among his various political views. Chavez has been taken out already for similar reasons.

"Part of a series" is, of course, a commonly used phrase for templates. It's unsuitable in this case, unless you would want to somehow convey the message that the people listed there are a somehow strange group of characters who belong to some underground network and have no life other than being part of that "series". Maybe its best to re-close the issue with some message stating "rework {{911ct}}", possibly with some advice. This is maybe a non-standard way to close the discussion, but better than the alternatives. Thank you for taking the time to help resolving these issues! Let me know what your ideas are on what to do with this. — Regard.  Cs32en  20:31, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The OTRS system is looking for trusted volunteers to help staff our Portuguese permissions queue. I would like to invite you to look over what OTRS involves and consider signing up at the volunteering page. Thank you. MBisanz ^talk 17:04, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks, but no thanks. I thank you for thinking of me, but I both have little time for WP (see this laaaaate reply) and also have an increasing bad feeling about it (too much garbage, low level politics and commercial purpose, include the message below in that). Maybe someday... Nabla (talk) 21:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In case you are not aware, the Wikimedia Foundation has proposed that the copyright licensing terms on the wikis operated by the WMF – including Wikipedia – be changed to include the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike (CC-BY-SA) license in addition to the current GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) as allowed by version 1.3 of the GFDL. The community has approved this change with 75.8% in favor, and on June 15, 2009, the change will take effect.
You currently have {{NoMultiLicense}} on your user or user talk page, which states that your edits are licensed under the GFDL only. On or before June 15, this template will be changed to reflect Wikipedia's new licensing terms. If you accept the licensing change, you do not need to do anything (and feel free to remove this message); if you do not accept it, we regret that you will no longer be able to contribute to the encyclopedia. Please join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#NoMultiLicense template if you have any comments.

Delivered by The Helpful Bot at 20:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC) for the Village pump. Report errors here. [reply]

• Wp has no respect for copyright. Once a set of images I've uploades had their copyright notice changed multiple times without any respect for the original one nor any warning to the uploader. Now you change the copyright of my (past?) contributions because a "majoirity" says so? Shame on you, WP. Nabla (talk) 21:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Battrick. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. <Karlww _{(contribs|talk)} 04:39, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Nabla! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 910 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

1. Ibolya Verebics - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 22:44, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is List of Firefox extensions. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Firefox extensions (2nd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:09, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Braille C3.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:19, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Totally out of line and you know it. — Ched :  ?  18:00, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Nabla and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, NW (Talk) 01:15, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nabla. I read your thread on the Village Pump with interest. I can understand your frustration with bot edits; I have battled bots myself when they falsely flag an edit as vandalism. And I can also sympathize with you regarding the extreme reaction you received there and at the administrators' noticeboard: while I certainly don't approve of the "bad edits" you discussed, I agree that the reaction is a bit disproportionate to the "crime", as it were.

But I would like to make a request, editor to editor, that I hope you will consider. If you don't plan on actively using the administrative tools, would you consider dropping by the stewards' desk and saying so? With the AN threads, ArbCom case, etc., it seems as though no one has simply come by here and politely asked you if you would consider doing that, so I am doing so now. It's obvious that despite the "bad edits", you care about the project, and I think you would agree that in the interest of avoiding unneeded drama, the best thing to do would be to turn in tools you no longer need, and let the community move on to more productive endeavors than ArbCom cases. I think doing so would be a very kind good-faith gesture on your part.

(And as a bot operator myself, I am always open to hearing about ways to make my bot edit in a more friendly and intelligent manner.)

