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.

Looks like we are both working on the next update. I'll defer to you. — ERcheck (talk) 22:40, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On December 31, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Fred A. Hartley, Jr., which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid64 22:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:67.101.182.96 has vandalized a bunch of stuff in the past few hours. I suggest a block, as his account seems to be for vandalism only. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 01:27, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I can't block the user. The best I could do was give a warning. Had the user been warned previously with a t3 or t4 today, then I could have blocked him/her. Nishkid64 01:40, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll keep a watch on them for the rest of the night. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 01:41, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I made an alternative suggestion on DYK suggestions for the Edward J. Patten entry. — ERcheck (talk) 01:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since you are ok with the change, I've added it to the DYK-next update page. — ERcheck (talk) 02:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:71.220.3.72 continues to vandalize. I have warned him twice since the first time, but he isn't stopping. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 02:19, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know it's frustrating, but with three bad edits, I still can't block the user. Usually the succession goes as follows: t1, t2, t3, t4, block. Nishkid64 02:22, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I just gave him a t3.... so he has to get a t4 and then screw up again, right? S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 02:24, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's cool. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 03:02, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:24.151.136.19 should be blocked due to his reaching of t4. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 02:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks - you made some Scottish wikipedians happy seeing the poor old isle up there on Hogmanay. Ben MacDui (Talk) 14:02, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On 1 January, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Edward J. Patten, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

-- tariqabjotu 15:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there... I would definitely approve of your nominating me for adminship! I definitely agree with the two issues you mentioned on my talk page, but definitely trust your judgment that it should be a smooth process. It's definitely worth a shot, and is something to which I've been looking forward, and appreciate the chance just to be nominated. Thanks again, and if you could let me know when the page is set up, I'll accept there, answer the questions, and then go from there! --Kinu ^t/_c (éŕ) 21:42, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, I know. I was on vacation that week and I didn't find out 'til everything was underway. I then asked Savidan for his permission, which took another 2 days. Next time, I'll try for an earlier date. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 22:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Backlogged.`Bakaman 22:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yo Nish, I was wondering if I was allowed to copy your boxes you have on your user page with RFA stats, warnings, and categories. Thanks. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 02:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks man. I've been visiting your page almost every day to use your RFA and warning tools. Lol. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 03:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On January 2, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Henry Helstoski, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thanks for your contributions! ++Larbot - run by User:Lar - t/c 14:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I' am requesting protection for Sunderland A.F.C Nishkid. It has been flooded with heavy vandalism from multiple Ip's in the last few weeks, and when I went to revert it today, it had happened so many times, not being reverted, while been mixed with good edits. I've had to revert it about 15 revisions back loosing all of this good edits, Ip vandals are the only problem, so It can do with Semi protecting.--Rasillon 15:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any chance you could protect Newcastle United F.C. too? It's been regularly vandalised recently (some of it was racist), all by unregistered users as far as I can see. Most of it's petty football banter which isn't going to go away, but semiprotection could help. Cheers, -Responsible? 18:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nishkid. Just to let you know of an error on the DYK: it's Ministry of Defence, spelt the Commonwealth English way, as it's a proper name. I know it looks odd to US eyes, but we have to grit our teeth and write Pearl Harbor nad World Trade Center as they are proper names! 86.133.211.253 18:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Maldon Town F.C. Playboy Kid Elberfeld Latino Legends Team Phoenix Technologies Vision Airlines Hammond High School (Columbia, Maryland) Biggleswade United F.C. Random access memory Jon Rauch Fernando Viña Peshmerga Steve Kloves David Yates Jeyaraj La Crosse Loggers Garnier North West Counties Football League Division One Marapets

Cleanup Trial of Saddam Hussein Katapayadi sankhya Fart Merge John Prescott Oklahoma State Cowboys Fender Add Sources KFC Minnesota Wild Alfonso Cuarón Wikify Revolting Cocks The Taft School Klipschorn Expand University of Illinois Press Lahore Resolution Zebra

