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.

I found this article recently created and now i want to enter it to DYK but can you help me out for a good wording? I really do not know how to word this "...That nearly 3,000 Assyrians were annihilated during the Simele massacre?" something like this? Nareklm 01:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Narek, this article was actually made three months ago. There hasn't been enough substantial expansion to qualify it for DYK again, though. Maybe if the article creator expanded significantly, it could get on DYK. Also, watch for the wording there. "Annhilated" is a definite sensitive word, and would probably not sit well with Iraqi editors. Nishkid64 01:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

:-( yeah or massacred, well it seems it has been expanded I'm looking for info right now. Nareklm 01:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See [1]. This is a diff from the 19th, and from the looks of it, this article has not been expanded much at all in recent days. By the way, the same 5-day rule applies for expansion, as it does with creation. Nishkid64 01:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thats awesome man thanks alot :-D . Nareklm 20:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On 6 January, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Bertrand W. Gearhart, 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.

--savid@n 18:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On January 7, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Byron N. Scott, 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 03:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Nishkid64, you know that archiving tool how do i know if it works on my page? can you verify it I'm a not sure thanks. Nareklm 03:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On January 7, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article John H. Burke, 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 14:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As soon as dyk was updated, just a few moments ago, the navigation menu for the entire site has started displaying weirdly: instead of the link for main page (in the navigation box, upper left hand side of page) it says "<main page&gt" and instead of featured content it says "<featured content&gt". Thought it might not be a coincidence.

On a separate note, I think my entry cushion caroms, should have a second comma, right after the linked name of the article. Also, thanks for all the hardwork keeping dyk updated.--Fuhghettaboutit

