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

Hi Nishkid. FYI, I have reinstated the indef block on User:Treva135 as he is persisting with his personal attacks despite further warnings. Best, Gwernol 20:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for letting me know. Treva appeared to be innocently asking what to do regarding CSD tags, and it would have been best to just explain why you can't delete articles on cities. However, he did get violent afterwards, so I have no disagreement with blocking him indefinitely. Nishkid64 22:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I got involved following CharlesKnight's posting to ANI: [1] - there were several problematic edits from Treva135 before and after the tagging of the city for CSD. Best, Gwernol 22:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was just wondering, why did you have the page "Team Recon" deleted and protected? Thank you for your time. Paulhitthewall 00:10, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am sincerely sorry if my comment gave the impression that i felt that you were incapable of making decisions;that was absolutely not the imprssion that I intended to convey (and I re-iterate that the ageist comment was made by another editor, not by me). I felt that my comments related to the article (Abaana), not to your handling of it, and if that is not the way it came across please accept my sincere apologies.--Anthony.bradbury 00:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.--Anthony.bradbury 00:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Wikih8lulz needs to be outright banned for username, not just vandalism. User has 24 hour block only, but needs perm block for saying Wiki-hate lolz in his own username. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Niskid, my article has been vandalised personally by this Ip address 81.129.30.255 they haved added a notice that I' am impersonating a user. Please report it now, and have them warned.

Hey, just wondering about this edit. Why did you remove the Louisiana category? Are those going away or something? —Wknight94 (talk) 01:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, so it is! My bad... As you were...  :) —Wknight94 (talk) 01:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, any idea why Lucille Ball was protected? Would it have anything to do with a persistent AOL vandal? Strangely enough, he seems to have gone away (for now, at least) after I sent him a message telling him he was wasting his time. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 03:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You'd think the AOL vandal would have gotten bored of it, but apparently not. I got tired of reverting him, so I requested reprotection. Man, I hate AOL -- they can vandalize with impunity because we can't block them; they just keep coming back on a new IP. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 23:50, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies if this is in the wrong place, or in approriate. My colleage set this page up on my request and before he had finsihed editing it has changed and it was all very confusing. I have tried to pick up where he left of, and I am finding people talking about what is "notable" and what is not "notable". I was finding it hard to follow who was saying what. so i wont comment on past comments. What I will say is that notability is objective. Nobaby will totally agree, and if you guys spend you time arguing over it you will waste many hours.

What will say is this. I have held I dieing bady in my arms, and wept becuase I didn't have enough money to help. I met children who have been abducted, raped and forced to kill. I have held hands with children who have AIDS, and I have sat with street children on my knee. Many of these children Abaana support. We support over 3,000 children on a daily bases, and we do it through sacrafice. However there are millions still in need, and to be honest if we measured the work on Google hits, on numbers we would miss the point. There is no price you can put on an individuals life. Saving one life is notable!

Thanks Abaana 23:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to bother you. But is there anything that can be done about this User:Scorpion0422? He refuses to cite sources for his edits and removes every fact tag I put on things, please look at his edit summaries for South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut or just about any Simpsons or South Park episode article. He is not vandalizing, just being a dick and I don't want to editwar with him any longer but his blatant disregard for one of the most important policies here has got to stop. Is there a place to report such recalcitrance? Cheers. L0b0t 03:18, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't remove every tag. Just the ones that are ridiculous. Such as asking that I source the death of a person. All one has to do to confirm this is go to their page. I'm a strong believer in the do it yourself policy and since you want sources on some stuff (and there are a lot more disutable facts that you don't ask for sources for) I think you should be the one that has to find them. Otherwise, stop being so cloweminded and stubborn about your edits. Would you require a source that said Abraham Lincoln had been assasinated or that Kurt Cobain committed suicide? No. Your the one who comes into random pages that I have long been editing and practically clearing house of everything then refusing to allow anything back in. -- Scorpion0422 03:23, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have to provide sources for your edits. That's the whole point of Wikipedia. People expect that Wikipedia is a reliable source, and without any other external references, how on Earth can they actually know what is made up and what isn't? Adding unsourced information to pages has been proven very detrimental to Wikipedia. See John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy. I'm assuming you know what you're talking about when you make those edits to SP:BLU, but would it kill you to add references so inexperienced users would actually know where the material came from? L0b0t is only asking for references in places where references are needed. He is not trying to purposely attack you or anything. Also, you kept saying that someone could just click external links. I doubt all of those external links actually provide references for all the material in the article. Just please follow the format for adding references, and the whole situation will be resolved. Thanks. Nishkid64 19:14, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