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- ForteTuba 20:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you seen some of the features I've set up on my userpage, such as the trolls fridge, where people can add food in for the troll so he won't attack us, and the picture gallery pages I set up. Plus my wall of userboxes, I think I've done quite a bit to my userpage, would you agree?--Rasillon 21:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I see that you have protected the Armenian Genocide page here. The reason you gave was "[p]rotection needed again; edit warring has resumed." I'm not entirely convinced that the half dozen reverts earlier today required this drastic option. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The edit warring seems to have started on the 29th and has involved many editors. I don't really want to wait until this becomes too serious before taking action. I hope everyone will discuss on the talk page, so they can at least agree on what should be in the article. Nishkid64 22:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Block this name, I think its a little too unsuitable for Wikipedia. User:Naughtybabes the account was just created the other minute.--Rasillon 22:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, blocked. Thanks. Nishkid64 22:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have great timing. Just when I was think that my contributions have made little more than an anonymous impact on Wikipedia and found my passion for contributing diminishing, I open my talk page and was very happy to discover your The Tireless Contributor Barnstar award! Thank you so much! -- Jreferee 00:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since Infoplease is a copy of the Congressional bio, it is appropriate to use the original ("House") reference. — ERcheck (talk) 00:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would ask that if anyone requests to unprotect the Gerald Ford article, you would please leave the semi-protection in place at least for a few weeks after his final funeral. It has been protected and unprotected numerous times, and the vandals keep coming out of the woodwork. Thanks. Veracious Rey talk ↔ contribs 00:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Nishkid64. I've requested unprotection on the Avalanche page, due to lack of participation of anon-users (who kept editing in diacritics) on the disucssion page. They haven't put forward (on the discussion page) their reasons for diacritics. Continued lack of discussion (from the opposing editors), may cause the page to remain un-locked for quite a long time? I've contacted you personally, as you've (rightfully) protected the page. PS- Isn't lack of participation on 'talk page' a sign of consent. GoodDay 01:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response left on article talk page. Nishkid64 01:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the time is ripe to either undelete or recreate the Wikipedian article. I can do a good job of having it comply with WP:Rules. Though Oxford Dictionary haven't included it yet like they did with Google (verb) it is likely they will when it meats their standards. In the meantime WP:N is applicable in allowing its recreation because if you 'google' the term you will see it has been referred to quite prominently in various news sources. Cheers. frummer 02:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm...I'm not totally sure. I sugest you first recreate it in your sandbox or something and then present it at DRV. That's probably your best bet, as of now. Nishkid64 02:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey theres heavy ip vandalism semi-protect appropriate? also hope you don't mind for this request thanks. Nareklm 03:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also a edit war has started Armenian Genocide. Nareklm 04:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Columbus was protected by admin Can't sleep, clown will eat me, and I protected Armenian Genocide. Thanks, Nareklm. =) Nishkid64 21:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NO thank you :) Nareklm 05:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please unprotect this article? It has been semi-protected for almost two months, but I'm hoping that some anons might contribute to it. (WP:SEMI says to ask the protecting admin) Tennis DyNamiTe ^{(sign here)} 03:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, thank you. Tennis DyNamiTe ^{(sign here)} 05:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On January 3, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Frank W. Towey, Jr., which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid64 03:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 1	2 January 2007	About the Signpost