I realized that too, but I don't think DYK could have any affect on this. It's probably a MediaWiki error. I also went ahead and fixed your DYK entry. Thanks for letting me know. Nishkid64 15:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great thanks. I just posted to Main page error, as you appeared to be offline. I'll go remove that.--Fuhghettaboutit 15:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		This Barnstar of Diligence is awarded to Nishkid64 for bringing the Disasters Portal up to featured status! Rfrisbietalk 21:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, thanks Rfrisbie. =) Nishkid64 21:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, congrats! I'm trying to get people interested in articles like 1356 Basel earthquake (as you already know!) and Shaanxi Earthquake. How many articles are cycling round on that portal, and where is the list? Did I ask this already at the nomination? Carcharoth 13:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Selected up to February 2007? Really? I found Portal:Disasters/Selected_article, but nothing there. I'll have to dig through your contribs next! LOL! Ah. I was being silly. Portal:Disasters/Selected_article/February_2007 and Portal:Disasters/Selected_article/March_2007. Obvious now I've found it. Any chance of a calendar style thing like at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 2006? Though obviously only for months, not days. As for suggestions, just look through Category:Disasters. 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake, Hurricane Katrina, 1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens and Columbine High School massacre are all featured. Others I found at random (not sure how good they are): North Sea flood of 1953, 1970 Ancash earthquake, Chernobyl disaster, Krakatoa, Halifax Explosion. My favorite is Boston molasses disaster! Carcharoth 16:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rofl, Boston molasses disaster is definitely April 2007. It's too funny. It's a perfect real April Fool's Joke. Haha, thanks for the other suggestions, Carcharoth. =) Nishkid64 22:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations and happy editing! SD31415 (SIGN HERE) 00:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't have gotten Disasters portal to FP status had it not been for the portal reviews by you and other reviewers. =) Nishkid64 22:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a post here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Professional_wrestling#Royal_Rumble_debutsto try to get some support over changing a very MINOR thing to Royal Rumble articles (due to TJ not agreeing to them, and calling it vandalism... even though I clearly explained the edits in the edit summaries). He said himself it wasn't a big deal, yet he continues to revert any changes to the minor trivia edits. He thinks the pro wrestling project must decide on this minor thing, but the fact of it all is: the wrestling project talk page isn't too active, and the post has only a few replies and I doubt it will get more. I don't know what else to do at this point, but TJ needs to stop controlling. In any other case I wouldn't let this get to me, but it's TJ and he has a past of controlling articles and not letting anyone make edits without his permission (or the matter must be discussed with the project before it gets changed, even if it's minor or not). RobJ1981 18:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh...I'll leave him a message on his talk page. Nishkid64 02:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently he didn't listen: [[2]]. He reverted a very minor edit of someone removing a redlink that was on a wrestler (the article will probably never be made, due to it being a lesser wrestler). There isn't much point to have a redlink stick out, when it doesn't need to. Plus its a revert with no explanation. RobJ1981 23:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think a protectionbot is needed, how will it work, and pick up multiple vandalism to protect pages? I wouldn't support it, I can't wait to see their faces when it malfunctions.--Rasillon 16:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Umm ... what? Do you know anything about how the bot actually works? --Cyde Weys 16:53, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rasillon, It's not detecting vandalism. It's supposed to go to the current page and see all pages transcluded from there, and see if they are protected. If they aren't, then it protects it. Maybe you should read before saying stuff like this. Nishkid64 18:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Nishkid64. A consenus of 4 to 1 infavour of removing diacritics, has been reached. Requesting unprotection, of Colorado Avalanche page. GoodDay 00:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe, I already did it like 30 minutes ago. I was going through my protected pages, and I saw you guys had some consensus at the talk page, so I unprotected the page. Hopefully, things will work out now. =) Nishkid64 00:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I should, have check Avalanche page first. Again, Sorry 'bout that. I've since, removed diacritics from that page. GoodDay 00:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just to let you know I've completed the assignment you set. So if you want to take a look when you're ready that would be cool. Mallanox 01:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please undo your un-protection of that? It's getting vandalized regularly, and always will be without the semi-protection. The semi-protection was intended to be indefinite and was well-justified on the semi-protection request page and with the admin that semi-protected it. The number of non-vandal edits by random IP-address users is so close to zero it's funny, and of the handful of good-faith edits in the IP category, most were not good edits (faith not withstanding). This is a science article (some addl. cleanup still needed, yes) that is slated for inclusion on the CD-ROMs, and keeping it clean is a LOT of work (mostly on my part). I have real work to do and can't monitor this article 24/7, so it's going to be sitting there in a trashed state every other day after some jr. high school IP vandal has hit it yet again. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 09:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's really necessary now. There has been around 10 or so vandalism edits since December 31st, a span of 9 days. I have the page watchlisted as well, and I'll help deal with vandalism there. If it gets too out of hand, then I'll unprotect. Sorry. Nishkid64 15:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I remain skeptical. For one thing, the last major vandalism (blanking of the most important entire section) went unreverted for three days, even with anti-vandal bots watching it. For another, I fail to see how consistent almost-daily (and sometimes multiple-daily) vandalism - and it is malicious vandalism, not innocent sandboxing - doesn't qualify as problematic enough for indefinite semi-protection, especially when it often takes anywhere from 3 hours to several days for vandalism to be reverted on that article (which was the justification of the admin who semi-protected it). I'm not seeking full protection, just a means of thwarting IP vandals. As noted in the original post seeing semi-protection, the vast majority of IP edits are vandalism, and the vast majority of good edits are by established users who are logged in. The tiny consequence of people having to register or log in to edit this frequently-attacked article is worth it. I warned about this consequence on the talk page of the article for weeks before seeking the semi-protection, and not a single person (registered or otherwise) objected, so I'm not sure what your late-to-the-game objection now is. <puzzled> If you disagree with the reasoning of the admin who semi-protected the page, please take it up with that person instead of unilaterally undoing the semi-protection decision, which was arrived at through the proper processes. Albinism is not an article that will be simply the subject of occasional random vandalism; it is a frequent target, and always will be (unless discrimination against people with albinism somehow vanishes. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 21:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, pages are not allowed to be indefinitely protected, so I don't know where you're getting this information from. Gnangarra shouldn't have protected based on a lack of noticing vandalism. He should have gone to WP:AN or some noticeboard, and requested people to watchlist the page, so that vandalism would be clearly detected. Also, what one admin says is not a final decision. He protected the page temporarily--I don't believe he said anything about indefinite protection anywhere (this page doesn't even warrant long-term protection). Anyway, I'm sorry if you feel this way, but I personally think the page shouldn't be protected just yet. I might change my mind if there is a significant increase in vandalism every day. Nishkid64 21:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further response at User talk:SMcCandlish#Albinism; it's long, so I didn't clutter your talk page with it here. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 00:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the SP restore! Sorry if I came off as cranky or anything; it's just tiring fending off deletions and "IF YOU ALBINO YOU GAY!" vandalism all the time.  :-/ — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 01:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On 8 January, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Cecil R. King, 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.