On 30 October you deleted an article entitled "Café Crème" created by user PrincessBrat. I am trying to find a record of the AfD discussion and vote on this article but cannot locate it. Can you help? Thanks. Cristien Nikolas 17:23, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article was speedy deleted under CSD G11, which states that an article used to endorse or advertise a company or product can be deleted immediately. That's why it didn't go through AfD. If articles are deleted under "CSD..." then that means there was usually no AfD for the article (unless it's CSD G4 which says an article can be deleted if it is recreated after an AfD consensus of delete had been reached). I know it's all confusing, so I suggest just taking a look at WP:CSD instead of listening to my drivel lol. Nishkid64 18:53, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A week ago I nominated myself, hoping to be able to help Wikipedia as an administrator as much as a WikiGnome. I am very glad many others shared my thoughts, including you. Thank you for your trust! Be sure I will use these tools to protect and prevent and not to harass or punish. Should you feel I am overreacting, pat me so that I can correct myself. I will take your advice, and whenever I have doubts, I will ask for suggestions before acting. Mistakes can be solved, but it is better to prevent them when possible. Thanks again for your support! ReyBrujo 19:36, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be interested in helping out atWikiProject Munich? Kingjeff 21:29, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter how much you know. Do you know any of Wikipedia policies? Maybe you could help Munich-related articles comform to Wikipedia policy. Kingjeff 21:34, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think I'm missing anything on WikiProject Munich page? Kingjeff 21:55, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Check out the Munich article. I noticed there is only one reference. Try the Official Munich Homepage to see if you can reference anything in the article. One of the project divisions is an Article Referencing Drive. Do you want to develop this page or do you want to wait till there is more members in this project? Kingjeff 01:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the late response. I got so many messages and I didn't see yours until a day had passed since you messaged me.

Okay, I'll try adding references to Munich when I get some time. I don't think we need an ARD at the moment, since there aren't that many people in the project. I don't think it would be wise to start up the ARD until a month or two into the actual project, as I doubt anything will be done in there (this coming from my own personal dealings with WP:BBAID). Nishkid64 02:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for protecting Tourette syndrome, but I'm curious about why you felt it was necessary: vandal watchers have done a very good job of staying on top of the vandalism, and it hadn't been vandalized recently. I believe the article is OK without protection, because so many eyes are watching it. Regards, Sandy (Talk) 21:35, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

True, but none of the IP edits have been productive. Protecting the page will save people some time. And by the way, see WP:RFPP; the page was requested for protection there by Michaelas10. Nishkid64 21:41, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I left a note there: an unfortunate and unneeded protection, IMO. Thanks for the help, Sandy (Talk) 21:42, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, could you please fully-protect Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus? Thanks! Khoikhoi 22:01, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again, Khoikhoi 22:07, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, one more: Mashallah. Khoikhoi 22:30, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