Thanks for your time. 28bytes (talk) 16:27, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I don't think I did any evil doing worthy of this persecution. By giving in to shouts and threats I believe that then, yes, I would be hurting WP. Much, much more that a couple of bad edits did. Thank you for trying to help. It was not me that wished to take the case to ArbCom, or whatever, but I will not flee from it either. - Nabla (talk) 23:22, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. There are a number of good faith editors I respect who think your conduct was mostly harmless, who will be upset if ArbCom forcibly desysops you, and there are a number of good faith editors I respect who think your conduct merits a desysop (and possibly a block), who will be upset if ArbCom takes no action. My intent in posting here was to offer a path that would avoid hard feelings on all sides, but I understand that once the "shouts and threats" start, it is very difficult to avoid retrenching into a battleground mentality. 28bytes (talk) 00:16, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think I understand how you can be sorry this things happen. If I were an outside party I could find myself in your shoes, trying to defuse this. As I see it, I was dragged to ArbCom without anyone even trying to reasonable argue with me. I was declared guilty, period. And that I can not accept. I hope I am not going for battle, I hope I go for peaceful resistance :-) Thank you, and enjoy! - Nabla (talk) 01:17, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While I am not able to condone what you did, I think the community over-reaction is troubling. I'll support a proportionate punishment, but them I hope we do some thinking about how to address the problems that lead you to your actions, and a bit of introspection about why the over-reaction.--SPhilbrickT 20:33, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you 100% percent. Including in not condonig (some of) my actions :-) - Nabla (talk) 23:22, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No Sphilbrick, what's troubling is the number of admins who have no concept of trust and display such contempt for the community. A bit of introspection from admins would be more worthwhile - why are you so opposed to behaving in a trustworthy manner? DuncanHill (talk) 20:49, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds like a classic case of over-reaction. What on earth did I say that lead you to conclude I am "opposed to behaving in a trustworthy manner"?--SPhilbrickT 21:37, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That you don't understand the community reaction to Nabla's behaviour. You're not alone, many admins don't understand why so many editors get so upset by untrustworthy behaviour from admins. For my part, I don't understand how anyone can set themselves up as in some way more trustworthy than the rest of us and yet not understand the reaction to events like this. DuncanHill (talk) 22:01, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not "the admins" nor I am guilty of any wrong doing any other admin did, nor I used admin tools for anything wrong at all. So stop attacking me for whatever others did. You might be right that some admins abused their powers, I bet you are right! But you are aiming at the wrong target. You already insulted me twice, please stay cool. - Nabla (talk) 23:22, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• FWIW, I think a desysop is entirely too harsh as well, and stated so at the RFAr. Best of luck, and sorry it's been such a nightmare for you here. — Ched :  ?  08:53, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. No problem; as you said before, I was out of line, so it is OK to have to stand some noise (though I hardly expected this much). - Nabla (talk) 23:26, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Apologies if I didn't make this clear, but the specific reason I took this case to ArbCom was because it was obvious that the case was going to them sooner or later, and this way some drama is forestalled. NW (Talk) 13:03, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I guessed so. I think you acted correctly, thank you. - Nabla (talk) 13:09, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An arbitration request regarding User:Nabla has now closed and the decision can be read here. The following motion has been enacted:

(A) The Arbitration Committee reaffirms its, and the community's, expectation that administrators will observe all applicable policies, avoid inappropriate edits, and behave with maturity and professionalism throughout their participation on Wikipedia. While administrators are not expected to be perfect, severe or repeated violations of policies and community norms may lead to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping.

(B) Nabla's conduct in admittedly making several unproductive edits while editing as an IP has been subject to significant, and justified, criticism. The Arbitration Committee joins in disapproving of this behavior, but accepts Nabla's assurance that he will not repeat it in the future, even to express good-faith concerns or frustrations regarding aspects of the project.

(C) Nabla is aware from the ANI discussion and this request for arbitration that some editors' trust in his ability to serve as an effective administrator has been eroded, both because of his IP edits and because of his period of inactivity. If Nabla intends to resume active work as an administrator, he should first refamiliarize himself with all applicable policies, and we recommend that he focus initially on less controversial administrator tasks. To an extent, these recommendations apply to any administrator who returns after a long period of inactivity.

(D) Although not directly relevant to Nabla's situation, the Arbitration Committee is aware of the ongoing community discussion regarding inactive administrator accounts, and stands ready to play its part if necessary once consensus has been determined. Passed 13-1 with 1 abstention on June 27, 2011.

