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 ... after you made the edit to the baseball-reference template the other day, we now seem to be getting a couple of blank lines after the text that it generates. I noticed it after I added it to Hector Luna. I don't know enough about editing templates to try and correct it. Do you know what to do? Thanks. --Sanfranman59 16:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed it now. I had just added an extra space in my previous edit to the template. Thanks for letting me know. =) Nishkid64 (talk) 20:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for participating in my RFA, which passed with 53-1-0. I will put myself into the various tasks of a administrator immediately, and if I make any mistakes, feel free to shout at me or smack me in my head. Aquarius • talk 01:53, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 20	14 May 2007	About the Signpost

Administrator status restored to five accounts after emergency desysopping	User committed identities provide protection against account hijacking
Academic journals multiply their analyses of Wikipedia	WikiWorld comic: "Ubbi dubbi"
Features and admins	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 08:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You deleted Coventi because you deemed it insignificant, but 4 other pages in the catalog refer to Coventi.

I posted a very brief, informational post that identified what Coventi was and where it resided on the Internet. There was no marketing of any kind.

Please undelete the page or allow me to repost.

-Dan dan@coventi.com —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.18.245.24 (talk) 07:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I deleted Coventi under WP:CSD#A7 because it did not meet notability guidelines. From my research (using search engines like Google), I found no evidence that supports the notability assertion made by the article. The article does not comply with notability policy to my knowledge. Please see the notability guidelines Internet-related articles have to meet at WP:WEB. Thanks, Nishkid64 (talk) 23:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nishkid64, thanks for your support in my RfA, which passed unopposed. Your generous comments within the first hour helped ease my nervousness after submitting my self-nomination, and set a positive tone for the entire process. Thanks again! --Seattle Skier (talk) 18:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I disturbed you about me leaving the WIkiCommunity. Thank you for dropping by. Again, sorry if I wasted your time.

--Defender 911 01:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I have a big problem with a vandal on Punjab (India) removing official Punjab Government cited comments. The vandal User:Tuncrypt has been warned many times to stop and by many other users to stop his disruptive behaviour but he refuses to stop. He needs to blocked for at least a week and if the vandal behaviour has not stopped after that we can take further action.--Indian50 02:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You deleted the article "Children's Institute." We own the copyright to all material contained in the article. Can you explain why the article was deleted and what I can do to get it accepted? Thanks! -Mary

Mmaiolo 15:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mary, please see above. That gives you information on how you can get in touch with the Wikimedia Foundation so that you can assert the permission to use the copyrighted information for the Children's Institute. Nishkid64 (talk) 00:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nishikid64,

Regarding your Coventi deletion for lack of notability, please see the following blogs. According to Technorati, all of them are of high authority (> 300 blogs linking to each, as high as over 2,000 for a few of them).

It would appear that your Google search was not adequate. Please re-post (or allow me to re-post) our modest, informational page immediately.

-Dan

http://www.elearnspace.org/blog/archives/002839.html

http://www.masternewmedia.org/news/2007/03/19/collaborative_document_writing_online_word.htm

http://webworkerdaily.com/2007/04/19/whats-so-difficult-about-online-document-collaboration/

http://blog.accessoweb.info/post/2007/05/08/Conventi-partage-discussion-et-revision-de-documents-sur-le-Web

http://www.genbeta.com/2007/05/09-coventi-herramienta-colaborativa-online-de-documentos

http://www.wangtam.com/50226711/coventi_pages_cce_93893.php

http://wwwhatsnew.com/2007/05/15/coventi-compartir-un-documento-y-revisarlo-online/