:-) Khoikhoi 22:44, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, it's no big deal. It's not like I would've edited the page after it was protected (I know the rules). Khoikhoi 23:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nishkid. There's a request here to unprotect Tourette syndrome which you protected. The requesting user, Sandy, is a regular editor of this article, and so would probably know if protection is necessary. Could you have a look? Thanks. --Majorly (Talk) 23:36, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I know. Sandy was already talking to me about why I protected the page. I personally don't want to handle it, since I was the one who originally protected the page; so I'll let some other admin deal with it. Nishkid64 00:05, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I going to decline it, but apparently Majorly already unprotected it. Heh. Khoikhoi 00:16, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I unprotected it... I'll keep a close eye on it :) --Majorly (Talk) 00:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to barge in here again, but wanted to thank everyone, and also to let you all know that last week may have been particularly bad because I was traveling, had very limited internet access, and was unable to do my share of vandal reverts. If you watch it for some time, you'll notice that vandalism comes in spurts, and often dies out for very long periods of time - so far, nothing I can't handle. Regards, Sandy (Talk) 05:13, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I responded on my talk page. - Jmabel | Talk 00:53, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that user is on my watchlist now, and I will look over them. My philosophy is that we try to promote editing activity by anons and users alike. I feel that blocking anon IP's really isn't justified, as it may be a household computer, and one person in the family might be vandalizing, while another might actually want to contribute. Not everyone is so technologically advanced to realize that they could ask an admin for help. To prevent these situations from ever occurring, I tend to go with long-term blocks instead of indefinite blocks. Nishkid64 00:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your approach, Nishkid64. --SunStar Net 00:58, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please do my editor review for me - Wikipedia:Editor review/SunStar Net. I'd appreciate that! --SunStar Net 01:05, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --SunStar Net 01:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This Ip address. Has recorded, continual, vandalism, on contribution list, and is currently on, Last warning, please block. This name: 64.12.116.200. Spacebot 17:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC) on 17:43 at 19th November 2006.[reply]

First of all, the IP you linked me to is not even on Wikipedia and has made no edits. Second of all, your bot needs to rework its section headings for adding new replies to talk pages.

And finally, did you even register your bot? If you didn't, you can face serious consequences for running an illegal bot before going to Request for Bot Approval. Nishkid64 17:47, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apolodgies, the bot is just new. It may malfunction. Can you Register it for me? I' am a new user, not knowing how. If the bot causes more problems, could you please block it. It must have traced the Ip wrong. Register the bot please Galactian 17:50, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no power in authorizing bots. There is a special committee for that, so please go to WP:RFBA, read the instructions, and post your information about your bot. Thanks. Nishkid64 17:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The bot I created is causing havoc. I've added a script and its all going wrong. Its just blanked 19 articles. Please shut it down at once!!! Galactian 18:19, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, your bot has been blocked indefinitely. Tell me when you fix up the problems. Nishkid64 18:28, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After that little situation. I' am not going to mess around with bots again. I'm going to do lots and lots of work myself. Catch vandals myself, and become a proud and famous contributor to Wikipedia. Galactian 18:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, well that's good. Bots are a good thing, but handling bots can be a pain at times. Hopefully, everything will work out for you. =) Nishkid64 18:34, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering. How could I get a barnstar? A lot of users have them, and I don't. So far I have created 4 articles, which could be useful in future times.

See WP:BARNSTAR. People usually commend people for their hard work on Wikipedia by giving them barnstars. You should not ever expect a barnstar, or only edit for barnstars, but edit more for contributing to the encyclopedia. Eventually, people will recognize your contributions, and you will be awarded. Nishkid64 19:00, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Ip address User:195.172.183.147 Over the last few days has been blanking articles and repeatedly abusing Geek He was put on his last warning by an Admin 3 days ago, the next day he continued vandalising and hasn't been punished. He isn't here at the moment, but block the Ip. Galactian 19:05, 19 November 2006 (UTC) It does exsist, use the Wikipedia search, and it'll be found.[reply]