Effort to modify fair use policy aborted	Esperanza organization disbanded after deletion discussion
WikiWorld comic: "Thagomizer"	News and notes: Fundraiser continues, 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 07:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for notifying me that 2-methylhexane had been on DYK. I'm really delighted to hear the news! --Deryck C. 09:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't make them long on purpose - it just works out that way because the cases I've been writing about recently are quite complicated. Johnleemk | Talk 14:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I need your advice. regarding http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ass_to_mouth . I do not agree with the admin's decision and the admin stated in the closing of the debate that he was sure he would be contested. He claims WP:N to be his reason for deleting but this is nonsense for a term which returns over a million Google hits and has been the subject of many pornographic films (yes, I choose some pretty odd subjects to champion! The fact that it was part of a blanket nomination got my goat). Now, obviously I don't want to come across as a nutty inclusionist so I wondered if you would take a look and tell me if it's worth pursuing WP:DRV please? It may also be worth noting that I did clash with the proposer of the deletion. I disagreed with her methods of summarising the opposing arguments and, in effect, ridiculing them. Anyway, if you could have a look I'd be grateful. I realise this isn't strictly "admin coaching" but preventing me from looking a jerk would be useful! Mallanox 01:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe, I was talking to Majorly about this on MSN earlier. From what I know, he said that he closed these two RfA's against consensus because he felt that the arguments were not particularly strong for the inclusionists. His view may have been biased, and I'll talk with him and try to see more as to his reasoning. If you really feel it was unjustified, then it is worth going to DRV. No one is going to think you're a jerk if you do this. By the way, I appreciate the advice request. I'm happy to help out at any time. So, just wait a day or so, and I'll get back to you. =) Nishkid64 02:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes please, I would like to work on it and improve it. I'm sure I can make it something worth keeping. Mallanox 02:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you stay with Wikipedia for a long time to come.

You got an answer--Ekkenekepen 15:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kind regards and happy new year.

Okay, I'm totally left in the dark here, but I just think you should take it offwiki. There's no point in continuing to say stuff on the person's talk page. Nishkid64 22:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for notifying me on the selection of Jaya Bharata Jananiya Tanujate as a DYK article. It was a pleasant surprise. -- Naveen ^(talk) 03:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the consideration you gave to my RfA. To be chosen as an administrator requires a high level of confidence by a broad section of the community. Although I received a great deal of support, at this time I do not hold the level of confidence required, and the RfA did not pass. You were one of the oppose votes, and raised concerns. I am more than willing to discuss those concerns with you if you are interested. Please let me know. Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 03:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know? was updated. On 4 January, 2007, a fact from the article Frederick R. Lehlbach , which you recently expanded and nominated, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--— ERcheck (talk) 13:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nishi, I have left a note on the portal talk page. You might want to discuss that. Regards, Shyam ^(T/C) 14:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Try picking the oldest items from the DYK suggestions page. We're trying to clear backlogs, so we start our way from the oldest items, and then work our way up to the more recent items. Thanks. =) Nishkid64 03:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note...I see you're kind of a DYK guru. You're point is a super good one -- thanks for mentioning it. I will only break this guideline in the future if its needed for either thematic or geographic variety. If I don't have an opportunity to do so, would U please add the Edmonson sisters to the next update? Although its cool we've given Black (or in this case, probably mixed race) people a place in DYK lately there really aren't that many women featured. (okay, laugh at me, I am young and have an idealistic longing for diversity)! I have never started my own article but I guess thats my next step in DYK involvement...maybe I can think up more "chick stuff" (wink)Shaundakulbara 06:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Edmonson sisters would probably go up on DYK either tomorrow or the day after. It's only been 3 days since the article was made, and there seems to be quite a bit of a backlog at DYK right now. Also, it's a great idea that you want to promote diversity to DYK, and I wish you best of luck in your endeavors with creating "chick stuff", hehe. =) Nishkid64 21:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the barnstar. However, I must remind you, you have your own importatnt contributions in the same area. Which is why...