See WP:WEB and WP:RS. Blogs are not considered reliable sources for Wikipedia, so those sources are out of the question. Can you find any independent sources such as newspapers or other websites that meet WP:RS that contain information about Coventi? Nishkid64 (talk) 00:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nishkid64 the Cypriot refugees article has been protected since december to a version that User:A.Garnet has vandalised here. Some editors including myself reverted, attempted to discuss but to no vain. Can you please have a look at it/reinstate pre- vandalised version and unprotect? Thanks Aristovoul0s 12:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I dont take kindly to you slandering my name across Wikipedia. Your version was frankly considered a pov pushing joke by editors. I rewrote it, editors agreed my version was better and it became locked after you tried to reinstate your version. Moreover, your blatant attempt to circumvent the lock by creating Cyprus refugee was also deleted. I'd ask Nishkid to read the relevant talk pages and contributions by aristovolous carefully. --A.Garnet 12:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just thought I'd let you know that I think you used the wrong block template on 216.102.83.114 (talk · contribs). You used the a template that says that the user has been blocked indefinitely when it should have been for 31 hours. Acalamari 16:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the catch. :) Nishkid64 (talk) 16:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Thank you for blocking that user. Acalamari 16:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Nishkid! (or do you prefer to be called "sixty-four"? I didn't really break the system, just dented it a little! :) Cheers, Cecropia 04:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey dude, it's been a while. It seems that the template you made (and I use) for Warning Templates, CatTrack summaries, and RFA noms is broken. Hope all goes well with that life you have when not on Wikipedia (you know, if you have one. ^_~). -- S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 23:09, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The boxes at the bottom for Category Track Summary, Warning Templates, and Current RfA nominations status usually have a box on the right side that says [show] and usually causes a drop down list to appear. For some reason I do not have that button anymore. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 23:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Purging the cache worked. Thanks man. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 23:27, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ... I have a question about one of the warning protocols I'm trying to create ... there is no specific {{db-book}} template, although there is a WP:Notability (books), and I don't think that WP:CSD#A7 applies to books ... what should I do when I find something like Soft City (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) that lacks any WP:A? I have been working on this article and several others (see User_talk:68.239.79.82#Watchlists) and want to crate a Warn-book like the Warn-band and Warn-web protocols I have created, but I really don't have a specific WP:CSD reason that I can use.

Any suggestions? Thnx! —68.239.79.82 07:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would advise against the creation of a {{db-book}} template because the best approach in these situations is to go to AfD and seek community consensus about the book's notability. It's hard for an individual user or administrator to make an evaluation of a book, and going for community consensus seems like the best way to handle these type of situations. As for {{db-band}} and such, well it's much easier to evaluate notability in those cases, since many of the band articles that are speedied nowadays can just be researched on Google to determine whether or not there is any assertion of notability. I don't think we can do the same with books, since there are usually quite a bit of reviews, criticisms, and analysis that is written on paper, and not posted online. Nishkid64 (talk) 18:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Points taken, but my concern is for cases where there is absolutely no attempt at providing WP:A for even paper reviews, because none exist (the short definition of non-notable) ... please take a look at Warn-book where I suggest using {{db-reason}} with the failure of WP:V as the reason. —68.239.79.82 19:01, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look at it. After skimming it it looks good, if I find any problems I'll post them on his talk page. I saw a redlink somewhere in there, if the guy doesn't have an article it might be better to remove it (or create an article on him).--Wizardman 23:34, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your note on the creator's talk page said: "I have deleted the article. It does not meet WP:WEB notability policy, which is why the article has been deleted under speedy deletion policy" While i don't disagree with this deletion of the article as it stood, I do disagree with that statement. If there is a claim of significance or importance, even one which might well not satidfy WP:WEB (or WP:BIO for an article about a person, or WP:MUSIC for one about a band) then a speedy for WP:CSD#A7 should not be done. See for example WT:CSD#Suspend A7 until the issues at WP:N are settled. where this point was recently discussed.