--Savidan 18:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The history of Mark Lund is not pretty at all... I reverted to the last version by Gurch (talk · contribs) because it looked like that was the most decent of late. -- tariqabjotu 21:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Nashkid64. I was reading your comments on Wikipedia Noticeboard about me. First of all that is all a lie. I am not a sockpuppet and I have never vandalized Wikipedia. Second what you said about me is not very appropriate. I did not have two kids by 16. My first child was born when I was 13 and my other was born last year when I was 18. And I am not poor. I have a decent job where I live in England and I can afford a lot. I am not mad at you but some users would take offence at being called messed up. American Brit 22:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. Thanks for finally protecting the horse article. Montana and I have been trying for a week to get it sp'ed with no luck, in fact I gave up on rpp. Glad to see an admin finally takign charge there. --Wizardman 06:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 2	8 January 2007	About the Signpost

Special: 2006 in Review	Another newspaper columnist found to have plagiarized Wikipedia
Blogs track attempts to manipulate articles	Nutritional beef cooks PR editor
WikiWorld comic: "Facial Hair"	News and notes: Fundraiser continues, milestones
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 06:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support in my my RfA, which passed with a tally of 117/0/1. I hope that my conduct as an admin lives up to the somewhat flattering confidence the community has shown in me. Please don't hesitate to leave a message on my talk page should you need anything or want to discuss something with me. Thanks for helping to clarify Arjun's question in his short-lived oppose; it saved me the effort!--Nilfanion (talk) 15:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the past two days you have twice updated Template:DYK with an article that has existed as a non-stub for months. ([3] and [4]). I removed carom billiards from the former update and have just removed The Last Waltz from the other. Checking the history of an article takes only a few seconds. Thank you for helping with the updates. Andrew Levine 23:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It appears it was not a voluntary lack of judgment, but a slight misinterpretation of the rules. I had been under the impression that DYK's that weren't originally marked as stubs could also be expanded significantly and be placed on DYK. This article was expanded with 20KB+ worth of material, and I felt that it was a good DYK pick since I had thought it was a valid candidate. Anyway, thanks for letting me know. No one else had brought it up at the suggestion page (and another admin had commented on it), so I hadn't know it was a problem. Nishkid64 23:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article seems to be receiving a lot of what appears to be self-edits in some kind of edit/deletion war. I was going to tag it for Speedy Delete vanity but wanted your opinion first as you semi-protected it. Thanks, Ronbo76 23:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it won't be deleted as vanity under Speedy Deletion Criteria, but if you want, you can bring it up for AfD. I think that is the best thing to do right now. I don't know about his notability, but the fact that he made his own article seems a bit odd. Nishkid64 00:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as it is semi-protected by an established admin, I am not about AfD it. I would second the nomination if anything. Ronbo76 00:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I semi-protected it because there was heavy vandalism to the article. I wouldn't mind an AfD. I'm actually interested to see what others have to say about the article. You can start one up if you want. Nishkid64 00:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do I remove the prods and then start the AfD? Ronbo76 00:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, remove the prod messages from the page and leave an edit summary saying that you're taking it to AfD. Then create the AfD page, and place a message on the page, accordingly. Thanks. Nishkid64 00:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Lund here now.