		The Society Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded to Nishkid64, for his work creating and maintaining the now featured Disasters Portal. Blood Red Sandman Open Up Your Heart - Receive My EviLove 07:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wow, thanks Blood red. =) I didn't even know Disasters got featured portal status already! I thought we'd need to wait a few more days before the voting was to end haha. Thanks, and keep up the great work. =) Nishkid64 21:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a hint what has happened I answered again Kind regards--Ekkenekepen 18:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They (whoever it is) told me nothing. Only now did I realize that you were talking to Rax. Whatever, if they're doing stuff to you, then you take it off-wiki. It's pointless to do it here at Wikipedia, because you would only get in trouble. Nishkid64 21:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks man :-D lets just hope people don't complain on this one i made lol. Nareklm 21:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to go through a back-and-forth war with you in not allowing me to include the John Kruk/Larry Walker incidents on the 1993 and 1997 all-star games. According to you "isolated incidents aren't necessary in this article". I don't see how those incidents are any more isolated than the bird incident or the cameraman incident. I think it should be left there alone. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dodgerdave (talk • contribs) 02:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC).Dodgerdave 02:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why those two have separate sections in the article, and I'll try to incorporate them into the main playing article. If you want, you can add a 1-2 line mention of the incident in his playing career section, but I don't think the incidents deserve their own separate section. Nishkid64 02:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya Nishkid. With a heavy heart, I've removed the Allan O. Hunter entry from the next update page and replaced it in December 30 on T:TDYK (which I think means it has expired, due to time constraints). As I mentioned at the section on the next update talk page, 5/6 entries were American - there are regularly complaints on Talk:Main Page if even 3/6 are U.S. related, and Wikipedia:Did_you_know#Selections says no more than two should be related to one country. Since I'm aware you've had DYK's before and because I know you understand the process and its complications, I picked yours to remove in an effort to balance it. There is still a national imbalance, but it's less prounounced now. Picaroon 02:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that's fine. We can probably squeeze it in there later today or something. Some of the DYK's have already expired, but we can give some lax to DYK's that are 1 or 2 days overdue. Recently, some users had been placing the newer items at Next Update, and admins unknowingly inserted it into DYK. Anyway, thanks for letting me know. Nishkid64 02:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I could use your help on the Ford page. There is an edit war, sadly involving me, and I need your opinion. Another user continues to add a large (until he shrunk it) and unneeded pic in the death section of the Ford article. I've been warned about the 3RR rule, but the other user hasn't discussed his edits as to why he continues to add the pic. Please see my talk page and the article history page. Thanks. Veracious Rey talk • contribs • review me 02:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He HAS discussed why he added the photo at Talk:Gerald Ford#Picture of Tomb. He posted that at 2:03 UTC. Then he added the photo back to the article at 2:05 (UTC), you reverted it at 2:17 (UTC), he added it back at 2:20 (UTC). You never entered into discussion with him about it after he posted it to the talk page as far as I can tell. Metros232 02:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's a DYK issue for you to sort out, if you feel like it. Thanks. --Tagishsimon (talk)