Hey NishKid, First of all, I'd like to congradulate you on what a marvelous job you've done of your page and setting it up. Now, when It comes to Vandalproof, I'd like to use it, but I haven't yet got over 250 mainspace edits. I'm working to bring the number up, I'm at 115 or something like that, but It'll be a while before I'm actually allowed to use VandalProof. Anything you can do/suggest?? Thanks, Ardo 19:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the compliments. =) Okay, now if you want to get 250 mainspace edits, I suggest you either do vandal-fighting by patrolling Special:Recent Changes and reverting and warning users for vandalism. You can also just pick a group of poorly written articles and expand and rewrite them. Or...you can go to the Wikipedia backlogs, and help copyedit, fix up POV issues, etc. Copyediting is usually good practice for new users, so read WP:COPYEDIT and find some articles to copyedit at Category:Wikipedia articles needing copy edit. All of these are great ways to contribute to Wikipedia, and can help you get to 250 mainspace edits quickly. Nishkid64 19:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I need your help so I can create these Userbox things on my page. So I can step further into Wikipedia. Galactian 19:38, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For userbox help, go to WP:USERBOX. It's not really that hard. All you have to do is add the templates, and you're done. Nishkid64 19:46, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering. Who is the boss Admin of Wikipedia? Galactian 19:40, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There really is no head honcho on Wikipedia per se, but I guess Jimbo Wales (User:Jimbo Wales), the creator of Wikipedia, has the most power on Wikipedia, since it does belong to him. Nishkid64 19:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if you know, but since China re-blocked Wikipedia, Exir Kamalabadi can no longer edit on Wikipedia, and we cannot continue with the admin coaching. =( Nishkid64 20:29, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note, Nishkid. I'm really sorry to hear that. I hope he will be able to work around the block or something. At any rate, it was really nice to work with you on Admin Coaching. Thank you for all your support and ideas. Firsfron of Ronchester 20:55, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have found this user profile known as User: Professor Sunderland . His contributions show mostly Vandalism, and I have relised he has the Same IP as an indefinitley blocked user I found called User:Molag bal which was blocked for vandalism, I believe this user is a sockpuppet. please add a notice to his page that he is suspected of being a sockpuppet. Galactian 22:12, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Galactian IS Professor Sunderland... you're being played with. Check the discussion on my talk page, that is, if he hasn't blanked it out again. Also note this: [2]. wikipediatrix 22:53, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was just about to add the same thing. Most revealing is [3] this edit to Professor Sunderland's talk page. Galactian posted that swear a few minutes after Galactian tagged PS as a sockpuppet. Then Galactian reported PS to AIV for being abusive and swearing on his talk page...when it was Galactian who had added the swear. In addition to AIV and wikipediatrix's talk page, check mine too. Metros232 22:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that - I've no idea! I've asked for an RFCU on Galictian to check his identity. Again, sorry! Martinp23 23:05, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's all confusing. I originally blocked Molag Bal indefinitely a few weeks ago (vandalism and such). Then Professor Sunderland comes out of nowhere, and then starts editing the same pages as Molag Bal. I established a connection, and told him I could block him, but I said I would give him a second chance. Then Sunderland goes crazy, makes two new accounts, Galactian and SpaceBot (which I shut off, as it malfunctioned and blanked 10+ pages). Galactian also edited Sunderland articles. I didn't know what the hell was going on, and I still don't. Anyway, RFCU is the best option here. I was considering that myself. I'm suspecting that the user has many more accounts. Nishkid64 23:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget User:Subwayjack. Can't we ban him by IP as well as by name? wikipediatrix 23:12, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It helps that this person is not at all subtle...he keeps returning to Sunderland and related articles, and his style is pretty distinctive. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 23:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Urgh, thanks for explaining it - can you add any others to Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Galactian? I would, but I'm off now. Thanks -- Martinp23 23:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just an FYI for ya... User_talk:Galactian requested unblock, as did User talk:Professor Sunderland - I've declined both, for the reasons shown (for User talk:Professor Sunderland, is the IP autoblocked too?) Martinp23 17:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear :( - do you think we actually need a checkuser too confirm this, or are the contribs similar enough (ie - Galactian's post to Prof's talk page)? I'm just wondering whether it's worth doing another case when the contribs seem similar anyway. Thanks for letting me know, Martinp23 12:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Nishkid, I hope you can help me with this. I just came across this vandal, he claims falsly that he is an administrator, I would appreciate if you would look into this. Thanks.__Seadog ^♪ 00:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.__Seadog ^♪ 00:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to place this award on your user page, as a token of appreciation for your contributions. If you're willing to help spread the good cheer to others, please see the project page for the Random Smiley Award at: User:Pedia-I/SmileyAward