Hi there,

Quick question: why did you delete my wikipedia page?

Omalley1053 23:54, 9 January 2007 (UTC)Dan O'Malley CBS Radio Dallas, TX dan@danandtasos.com[reply]

It was the "Dan O'Malley" wikipedia page.

Omalley1053 19:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)Dan O'Malley[reply]

Yeah, that's true. I deleted it as I felt the article wasn't convincing enough to show the notability of the subject. I've seen many other radio DJ articles get put on Wikipedia, and promptly deleted by other admins, and I did the same (after doing a bit of research, too). It's not an area of expertise, but if you can provide me with proof asserting your notability (links to newspaper articles, stuff of that nature), I can restore the page or go to AfD where we can get a community consensus on the issue. Nishkid64 22:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, whoops, didn't realize that was an early close. Will reopen. Mangojuice^talk 22:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Nishkid64 22:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for accepting my articles for DYK!--Berig 22:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's outside of my nature to toot my own horn about why I should be "notable" enough to warrant a Wiki page, but a listener felt that it was warranted. That being said, you can check the wiki page of "Russ Martin" to check my "notability" as a member of his show. As you'll see from that page, we are the number one radio show in Dallas, TX (5th largest radio market in the United States).

If the "Dan O'Malley" page needs more information on it for it to be included on Wikipedia, I can provide that. I appreciate your time and attention on this.

Omalley1053 23:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)Dan[reply]

Thank you, Nish! Omalley1053 00:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)Dan[reply]

This user is accusing me of vandalism because i reverted edits he thinks sourced references are the key to do anything he wants please see this diff it really is not revelant to the topic. Also i assume thats called POV i think lol. Nareklm 00:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah i assumed that. Nareklm 01:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nishkid, I'd appreciate if you could make sure unsourced personalities do not remain on that list by moving all tagged names to the talk page. They've been on there fore pretty much over a month and nobody has found any references suggesting these people are Jewish or even Polish. Also, some of the references added to the names do not even say the person in question is Polish. Can you move these names to the talk page too? 141.213.211.80 04:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

G'morning Nish. I swaped out one of the DYK's so we wouldn't have two Japanese food & drink DYK's in one update. I just want to let you know I am done mucking around with it so you can update without having to worry about edit conflicts. House of Scandal 15:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for participating in my recent RFA. You were amongst a number of editors who remained neutral on the topic. The RFA did not succeed (69/26/11). I am extremely grateful that you took the time to advise me on to improve as a Wikipedian and I'd like to assure you that I'll do my level best to develop my skills here to a point where you may feel you could trust me with the mop.

I've been blown away by the level of interest taken in my RFA and appreciate the time and energy dedicated by all the editors who have contributed to it, support, oppose and neutral alike. I hope to bump into you again soon and look forward to serving you and Wikipedia in any way I can. Cheers! The Rambling Man 19:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC) (the non-admin, formerly known as Budgiekiller)[reply]