I myself didn't delete the article because IMO it would have been a very borderline A7, and a little re-writing might well have made it clearly not an A7, although whether it would have survived an AfD is quite another question. DES ^(talk) 19:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I should have rephrased that statement. I meant to say that there was no assertion of notability by the subject, and that it did not meet WP:WEB, so the article would not be kept on Wikipedia by any means. Nishkid64 (talk) 20:04, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, but I have seen others using almost exactly the same wording to imply that a failure to source claims of significance, or a failure to, in their opnion, fully meet WP:WEB, WP:BIO, or WP:MUSIC was alone grounds for a speedy. i think that that is a mistake, which is why I commented as i did. DES ^(talk) 20:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You deleted this article, giving as your reasons CSD A7 (no claim of notability) and G11 (Blatent advertising). I think that the page in fact included claims to notability. The menion of the help line, said to be "Available Australia-wide, ..." alone is probably a reasoanble claim , as is "((Miss Australia)) Quest/Awards was ran by The Spastic Centres of Australia for 45 years" and "entrants, their families, committees, sponsors and the general public of Australia raised in excess of $87 million". While the toine is a bit promotional, i don't think this is blatent advertising (particualrly since it is for a non-profit) and a minor re-write for NPOV tone would have done the job. Please consider undeelting this article. DES ^(talk) 19:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As for the The Spastic Centre, I see a possible borderline CSD A7 only because the centre runs the Miss Australia competition. I do think this falls under G11, though. Some sentences like "A confidential telephone service is available (Australia only) to anyone with questions or concerns about cerebral palsy. Available Australia-wide, the service is staffed by caring professionals who understand the needs of people with cerebral palsy and their families." and "Ongoing research is vital for the prevention and management of cerebral palsy. A CP Register [1](NSW only) has been established which will guide future research in prevention, intervention and service provision." seem to be promoting the article's subject. Also, as the tag in the article indicates, there appears to be a conflict of interest here, since the article's creator appears to have the single purpose of promoting the Spastic Centre here on Wikipedia. Also, the article complies with G11 since it "would require a substantial rewrite in order to become an encyclopedia article". Those are my thoughts on the article. If you wish to bring this to AfD, I'll surely undelete the article. Nishkid64 (talk) 20:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I admit this is soemwhat borderline, and it would surely need at least a bit of a reweite to remove the promotional tone. I am inclined to be a bit mroe tolerant of promotion from a non-profit than from your ordiary firm, and i suspect that with a small amout of work a valid NPOV article could result here. Please do undelete, and either list on AfD yourself (If you wish your reasons to be featured in the nominator's position) or ask me to do so, and I will. Thanks. DES ^(talk) 20:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Upon further consideration, I have decided not to send this article to AfD. After doing some research, it seems this organization meets WP:CORP because it is the subject of multiple reliable and independent secondary sources. See [1]. Nishkid64 (talk) 20:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It is a plasure working with you. I do feel that the flood of spam leads too many of us to be too quick with the delete button -- there is so much junk pouring in, thant valid stuff does get lost. DES ^(talk) 20:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You deleted Mr. Geyer as an A7. i think that "Edward Geyer is the first scientist to create a rock in a labratory-like setting." is a clear claim of significance and importance. The stub needed sourcing, expansion, and cleanup of course, but IMO it should not have been deleted, certianly not speedy delted. Please consider restoring it. DES ^(talk) 19:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I inteptpret A7 as meaning that if there is a somewhat plausible claim that, if found to be true and supported by a reliable source, would causae at least some reasonable editors to say "keep" in an AfD, then A7 should not be used. "Hoax" is generally not a good reason for speedy deletes, because too many times something dismissed as a hoax has proved to be a real but obscure or mis-reported fact, so more eyes are IMO a good idea. I will research this a bit further, but I think prod or Afd might have been a better idea. If I fiond anything at all, would you rather I came back to you, or took it to Deletion reveiw. I came to you first as a courtesy. DES ^(talk) 20:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to have been correct on this. No readily availble internet mention of anything similar, and [2] shows that artifical lapis lazuli had been created before 1843, and so would hardly be news in 2007. While a probable hoax may not be grounds for speedy deletion, obviousl ther is no reason to undelete a conformed hoax. Thanks again. DES ^(talk) 20:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From the way the article was titled and the userpage bio of the creator, I have a strong hunch that Mr. Geyer is the article creator's middle-school science teacher. Newyorkbrad 20:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Nish, I have a question. is there any time limit for speedy deletion. For example, if an article is on wikipedia for 2 years, will an admin speedy delete it or send it to Afd. Just wanted to know, since there is no info on WP:SPEEDY page. Thanks--Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 22:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no limit, but the article must still meet speedy deletion policy just like in normal conditions. Nishkid64 (talk) 22:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, but say if I put this article [3] for SD, would you delete it --Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 22:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most definitely not. I saw Buddhipriya (talk · contribs) tagged it for CSD G11, but that does not apply for this article. The article is written in a NPOV form, in my opinion, and G11 doesn't make sense. I think CSD A7 does not apply here because an assertion of notability (whether or not it complies with WP:BIO is another story) has been made in the article. Nishkid64 (talk) 22:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In this edit, I think you meant to use [[]] instead of {{}}. You'd be surprised at how spectacularly Mediawiki acts when those are transposed. It's fixed now, just a heads up. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 22:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I know, I fixed it :P. I meant to do place a "|" between user and Buddhipriya, but I accidentally used a colon, and it ended up transcluding his whole userpage, when I meant to just have a link to his user, user talk and contributions page. Nishkid64 (talk) 22:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 21	21 May 2007	About the Signpost