For the Arbitration Committee, -- Dougweller (talk) 13:30, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good to see it end. Fortunately there are enough sensible people around, I hope I will not disappoint you! Thanks. - Nabla (talk) 13:52, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Nabla, I write you this personal request in hopes of being both tactful and decent to you. There seems to be several vocal critics of the recent ArbCom decision in which you were not desysoped. I would like to request that you resign your tools and position as administrator as soon as possible. This would avoid a lengthy and potentially nasty request for comment about you, reduce drama and entirely quell the issue. I sincerely look hope you will consider this with all seriousness. Sincerely, Basket of Puppies 21:35, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The issue was taken to ArbCom asking "[...] whether they will consider a summary desysopping or if they wish the community to go through the request for comments process first." The issue was discussed, 2 motions were proposed, voted and a decisions was taken (as may be seen above). So as I see it, both possibilities, desysopping and RfC, were taken into account by the ArbCom and discarded. If anyone disagrees with the ArbCom decision I presume the correct action would be to appeal to it. As far as I am concerned the case is closed, I see no reason at all to do as you ask. - Nabla (talk) 23:34, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would you consider allowing yourself to go through a reconfirmation RfA? Basket of Puppies 03:45, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat, as far as I am concerned the case is closed. I ask you to move on and allow me to also move on, please. - Nabla (talk) 10:02, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From your reply I can assume your answer is 'no'. Shame. An RfC/U is forthcoming. Basket of Puppies 03:34, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I ask you to use your time, and mine, with something more useful. So far, in here, you did nothing other than proclaiming I am guilty and thus I should admit it and punish myself. You threatened and harassed me. You have not made the slightest attempt to discuss with me. Please stop, move on, and allow us all to do something more productive. - Nabla (talk) 04:49, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry you feel that way. We'll continue this discussion on the RfC/U. Have a good afternoon. Basket of Puppies 15:58, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What discussion? Anyone wanting to discuss does not start out with threats, as you did. Threatening with a "lengthy and potentially nasty request for comment", if I don't do as you tell me to, is not a discussion. That is a monologue. - Nabla (talk) 17:06, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sir/Madam, this is a 16 year old girl we are talking about. Her accomplishments cannot be put on the internet. And Sir/Madam this is middle east so you know there will not be so much popularity in worldwide. I am trying to show that there are hidden talents among us. I have provided a link where she was interviewed by an esteemed Newspaper Times Of Oman. Her Accomplishments listed here are very little. She has a CGPA of 10 in her 10th year of study. So please Sir/Madam, and this is my first article so it can have mistakes. She is not a celebrity, but I can guarentee you Sir/Madam that all the mentioned ones are real. So please reconsider. And please remove the messages.

Yours Sincerely, Anoop Teddy2020 (talk) 15:35, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

stray barnstar removed - please use the 'new section' link, not the WikiLove link :-)

Hello, Teddy2020. I do not doubt your good faith in adding this article. The warning messages are not aimed at deleting the article - quite the opposite, I removed messages asking for its immediate deletion. Anyway, being an article (also) about a person, and a young one, we do not want to expose her much more than she already is, for her protection (please see WP's policy about biographies of living persons). Also we want to be reasonably sure that the both her and her book exist and that it is worth including (please see Wikipedia:Notability). That's what the messages aim at: asking for the article to be improved, for its claims to be supported somehow. Otherwise, how can we tell it (or details of it) is not made up? Enjoy! - Nabla (talk) 22:24, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Nabla, Come to think of it, your right. Hmm okay. She was leaving our school so I wanted to do somethng special for the kid. You know what i will show her and tell her all this. She will understand. I will delete the article due to low on support documents okay. It has been a wonderful experience editing, talking with wikipedia officials. I will continue my work for editing other article which are in need of images and stuff etc. Thank you for the oppurtunity. After 1 or 2 days I personally will delete the article.

Yours Sincerly, Anoop — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teddy2020 (talk • contribs) 23:46, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I hope you do find something you'd like to add. If you need a hand, please ask. Oh! From your writing, and using my experience working with people about her age, I may guess in-between the lines, and bet she is outstanding. So wish good luck and a long and happy life to that young girl, coming also from some unknown guy from far away. - Nabla (talk) 01:15, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good work! Thanks! Bridgeplayer (talk) 16:37, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. For the cooperation, and for taking the tame to thank me - Nabla (talk) 16:40, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it satisfies the basic criteria of WP: Notability (people). Any suggestions what needs to be done to improve the article? Boolyme बूलीमी ^{Chat बोलो!!} 13:04, 28 August 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Hello Nabla! I hope you enjoy this cookie as an amicable greeting from a fellow Wikipedian, SwisterTwister talk 20:46, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]