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		Nishkid, for your tireless contributions (120 contributions today last when I checked just before I put this here), I award you the Tireless Contributor Barnstar. Keep up the tireless contributions!!! Awarded by Kamope | userpage | talk | contributions 21:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Kamope! =) Nishkid64 21:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no edit war and there never really was an edit war. After it became clear that User talk:Warburton62 was unwilling to discuss the issue properly I decided to not bother pushing it. Since then another user has come along and tidied the article up which I think was to the satisfaction of all and it was only some hours later that the article was suddenly protected, it could really be unprotected now. Feebtlas 00:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Judging from the looks of it, I don't feel comfortable unprotecting the page now. Please discuss on the article's talk page. Thanks. Nishkid64 00:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss what exactly? You have protected a page hours after the last edit for no particular reason, then deleted my request to unprotect for some reason [5] forcing me to post it again, and now you say that there has to be some discussion on the articles talk page? What about? There is no edit war and everyone seems happy so what's the point in this wikibureaucracy? - Feebtlas 00:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That revert was accidental. I was reverting the cloak request section. I didn't know I also reverted yours. Sorry about that. From your talk page, I see a lot of activity going on regarding the page. A bunch of comments here and there about the article, 3RR, reverting, etc. How am I supposed to look at this and not think it's an edit war? I mean, if this was a few days ago, and I saw things had calmed down, then I wouldn't have protected. However, most of the conversation is in the last two days, which suggests this dispute has not been resolved. I don't know the logistics of the dispute here, but I wish you guys would use the article talk page to discuss why you were reverting each other, and try to achieve consensus on what the article should contain. Nishkid64 01:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I understand why you reverted my first message now. All of the edits on the page took place earlier this afternoon, before there was any real discussion because the other user did not respond to my messages for some time. Since then a third user (SilkTork) has come in and tidied the article up keeping the majority of the information I added and while still keeping User:Warburton62 happy as that user has since edited the article and not removed the information again. Had he wanted to revert the article removing this information he would have done so already, as he has already violated the 3RR anyway and would have nothing to lose, and I have no reason to now edit the page because the majority of what I was trying to add is now in this compromise version. So there is no ongoing edit war, I would say that there was never really an edit war in the first place. Feebtlas 01:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, take a look at WikiCharts: Portal. The Philosophy Portal is at #34 or so. :-( I'm sure part of the reason it's so far below the other "browsebar" portals is because it's not listed on the Main Page, like they are, but still... I don't know if the different page layout has anything to do with it, or it's that 18-25 year-old males aren't into philosophy, but maybe some sort of face lift would help to improve the draw. :-) Rfrisbie^talk 04:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I created a Nea Potidea article:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nea_Potidea Could you please take a look at it and edit it? and Could you also put it into catagories? Also can you tag http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potidaea as the main article? Thanks! Neptunekh 07:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The edit war is over. I've done a major edit that both parties are happy with. Please unprotect. And, as an aside - I know it involves a little more work, but it gets you a better reputation - take a look at the article, article history, and editors' talk pages of articles you wish to protect. Slapping a protect on an article in which the issues have been resolved frustrates editors and makes Wiki look bad. Have you done that before? Would you mind if I took a look at your edit history and monitored you for a bit to see how you are performing? Best regards. SilkTork 08:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. I have now taken a look at your edit history and I'm impressed at your willingness to get involved in the admin side of Wikipedia. There are exceptions, but on the whole you are cool and balanced with users, and you have made it your aim to welcome people. You are a good "behind the scenes" sort of person - valuable to the running of the whole show. There are times when you have made hasty and incorrect judgments - but, to be fair, these are much rarer than the average. On the whole you come over as mature, considered, thoughtful and helpful. A good wiki admin. I don't see any need to monitor you at all. You made an honest mistake. Keep up the good work. SilkTork 19:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, the page will be unprotected. After seeing a request for page protection at WP:RFPP, I went to check the article history and the user talk pages, and I thought protection was warranted in this case. Many times people dispute the full protection of an article, so I wasn't surprised that they started telling me to unprotect the page when it really wasn't the right time. Usually if I go to a RFPP request, and see a potential edit war, I will protect in an anticipatory move. Anyway, thanks for letting me know, and thank you for the kind words. Nishkid64 20:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just did alot of work on the Hinduism portal, and I really would like to hear some feedback. It has never really been updated, as the selected article was there since 2005 :0. I have updated all the material, and added a new background, and added a "Realted portal" box. I would like to know where it should be inproved, and if you can help since you are awesome at portals :). Cheers! Arjun 20:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC) (Formerly known as Seadog.M.S)[reply]