User:Pedia-I/SmileyAward1

Hi nishkid! i wanted to thank you for sprotecting my request. It seems that User:Angr has disagreed with your decision and reversed it. I was wondering if you could please work out a resolution with them. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 19:29, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not voting, I'm changing my opinion as to whether or not I support this user based on facts provided, as it stands after thinking about it I am pretty sure he could do a better job then 80% of our lazy sysops. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 22:38, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at this [4] and please remove the South Park section, there is a consensus on its removal. Thanks. *Spark* 23:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! As you can tell, I didn't really care that much about unprotecting Weis Markets; it's been a couple of weeks, and I just looked back at it and realized that you denied the unprotection. I have no problem with that; the only reason I put in the request was that it had been protected for a month, and I thought that the policy is to not permanently protect pages. I read something months ago about AOL passing on some information that would let us block an individual end user, as opposed to a proxy IP. Any idea what's up with that? At the moment, AOL users can basically vandalize Wikipedia with impunity -- and they know it. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 01:28, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks (I think!) If you look back at the edit history, you'll see I went through some pain with that article, so I'm not eager to repeat it; we'll see how it goes. It's really frustrating that AOL users can do whatever they like and we basically can't touch them. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 01:44, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Nishkid, I noticed you're reviewing a lot of the cases on requests for protection right now so I figured I'd ask you to review a decision I made about 30 minutes ago. Here's the diff for it [5]. I realized after I made the denial that someone suggested it be brought here in the deletion review that is now up for the article that was asked for unprotection. As I'm a commenter in that AfD, I probably should have this reviewed by someone else. Oh, and did I mention this is just my first day with the mop? :) Could you take a look at the revelant discussions on DRV and RPP for me?

Hey there Metros! I hope you're adjusting well to your new admin tools. =) I believe your declination of the RFPP for YNA is valid. You're doing perfectly fine. We all know what the user's intentions are, so there's no point in actually listening to what they're saying. Keep up the good work, though. =) By the way, if you really feel you have been involved in an article that has an RFPP up, then it's recommended you don't involve yourself in the decision to protect/unprotect the page. You may have seen that Khoikhoi, a fellow admin, has sent quite a few articles to RFPP because he himself was involved, or knows about the article, and feels that his knowledge may influence the decision. And if you ever need any more help, I'm free to give a helping hand. =) Nishkid64 02:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weekly Delivery

Volume 2, Issue 47	20 November 2006	About the Signpost

One week later, Wikipedia reblocked in mainland China	Military history dominates writing contest
News and notes: Wikibooks donation, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Try not to unprotect stuff too soon. -- Steel 14:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please replace the semi-protection of Automobile. You previously agreed to PERMENANTLY semi-protect automobile. As was painstakingly explained before, short periods of semiprotection are of no use for this article. Please re-read my carefully researched proof that un-semiprotection is exceedingly counter-productive on either the original request for protection or in Talk:Automobile#RFPP_for_Automobile. The article was vandalised (predictably) within hours of your un-protection and will continue to be vandalised (typically) about 7 times per day. Since these vandals all come from different IP addresses (indeed different domains) and there is absolutely no pattern to the nature of their actions, we may conclude that these are just random visitors and not the actions of a small number of individuals who might be dissuaded by a short period of semi-protection.