Corporate editing lands in Dutch media	Spoiler warnings may be tweaked
WikiWorld comic: "Disruptive technology"	News and notes: LGBT project mention, milestones
Features and admins	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 05:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Might be interested in the discussion on my talk page ;) Apparently there was some discussion on IRC about it. – Riana ⁂ 14:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. One of the few occasions I've actually missed out by not being on IRC :p – Riana ⁂ 14:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hi nishkid, can you give me an apropriate place for image tagging, I need some help before I create an account. 86.150.252.201 19:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked user as a sockpuppet of Molag Bal (talk · contribs). Nishkid64 (talk) 20:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! I saw your talk page on my watchlist and I visited the page and WHOA! and then reverted! :) —Spebi 21:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Nishkid64. I noticed you indef blocked User:Telcourbanio explaining he's one of the suckpuppets of User:Molag Bal. I don't see User:Telcourbanio being mentioned in Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Molag Bal. Am I missing something? Thanks! --Abu badali ^(talk) 22:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IRC checkuser by Dmcdevit by my request, and very similar edit patterns, given the personality of Molag Bal (and his socks) - things you get to know after trailing them across the wiki for six months :-). Martinp23 22:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even if he is a sock, he is only helping Wikipedia now. Since he has not made any unconstructive edits with that user, would it not be better to let him keep helping Wikipedia? --Mschel 23:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trust me, we gave Molag Bal (talk · contribs) many chances to reform his ways, and Martinp23 and I have even mentored him at one point. He's a tricky sockpuppeteer, and he misrepresents himself by making both good and bad sockpuppets, and then using some for vandal-fighting and others for vandalism. Eventually, he resorts to vandalism even on the good accounts, which is why he's not trusted. Also, see the recent CheckUser case. He's confirmed to be behind the whole Mr. Oompapa sockpuppetry situation. Nishkid64 (talk) 23:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, see recent edits to Nishkid's talk page, where the very same user added the goatse image (also confirmed by checkuser). This user is banned from Wikipedia - making good edits does not, in this case, negate said ban, as, as sure as eggs be eggs, you can know that he'll concurrently be making bad edits. Martinp23 23:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments you left on my RfA. I understnad adminship is stressful, however I do deal with stress in the best manner possible. If I feel I become too heated in a discussion here, I tend to take a mini-break of say 20-30 minutes to collect my thoughts and proceed. I unfortunately have some real-world circumstances occur which kept me after from editing for a few months as you pointed out, however they are thankfully resolved. I'm hoping in the future with more edits that when I do re-nominate myself these issues may be looked at more positively. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wildthing61476 (talk • contribs)

Hey, don't worry about it. I'm sure with a few months' more of experience, you'll do fine in an RfA. I've had this same exact discussion with many other editors, and a few months later, I saw them easily pass through RfAs! P.S. Don't forget to sign your posts :). Nishkid64 (talk) 23:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the Barnstar of Diligence! I'm glad that you found my suggestions useful at Samuel Adams. Awadewit ^Talk 06:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Smile a little, smile a little, all along the road; Every life must have its burden, every heart its load. Why sit down in gloom and darkness with your grief to sup? As you drink Fate's bitter tonic, smile across the cup. Smile upon the troubled pilgrims whom you pass and meet; Frowns are thorns, and smiles are blossoms, oft for weary feet. Do not make the way seem harder by a sullen face; Smile a little, smile a little, brighten up the place. Smile upon your undone labour; not for one who grieves O'er his task waits wealth or glory; he who smiles achieves. Though you meet with loss and sorrow in the passing years, Smile a little, smile a little... even through your tears! Ella Wheeler Wilcox Have a beautiful day, dear Nishkid! :) Phaedriel 09:36, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for freezing that page. Can you please do the same for the Atari 2600, Atari 7800, Atari 5200, Atari Jaguar, and Atari Lynx pages as well? The person is using multiple ip's to war revert. --Marty Goldberg 21:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again, just saw it on the others as well. Forgot to mention the Atari ST page also. And I take full responsibility for being in an edit war with a dynamic ip/ip spoofer editor, apologies. Trust me, its frustratnig as heck dealing with someone who wants to push their edits that way. I had put a request on the protection page but it was taking forever. --Marty Goldberg 22:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you reprotect the Atari ST page please, he's starting up again from another anon IP. --Marty Goldberg 13:24, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for not recognizing you earlier. I am just getting familiar with this type of userbox. You may want to place the following on your user page:

TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 21:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I appreciate the notion, but I think there's definitely more I can help out with before I can actually say I've done major contributing to the article. I left the article two weeks ago because I went to work on J. R. Richard and 1926 World Series from scratch. J. R. Richard is basically FA-ready, and I'm getting 1926 WS to GA soon. After that, I'll get back to Chris Young and hopefully do more copyediting work and expansion. Thanks, Nishkid64 (talk) 21:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that you used the phrase from scratch. I see you are the primary editor on both articles based on this tool]. I am unsure what you mean by from scratch, but your work is quite stellar. Keep it up. I would, however, advise against claims of from scratch (the person who created the page might call you on it). I was fortunate with Chris Young (baseball pitcher) to be the page creator. I am sure it had something to do with confusion between the 3 active professional athletes that caused his page to be unwritten with my 2006 start. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 15:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'll elaborate. The original J. R. Richard article was around 5KB in length, and I did a total rewrite, and basically none of the previous material (except the infobox and the categories) are in the 55KB version I've written. For 1926 World Series, there was only a paragraph of introductory context, and a bunch of stat boxes. I removed the previous text, and rewritten everything contextual that you see in the article now. Nishkid64 (talk) 16:46, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not attuned to the nuances of wiki slang. Is it common to say from scratch with the intent of meaning a total rewrite. How would you describe a new page creation? TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 16:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The 25 DYK Medal
		The DYK medal is awarded to Nishkid for his work in updating as well as writing and nominating articles for DYK. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Nish,

I'm currently busy as hell fighting vandalism on the RC page and don't have time to review the case of Albina Digaeva. The article's author claims that she meets WP:Notability. I somewhat disagree. I was wondering if you could take a quick look sometime. Thanks. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 00:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not too sure about this one. The article does assert notability, and there appears to be reliable sources to back up the article's information. If you feel the article should be deleted, you can send it to WP:AFD. Nishkid64 (talk) 16:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I won't send it to AFD, as I think it also might have just enough notability to stay up. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 20:21, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm doing a report for school on acetic acid and I came here to read up on it quickly. The article for acetic acid is featured, although I don't feel it to be of featured article quality. Much of the info in the article is unsourced. Moreover, it has been a featured article since at least December 2005, when standards for FAs were lower than they are today. If you could, I suggest you start the process of de-FAing acetic acid. -- S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 20:43, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nishkid. I'd like to thank you for your support of my RfA. It was closed at surprising 75/0/0, so I'm an admin now. MaxSem 21:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Nishkid. Thank you so much for your support and your kind comment on my recent Rfa, it succeeded! I am now thrilled to bits and I hope I can live up to your expectations. If you spot me messing things up, feel free to chew me out =) Take good care and have a beautiful day, PeaceNT 06:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:DukeFA.PNG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Sherool (talk) 17:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding [5]: See [6]. —Centrx→talk • 23:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The diffs you provided on my talk page appear to be the same. I'm assuming the diff you're referring to is this. In any case, I understand the previous reasoning for doing so, and I have no removed it from Ipbreason-dropdown. Nishkid64 (talk) 00:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 22	28 May 2007	About the Signpost

Controversy over biographies compounded when leading participant blocked	Norwegian Wikipedian, journalist dies at 59
WikiWorld comic: "Five-second rule"	News and notes: Wikipedian dies, Alexa rank, Jimbo/Colbert, 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 06:41, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello ... I stumbled across the first of these the other day on WP:NPP as a stub that I was about to tag for WP:CSD#A7:

• Stitch 'n Bitch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Debbie Stoller (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Bust (magazine) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Please see that talk pages and histories ... the first one has been deleted and restored once already, and digging some more led to the other two.

As you know, I've got a "thang" about WP:A, especially when I see absolutely no WP:RS whatsoever, just ELs to the subject's website, but before I waste any more time with this, I figured I'd better get the opinion of an admin ... I'm currently up to my cojones in the feces arising from Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Paul Ulrich (which is a "kill it before it grows" situation), but these are legacy articles, created before we became quite so anal retentive about WP:Verifiability, i.e., requiring multiple WP:RS secondary sources.