Hey Nish kid this user has broken the 3RR rule on at least 3 articles more than 4 times i think it would be best if you block him he also has been warned by me and other users numerous times and he completely ignores this. Please see Haik he reverted about 4 or 5 times it would be best if you block him and he's edits are all based on theories and no evidence people are getting tired of his edits. Thank you. Nareklm 23:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He has been reverting back and forth, but I will only warn him for 3RR now. It seems like a content dispute, which means you could potentially be blocked for 3RR violations as well. I have left him a 3RR warning on his user talk page. Nishkid64 23:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is this i only reverted twice? Nareklm 23:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I mean if you revert his edit again (for a 3rd time). If this happens, then I will have to block both of you for 3RR, and I don't think you would want this. Continue discussing with the user, please. Nishkid64 23:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh i know that thats why i did not revert his edit but i can still do it once more since its only 4 and over right? I mean he constantly says the same things same references he can go no more further its not real its from Armenianhighland.com most of it and that site mixes up alot of content urartu and the Armenians therefore it is not reliable or it is made of nationalism, thanks. Nareklm 23:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, no. I warned you not to do 3RR, so if you do it, then I will have to block you. Try getting others involved in the discussion on the article talk page. People may revert in support of your claim, and then you won't need to violate 3RR. Nishkid64 00:00, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah i know i think we're getting confused here O_o so can i revert at least 3 times or does that constitute as 3RR. Nareklm 00:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying you can't revert 3 times because I have already warned you not to. So, basically one more revert to an article will result in a 24-hour block. Nishkid64 00:08, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Damn i only thought it was 3! so we can only revert twice :-( thanks. Nareklm 00:12, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Usually, someone will see a person with 3 reverts, and then warn them. The 4th revert would be a 24-hour 3RR block. However, I have already informed you about this, so going for the 3rd revert is blockable here. Nishkid64 00:19, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay man so the warning is for what? for 3 reverts? i thought it was 4 and up so if i revert one more time and i have 3 reverts its a violation thats weird, "The policy states that an editor must not perform more than three reversions, in whole or in part" sorry to annoy you :-) Nareklm 00:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay man i still don't see why you cant block him he has been warned many times and people never seem to care if you block me for doing this it seems unjustified since he has been warned and he has done it alot. Nareklm 00:35, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Click here theres an indication that he was shown what this actually means he doesn't care i bet he will continue. Nareklm 00:49, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, he's done it on many articles today and these past days maybe about 3 approximately but lets assume good faith for now i guess. Nareklm 00:53, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also he reverted 3 times here we have discussed this many times he has no respect for others he will do it his way not giving the discussions a chance or anything at all on most articles he edits most people who are knowledgeable on theses subjects or on Armenian history such as eupator probably lost respect for Ararat for his reverts he continuously does this, he's trying to change history supposibly online which i told him he cannot do this online before. Nareklm 03:10, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These guys Eupator and Nareklm keep removing info I put in the Haik page which is factual. For example in the Armenian translation of the Bible, where it says Orion in English it's "Haik" in Armenian version of the Bible. Haya is also the Sumerian word Ararat arev 21:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They cant keep reverting those info, thats vandalism. Haya you can look up in google.com its not taken from one site, which most probably they will tell you that its taken from armenianhighland.com. Its not just there, this is Sumerian history any site you see about Sumerian history "Haya" is there, which is exactly at Haik's time. Ararat arev 21:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some other pages I even put sources from New York Academy of Sciences even, and they remove without discussing or giving a good reason. They just keep putting "Rvv" "Rvv" "Rvv" "Rvv" over and over and over. Thats vandalism. Ararat arev 02:50, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support in my not-so-recent RfA, which succeeded with a final tally of (97/4/4)! I've never been able to accept compliments gracefully, and the heavy support from this outstanding community left me at a complete loss for words -- so, a very belated thank you for all of your kind words. I have done and will continue to do the utmost to serve the community in this new capacity, wherever it may take me, and to set an example others might wish to follow in. With a little luck and a lot of advice, this may be enough. Maybe someday the enwiki admins of the future will look back and say, "Yeah, that guy was an admin." Hopefully then they don't start talking about the explosive ArbComm case I got tied into and oh what a drama that was, but we'll see, won't we? Surely some of you have seen me in action by now; with that in mind, I openly invite and welcome any feedback here or here -- help me become the best editor and sysop I can be. Again, thank you. –Luna Santin