Many of the editors of this article are heartily sick of spending hour upon hour of our time fixing up this article as a result of anonymous vandals when absolutely NO useful edits have ever been committed by anonymous users. SteveBaker 15:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, adding another voice in support of this – the article does suffer a lot, and the resulting vandalism really lets Wikipedia down. Please restore the semi-protection. If there is a policy which you feel you followed in removing the semi-protection, please would you explain it? – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 15:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please re-add the semiprotection. This page was vandalized several times a day almost every day, by unregistered users, and the semiprotection helped greatly. Dlong 16:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know you're also in the stub-sorting WikiProject. All the Munich-related stub templates are ready for use. Kingjeff 19:18, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They are right here. On member thinks I should propose these templates to the WikiProject Stub-sorting. Do you think I really need too? Kingjeff 21:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's an absolute must. You have to go to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals and propose all the new stub templates. You have to get exact numbers as to how many items fit in each category. Usually, people say 30+ or 60+ is a good number, so I wouldn't be surprised if some of your stub templates get rejected. If it's rejected, then you'd have to find some way to combine them into similar categories. Nishkid64 22:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is they're already created. And I don't like the fact that One WikiProject tells another WikiProject what to do. Kingjeff 22:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have admin powers for a reason. =) And besides, these guys are experienced and know what to do regarding stubs. Why is it a problem at all? Nishkid64 22:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't about experience. In fact, I went to them for help stub-sorting Munich-related articles because of their experience. I think all my stub templates are justified. I essentially copied the templates from WikiProject Germany. And the fact is I have less templaltes then they do. I honestly made these templates thinking that these would be the ones that would have a lot of articles in them. Kingjeff 22:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Munich is just one city in Germany. You can't have a stub for every single itty-bitty thing, which is why they have requirements for the minimum number of articles in a stub category. Also, stub templates have to go to separate stub categories (I'm talking about your U-Bahn stub). Just go to WP:WPSS and propose your system. Germany is a whole country, while Munich is just one town. Munich may have 10 articles in one stub category, but Germany would have dozens or hundreds in that same category. If you're still not willing to cooperate, then leave the templates aside for now. We'll wait for a month or two until the project has gotten underway and we can start looking at the exact number of articles that fit into each stub category. Nishkid64 22:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On WikiProject Germany, there are 18 stub templates that I could have copied. I only copied half of those templates. So, it's not like I went crazy over creating stub templates and they're relevent to WikiProject Munich. Kingjeff 22:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And how did you come up wit that conclusion? Kingjeff 22:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't you see what my whole complaint was in the first place? You have to have a certain number of articles in a stub category for it to be approved. 30+ is the usual req, but if you make many templates with 30-40 articles each, people at WP:WPSS may request you consolidate the stub templates into a few broader and more general stub categories that would encompass a higher number of articles? Nishkid64 22:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with your argument is that a lot of the are not even 12 hours old. Are they really expected to have 500 articles in it? Kingjeff 22:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no time to go around first searching for stubs and secondly looking for a name. I took a look at the WikiProject Germany stubs templates and thought about wgich ones would be suitable. They don't have any knowledge of Munich and wouldn't know anything about Munich-related stubs. Kingjeff 23:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The U-Bahn stub was my mistake, as at the time I was not aware of the procedure. see here. It seems to be tolerated, as it has a sizeable number of stubs, and after some discussion feeds into a parent-stub category instead of my inital mistaken category. Agathoclea 23:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I never heard back since, but just found it being listed on Category:Rail_stubs. I'll have to check into the seperate category issue. Agathoclea 23:26, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even though 1 is already on the discoveries list? Kingjeff 23:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC) All the WikiProject Munich Stub categories are up. Yo realize I had already combined some categories before I even created these stub categopries? Kingjeff 00:05, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with a WikiProject having this kind of atuthority. Kingjeff 00:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will have to appeal any decision that goes against the WikiProject Munich in the stub categories matter. Kingjeff 00:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think Ignore all rules policy is the policy that should be inforced here since the current stub rules prevent WikiProject Munich from improving and maintaining Wikipedia's Munich-related articles. Kingjeff 17:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to bring to your attention my reply here. Please, don't take it personally, it is not, it is only about the issue, and I perfectly realize you are simply cought in the middle, and never doubt your integrity. Just want to point out that you were "trapped" by a couple of ill-intended users to put the block on that page at a moment when they have malitiously edited it. Unfortunately, this is not a singular case, but became a policy that was applied in several articles. This demands for raising the issue higher. The example of the page you have blocked at the malitious moment will have to be given, so I though it would be logical to let you know about this. Again, I would like to assure you that all civilized users view your actions in good-faith. :Dc76 23:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ive localised my monobook now (see User:Glen_S/monobook.js) so it must be something Voice of All has done to a subpage. Am looking...  Glen  23:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Check the history of Redemptionbot – a sock of Molag Bal and Professor Sunderland? What do you think? --Majorly (Talk) 16:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree - a longer block on the IP is best (as a preventative measure against further socks), and the RFCU case is quite redundant, based on the evidence from the editing patterns. Thanks Martinp23 20:43, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like it, by the edits to the talk page (all CAPS, community centre claims) - don't know whether to believe them though... Did you block the IP or did I? Looking at your autoblock log, it seems that that IP was the IP of Sunderland, with a 24hr autoblock at the time, so if you did a two week block, that doesn't fit! Looking at the IP contribs, there have been no edits since the block expired (CSCWEM's block), so do you think we should WP:AGF and leave it unblocked, based on the message in the unblock request? I'm willing to do so, if you are (though I do feel slightly uncomfortable about it..) Martinp23 20:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That one IP was blocked for 24 hours after you gave Sunderland the main block, but of course, that has now expired [6], and so the IP can now edit (or should be able to) - I suggest that we watchist the talk page, and just block if it happens again, based on the message in the request for unblock there (or maybe I'm being gullible.. :P). Thanks - Martinp23 21:06, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Haha thought so! I think we can, therefore, put a long block on the IP - perhaps indefinate (and see what unblock requests appear, if any). This is probably the best course of action, if he's still managing a sock factory :) Martinp23 21:21, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just checked something - the IP is a member of a BT, which uses dynamic IP assignment, so whatever block we place is unlikely to stay in the correct place for long (though I agree we need to place one. I suggest that we just do it, and sort out the unblock request when it comes from whoever next gets assigned the IP (I'm not sure how often BT reassign, or if even they stay in the same IP range). Martinp23 21:26, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say, based on the above, that 6 months is probably the most we should really consider, aside from a range block, which might not even work, and will have lots of collateral damage. So yeah - I'd say 6 months or less, because of the nature of the IP -- Martinp23 21:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(deindenting) [7] - if you look above, it seems that this user created RedemptionBot, which would imply that he too is a sock of Molag Bal (though I've not noticed vandalism, he has had WP:CIVIL issues. Martinp23 21:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But it's a different IP, though the link with the bto account does seem to clinch it (and the fact that both are from Sunderland...). Martinp23 21:40, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've indeffed him - thanks for verifying my sanity on that one! Martinp23 21:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about piling messages on like this - I'm going offline now, so thought I'd update you. I've blocked User_talk:81.154.104.172 for a month, being a dynamic BT address, blocking all users, which should stop the socks for a month (touch wood). Of course, if it has collateral damage, I'll unblock. You may also want to take a look at User talk:Star of the north's rant, though it may not provide much we don't already know :) Martinp23 23:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since the block on the IP above, I've noticed an unblock request which is exactly the same on User talk:Tom and Abbie, which appears to be a sleeper account. I'm not sure what to do about the IP though Martinp23 21:14, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I get the impression that he/she created all the accounts a few days ago as sleeper accounts, in preparation for the "anti-sock" crusade. Looking at his IP (owned by BT), I doubt he's using open proxy - just that he created the accounts before the block Martinp23 23:09, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you delete Alan Marsden? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MeMeMe543 (talk • contribs)