I mean, I can hear the arguments already:

1. Bust (magazine) has been published since 1993, so it is notable, regardless of lacking reliable secondary sources
2. Debbie Stoller is the publisher of notable magazine, so she is also notable, regardless of lacking reliable secondary sources
3. "Stitch 'n Bitch" has been the subject of multiple books by a notable author, so it is also notable, regardless of lacking reliable secondary sources

So, should I simply try to forget that I ever saw these articles and just MOVE ON? Thnx! —68.239.79.82 23:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any justification for a CSD A7 here. I think if you feel these articles should be deleted, then going to AfD would be the best route. From what I see, I would probably choose to keep these articles, since there are multiple reliable sources that could be found on each subject. In any case, it's your choice here--either you can help source the articles and make them more compliable with Wikipedia policy, or you can send this to AfD and plead your case for deletion. Nishkid64 (talk) 20:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

cheers for the correct. I have nominated it the correct area now. Govvy 17:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ... If you have a moment and interest, you might help out on the Saul Rogovin article. I am trying to avoid an edit war. Thanks.--Epeefleche 14:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, this user who goes by User talk:61.17.193.80 is back to his vulgar language and vandalism. Seems like his block may have expired. Please block him indefenitely. He goes by a user name Vishal1976 and had left some vulgar messages on my user page a few weeks back which I removed. (when I checked last, he has an account by that user name)Dineshkannambadi 18:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked the IP for six months, because the IP belongs to Vishal1976. I have also tagged the IP's userpage with Template:IPsock. Thanks, Nishkid64 (talk) 20:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.Dineshkannambadi 20:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An editor keeps on reverting my Fangraphs addition [7] to the Sandy Koufax links section, even though it presents unique info. Your thoughts? Tx.--Epeefleche 07:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I asked him on that page to move any discussion to the talk page, and stop edit warring.

Instead he RV'd.[8]

He has now begun deleting similar external links to Fangraphs, ESPN, Baseball Cube, Baseball Library, and other urls that provide unique info. See diffs at John Grabow, Jason Marquis, andBrad Ausmus. He did this in such short order that it suggests that he is going into my edit history to look for pages that I have edited, in order to make these deletions of appropriate unique external links. Can you help? Thanks. --Epeefleche 07:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should review wiki policy on links. This is not a link farm. I am not touching your edit history, I'm using the special pages feature. // Tecmobowl 07:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I see no problems with the Fangraphs link. It provides unique statistical information that can't be found at Baseball-Reference or any other baseball statistical website. There is a bit of an excess of ELs at Sandy Koufax, so I have removed some unnecessary links. Also, don't edit war; please discuss on the talk page. Nishkid64 (talk) 13:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That information is available on B-R, you just have to look for it. Further to the point, the information is not unique, it is simply and extension of the statistics available on all places. While you are an admin and I do appreciate your opinion, I am surprised that you suggest an open discussion, yet you simply put the information back in there. Plastering Wiki without community consensus is inappropriate. I found over 150+ links to the site and I would suspect that most were added by a small number of people. I think we should continue the discussion on the Baseball project page further before including this site on any more pages. // Tecmobowl 13:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Nope, the other diff was directed to Tecmobowl, not you.--Wizardman 13:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have abandoned the idea of keeping this conversation in at most one or two centralized locations. I will make a few points to you and then when i'm done with a response to one of the other editors, i will point you there. First, I at no point refused to engage Epeefleche in a conversation. I simply did so in one location as opposed to the several locations where he posted messages. Second, the post I am writing on another page (as we speak) will address the topic at hand quite extensively. I would suggest that this conversation is centralized on either your talk page or on Epeefleche's so as to avoid jumping around. //Tecmobowl 13:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have centralized this and related discussion by moving it to [9].--Epeefleche 17:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You indef blocked... now they have requested an unblock with another username. Given that they called their 1st two edits "test" edits I'm a bit leery. I'm wavering between WP:AGF/not wanting to WP:BITE and wondering if this will just end in another block... Any thoughts as the blocking admin?--Isotope23 18:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ha... how is that for crossing paths? I'll put in a rename request. I'm feeling generous today, want to give him a final chance?--Isotope23 18:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would be fine I would think. He's not alive and its not used to illustrate him but a historic moment. I'm not an expert, I just know any pics of living people or any magazine covers are likely to get shot down. That's from my personal experience uploading pics and having them deleted. Incidentally, I saw that article a day or two ago and was pretty impressed, nice work. Quadzilla99 00:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm getting pretty tired of the editor: PeanutCheeseBar. He claims I "forum shopped" to get new opinions and so on, to change consensus. But the fact of the matter is: regular editors of an article (which was a select few), certainly isn't a clear consensus. He is upset because I don't agree with him, and because the article is now protected. If there is a certain page I should post this on, let me know. Much of it happened here: Talk:List_of_Virtual_Console_games_(North_America)#To_reiterate. RobJ1981 15:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rob, I'm not the only editor that has been "accusing" you of violating Wikipedia policies; MisterHand and Bishop2 have also made note on several occasions where you have apparently violated the policies, only to be steadfastly rebuked by you and told that you were justified in continuing this dispute and how we were all wrong. My dispute is not over whether the points stay or go (as I have seen some valid points as to removing them, which I agree with), but rather the fact that you blatantly disregarded Wikipedia policy and tried to hold others to a different standard; people telling you over and over that you've made a mistake and broken a rule should not be construed as harrassment, especially if you refuse to acknowledge that you made a mistake; it should be taken as constructive criticism, especially in light of the fact that multiple editors have called attention to the mistake, and they have also remained civil in this matter. Please bear that in mind in the future before you decide to post on someone's talk page about assuming good faith, then turning around and reporting the person; that in itself is not a show of good faith on your part. --PeanutCheeseBar 17:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To keep everything on the same page (both physically and metaphorically), can we please restrict this to the list page? That way, nobody involved in this matter is left out of the loop, and it makes it easier to respond in one place rather than several. --PeanutCheeseBar 18:49, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was most probably Kuntan too. :) - Aksi_great (talk) 19:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