Very glad to see you're still active, these days. Things have been stressful, lately, but I think we'll all pull through okay. I'm, er, only a few months behind on this. Luna Santin 12:30, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How do you put your online status on the top of your user page? Kornfan71 20:20, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I went ahead and created these pages for you: User:Kornfan71/Status2 and User:Kornfan71/StatusChange2. StatusChange2 has all the identification stuff, and you can control your status with /Status2. At /Status2, where it currently reads "Online", change it to "Offline" or "Busy" and you can get the customized sign for that. To put it on your user/user talk page, just type {{User:Kornfan71/Status2}} and then it will show up. Hope that helps! Nishkid64 20:25, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Kornfan71 20:26, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I was just now logging off and I checked it afterwards....it doesn't say that I'm offline. Kornfan71 22:27, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. nvm. I just thoroughly read your last post. Kornfan71 22:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see what happened now. You accidentally made the offline message equal online so when I changed my status to Offline, it didn't say anything. I fixed it. Thanks Agian!!! Kornfan71 22:32, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey do you know anything about Google earth? Can i use the non-commercial license for there images? Thanks in advance.

"The Software is made available to you for your personal, non-commercial use only. You may not use the Software or the geographical information made available for display using the Software, or any prints or screen outputs generated with the Software in any commercial or business environment or for any commercial or business purposes for yourself or any third parties. You may not use the Google Software in any manner that could damage, disable, overburden, or impair Google's services (e.g., you may not use the Google Software in an automated manner), nor may you use Software in any manner that could interfere with any other party's use and enjoyment of Google's services." Nareklm 00:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just a reminder that the assignment you set me has been done. Thanks, Mallanox 03:37, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fairly certain that Cingular All-America Player shouldn't have made it to the main page. It consists only of 2 sentences and a bunch of charts, which in the past has never been acceptable. The article character count for DYK choices has always excluded simple charts/diagrams/lists. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-01-14 19:35Z