I know it isn't ideal, but shouldn't this article be permanently semi-protected? It's one of the most regularly-vandalised Wikipedia articles that I've seen, indeed it's happened a few more times since you removed the "Sprotect" a couple of days ago. Thanks, Responsible? 02:09, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wish you a very merry Thanksgiving! Hope you and your family have a magnificent day! So, what are you thankful for? Hooray and happy gormandiziŋ! --Randfan please talk talk to me!

Have a great day! Please respond on my talk page (the red "fan" link in my signature). Cheers! :) —Randfan!!

I will always protect someone's userpage if they request it, regardless of whether there is any vandalism or not. They're not encyclopedic articles so the "high level of vandalism" thing doesn't really apply IMO. I actually went and protected that other user's page, only to return to WP:RFPP to find you had declined it. -- Steel 16:24, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Nishkid64,

This page is protected already. Some user were add a section;"Opinions_on_genocide",(with a racial-nationalist approach), which is unrelated with this article and no sources(Offered sources is from Armenian gecocide web page texts).
To keep the article "as it is" seems not so convenient.
Related discussions are being done in different genocide articles, to follow these discussions is irrelevant with this article.
at the Talk:Mustafa_Kemal_Atatürk there is a consensus that this section no need here.(except some a few supporter)
*I kindly demand from you to clean only this section Mustafa_Kemal_Atatürk#Opinions_on_genocide Thanks in advance. Kind regards. Must^TC 16:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]