• Thank you very much for the DYK notice on my Talk page. Johntex\^talk 06:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this. I know I said it was a self-nomination, but it was actually a translation. Would you have time to drop a similar note off to the translator of the article, and mention them wherever else 'credit' is given? User_talk:Jonolumb. Thanks. Carcharoth 13:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On January 5, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Allan O. Hunter, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid64 15:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Nishkid, I was just wondering if there was something I needed to do before we resumed admin coaching. Your last comment made me think you I should wait for you to start some practice on deletion, but maybe I was wrong. I'm just wondering. If it's just that you've been busy, I totally understand. Hope all's going well! Heimstern Läufer 04:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for taking so long. I've been kind of busy lately, but I'll get back with you shortly. In the meanwhile, I suggest you do some AfD practices and CSD tagging. =) Nishkid64 22:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I understand. I'll be doing what I can on CSD and AFD. Heimstern Läufer 21:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nish, you removed Nikki Haley on the basis of too much USA-centricism but replaced it with an article you created that is also USA based. Also, Haley was a first (the hook was ..that Nikki Haley is the first Indian American Republican legislator in the USA). I am having trouble believing she is less interesting than another article about a California or New Jersey politician with little special distinction. The Haley article wasn't expired - although it will be by the time of the next update. I am reluctant to bring this up, as I appreciate your great work at DYK and you flattered me greatly with a DYK award, but I am really confused by and uncomfortable with this choice. Can you offer some explanation that will set my concerns to rest? Thanks. House of Scandal 15:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• My DYK was removed yesterday per US-centrism. Mine was the next one up, and no one had updated in over 10 hours, so I quickly added my DYK as well as some other foreign-topic DYK's. Anyway, the DYK time rules (5 days) isn't something we have to strictly follow. We can cut some slack on DYK's when it's backlogged (which has been happening now because some people are adding 2-3 day old items to Next Update). Therefore, you can add entries even if they are expired by 1-2 days and are not problematic. Hope that answers your questions. Nishkid64 22:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Btw can you remove January 1st and replace them with Dec 31st? That way we can get all the DYK's that may be expired by a day or two in DYK soon. Nishkid64 22:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your explanation does not address my concerns because your revision of 15:26, 5 January 2007 removed Nikki Haley with your comment "Add more, rm Nikki Haley since it's Jan 1st and i’m trying to remove US-centrism". That revision came 4 minutes (not ten hours) after the previous revision and was the same one in which you introduced your own Allan O. Hunter article. You can therefore say that you dumped my choice in favor of your choice of the article you had written because your article was written first, but the “US-centrism” comment baffles me because you replaced one US politician with another one in the very same edit. The DYK guidelines advise us against choosing our own articles. I noticed but didn’t object to Frederick R. Lehlbach, Henry Helstoski, Edward J. Patten, George N. Seger and Charles S. Joelson in less than a week, but when you dump my choice of an article with a nice hook in favor a guy with less DYK impact, you make me feel slighted, and if the Nikki Haley author was tuned into what was happening I bet he or she would be pretty bummed out too. I don't dislike you because of this choice, it's not a big enough deal. But c'mon. Not cool.

Since we have more submissions per day than is needed, and 5 days isn't a deal-breaker, then we can afford to go with the best mix of the best articles with an eye towards the older one rather than scraping the barrel to post the oldest DYK's available. I think the DYK's that Camptown and I chose for today are a nice mix and to flush them for DYK’s that are a day older is unnecessary. Contributions/HouseOfScandalHouse of ScandalHouseOfScandal 23:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, it is not fair to other people who expect their DYK on the Main Page and see their article not make it. And by the 10-hour update, I was talking about the real DYK, not the Next Update. Did you look at [1]. I added mine in replacement of Nikki Haley, but as a result of the lack of DYK's at Next Update. It was only after did I realize that I might get hit with US-centrism claims, so I removed the newer one since it can go on the Main Page at a later date. Also, it is the point of DYK editors to pick which articles are good, and which aren't. Yes, we're trying to make them interesting, but removing entries solely because you don't think it's a good DYK is not a valid reason. DYK is a community effort, and leaving the decision to remove DYK's to a few editors was not the point intended. We're trying to accomodate all DYK's made; and if they are bad, we try to reword them to suit the Main Page standards. Also, I knew someone would probably complain about the fact that I added my own DYK to Next Update, but it wasn't intentional. Had there been someone else's DYK, like yours for example, I would have removed another entry and replaced it with this one. I'm sorry if you were offended by my actions, but I wasn't trying to hurt anyone. I was just trying to accomodate everyone's DYK's. When I first came to DYK, I thought there was a selection process for DYK, and I thought they weeded out boring DYK's from the list. I was wrong, and apparently, the goal is to get all suggestions on the Main Page (even if they are a day or two late). The Expired Noms section is more for problematic DYK's rather than DYK's that didn't make it because someone felt it was not interesting or appealing. If we did that, then people would complain that it is a biased process. Anyway, I hope this will help answer your question, and remove any dislike that you have for me now. =( Nishkid64 01:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]