See Talk:Lee Smith (baseball). Let's go for FA now. =) Nishkid64 02:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did see that. Nice, eh? I don't think it has much chance of FA without a picture. I wonder if someone can get him a note to ask for a GFDL-released photo. —Wknight94 (talk) 22:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Nareklm removed the Mitanni seal and put in "copyvio" in the image [6], when admin User:Jkelly, which handles the copyright images approved it. Nareklm was trying to justify his reasons by created this "false" info in order to remove a Mitanni "related" image. The Mitanni seal was put their and approved by admins and other users who work on Mitanni, otherwise they would have removed it right away as they do with other wrong edits Ararat arev 22:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice and interesting article, but: If an entry is disputed, don't add it to the template until the problem is resolved. I'm sure User:Violetriga is able to refrase the hook. Cheers, --Camptown 23:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh, I'm glad you already noticed. Cheers, Camptown 23:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Right, I'm pleased that you've also noticed the disputed item. By the way, yesterday you returned the Orthodox church (building) article. It's actually sourced, a kind of summary of the first External link (many articles, especially Russian related, are sourced that way). However, I wasn't aware that the article was built on other articles as well; and when its creator now objects to the nomination.... that's probably the end of the story. Camptown 00:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to bother you again (Riana is gone so now you are the go to user :p). Do you think the Hinduism portal would survive a shot at becoming a featured portal? Arjun 04:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I was looking through Special:Newpages and I happened to drop by this great article you just made. I just wanted to let you know that I plan to nominate it for DYK, and you might see it on the Main Page in a few days! =) See T:DYKT where I will post the DYK suggestion, and you can comment there if you want to reword it or change it. Thanks, and tell me when you finish the whole article. Nishkid64 17:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I would say that exposing an unfinished article on the main page is rather premature, wouldn't you? I will finish the article later this week and remove the "under construction" tag. By the way, the category that you added is inappropriate and I will remove it in the next update. Wikipedia articles are categorized by their most specific category, which in this case is the campaign category. The campaign categories are subcategories of American Civil War. Hal Jespersen 18:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of a five-day waiting period, it is premature to select a new, unfinished article for widespread viewing before it has been reviewed by other editors in this space. I could understand your enthusiasm if the next few days were an anniversary of any of these events, but they are not. I would recommend that you wait on your nomination. Hal Jespersen 18:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article is done for the time being, except for the possible addition of a campaign map. You may point to it as you wish, although it is certainly not my best Civil War article, so your enthusiasm is perplexing. My User:Hlj page identifies a number of my favorite articles. Hal Jespersen 02:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...for going over the 21,000 edit mark! Cheers and Wikipedia is proud of you :). Arjun 20:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hee maybe I should sign my name with (formerly known as Seadog.M.S) =). By the way, since you are part of the portal reviewers, what do you think should be fixed. (By now I am probably sounding annoying :) Cheers! Arjun 21:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm not hear to say you're wrong, I just wanted to see if we could discuss the length of this user's suspension. If I'm being honest, given the abuse I've received from this user and the disagreements I've had with this user, I should probably be happy about the length of the block. However at first glance it seemed excessive. I take your point about it not being his first 3RR rule violation though. Mark83 23:34, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, he is well aware of the 3RR rules on Wikipedia. I happened to wander upon the article, and I saw that I was going to block him for 24 hours, but after a look at his user talk page and block log, I felt a one week block was most appropriate. He has had a history of adding German nationalist POV material, and has been repeatedly warned not to do so. Yet, he persists to override edits of other users despite consensus. For these reasons, I felt the current one-week block was most appropriate. Nishkid64 23:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair points. Like I said, I was working of first impressions only. When you put it like that it makes sense. And I know all about his refusal to listen to consensus etc!!! Thanks for getting back to me. Mark83 23:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit puzzled by this - what four reverts did he make? -- Ian Dalziel 00:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Me too. I don't see any edits by him on Michael Schumacher since January 13. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 07:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto - although we've been having a disagreement about the inclusion of a particular phrase in the lead, I don't think he reverted three times. I make it that he deleted a piece of information twice, rewrote it once (but I would accept it as essentially the same information) and then moved it within the lead, a change which I also don't agree with, but which I would not see as a reversion. Grateful if Nishkid could confirm that these are the edits concerned. Cheers 4u1e 07:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to grant his unblock request. It seems to have been made in error as his most recent edit to that article was 3 days before the block. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 07:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm giving you a chance(far more than you've given me) to explain your abuse of power before I report it on the admin boards. Given what you have stated here, the "German nationalist POV material", indicates to me you have a biased axe to grind and you just posted it out there for the world to see. Ernham 08:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for the incorrect 3RR block. It appears that I must have misinterpreted the rewording of a section as a revert, and I had considered that justification for the 3RR block. I don't have a personal vendetta against (frankly, I don't even know you), but after seeing your previous edits, I made a generalization that may or may not be wrong. Admins do make mistakes from time to time, and I assure you that mine was a mistake, and nothing more. Nishkid64 20:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your protecting of the page of Curtis Manning. I do believe though that for the next 24-72 hours, most if not all pages related to 24 Day: 6 should be protected to prevent further vandalism (as seen on other characters. Evilgohan2 03:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]