would the closing date be the 8th or 9th of June on my RFA? I accepted it yesterday but updated it and transcluded today. Simply south 22:22, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's always seven days after you have transcluded the RfA to WP:RFA. Nishkid64 (talk) 22:26, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It'll be the 9th. I have another query now. I'll be on a break on the 9th. Do you think that will impede on this RFA? Simply south 22:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, more than just the first day. It's going to be a holiday so....

I thought the SBWA edits were going to come up somewhere. Btw, i do not treat wikipedia as a games site and i used to be a more prolific player than i am now. (I suppose i should say something like this on the RFA page). Simply south 22:40, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More or less same words. Simply south 23:28, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take that but out. I still occaisionally play but i suppose thats obvious. Simply south 23:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am back. I was in hospital for about three months. It is finally great to be back! --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 06:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Digwuren is edit warring on Jüri Uluots. He does not react on my motivation on the talkpage. Instead of that he puts insulting comments on my talkpage. He is pushing biased and POV content on the mentioned article. He has been blocked by you before for the same reason. I have asked User talk:Petri Krohn support for a request for comment on Digwuren. Digwuren makes insulting remarks on Petri on Talk:Jüri Uluots. I request a block for Digwuren. Otto 08:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At the same talkpage more incivility is now added by User:Alexia Death. Nishkid64, can you give me an advice about how to proceed? Otto 21:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are many options here, Otto. If the article has become a major problem, you can request mediation or even open up a Request for comment for other users to participate in. It seems you have warned users about incivility, but unsurprisingly, it hasn't helped. I personally think mediation is your best option here, since there appears to be some sockpuppetry (I saw some RFCU made against Digwuren) and a lot of name-calling. Nishkid64 (talk) 21:29, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you read that RFCU to the end before making slanderous statements. I was one of the alleged sockpuppets(or rather I was accused of being the puppeteer...). The case was dissmissed and the only reason for the original confirm was the fact that I share an ISP with some users and even then since Digwurren is on a different ISP he was never confirmed.--Alexia Death 06:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As to me being incivil, if it seems to you so, then I must assure you It has not been intentional. In my brief stay here Ive been shown that you can be called anything form ruthles POV pusher(even if you have sources) to an outright meatpuppet in edit comments and that is not consicered to be incivil. I will try to keep a more critical eye on my statements in the future...--Alexia Death 06:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]