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.

Thanks for the anon lock.Dineshkannambadi 14:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please unprotect this article; Sarenne, who caused the problems, has had his/her account banned. I realise that the most recent vandalism/zealotry was caused by someone (probably Sarenne) editing anonymously from various IPs.

However, if that continues to be a problem upon lifting the ban, we can (at worst) protect the article from anonymous editing only. Fourohfour 10:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, Sorry, I seem to be coming to you with several revert war related fedback of late. This time it involves myself and a User talk:Kroger2005 who I believe is none othe than User talk:151.193.220.29. This IP repeatedly, though not on an hour-to-hour basis removed chunks of cited info from the above page that was put in by me, an article that I plan as my next FA, after the current one in FAC. He never explained why he feels the info he removes is "unsubstantiated". He just comes in every few days and take it out. Now he has created (I believe from the edit patterns) a user account and pretty much does the same thing. I have requested him for an explanation and want to wait for a few days to see if he responds positivly. My concern is this article has been under some sort of lock (soft or otherwise) for much of the last 6 months. I am not sure how to deal with such low intensity edit wars. Just wanted to keep you abreast of these developments. If the reverting continues without explanation, then I will contact you again. thanksDineshkannambadi 12:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to bother you, but PeanutCheeseBar refuses to act civil, because he claims I broke many Wikipedia polices (and apparently I still do with every post here: Talk:List of Virtual Console games (North America) according to him). He simply doesn't respect my opinions, and refuses to assume good faith. I've told him to assume good faith: he just wont listen. I should have the right to my opinion, and he shouldn't be attacking me, assuming bad faith and being uncivil about it. It basically seems like he wont stop unless I agree with his opinions. I'm getting very sick of this. RobJ1981 00:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• In order to prevent this from stretching out across more than one talk page like before, I'll just post my comments here; it's easier to keep track of, and it keeps all the comments in one place.

As you already know, this isn't the first time Rob has kept threatening to report me to an admin, but Rob's been awfully quick to point the finger of "bad faith" in someone's direction when the discussion isn't going the way he wants it to. He's asked for evidence of where he's been uncivil or violated policies on multiple occasions, and I've posted them over and over, only for him to threaten to report me to an admin; I don't think it adds anything to the discussion if I keep reposting the same content, and I'm not going to "jump" every time he asks me to, considering that he hasn't shown any remorse for his attitude, nor any attempt to show me the civility that he accuses me of lacking. As I stated before: I completely respect your right to disagree, though I don't respect the "holier than thou" attitude you've radiated this whole time, nor do I respect when you make changes that are already in discussion, as you've done with this article, and as DarrenHusted has pointed out on your talk page in pertinence to a separate article. In response to Darren's comment (which wasn't really offensive at all), Rob is quick to say that Darren's statement is "far from the truth" and says "How about not assuming?" (he doesn't explicitly state "bad faith, though it strongly seems to be implied), despite the fact that Darren was only stating an opinion. He calls it "bad faith" when others and myself point out what they or I believe to be a mistake or misinterpretation, and yet for having such bad faith, I haven't even threatened once to report him to an admin. --PeanutCheeseBar 01:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fact you accuse me of "violating policies" and not even stating any policies (except for a weak bad faith accustation), makes me believe you just assume I'm violating, but you don't even know which ones I'm "supposedly" violating. You've posted things over and over? Not lately (at least) you haven't. I'm not going to search through many posts just to find these so called "over and over" policy violations that you claim I committed. I think this is just a matter of you refusing to let me have an opinion that differs from you. I shouldn't have to apologize for things that I didn't do wrong, period. Forcing me to think the same way as you, isn't necessary and isn't going to happen. And to comment about this: but Rob's been awfully quick to point the finger of "bad faith" in someone's direction when the discussion isn't going the way he wants it to. The discussion about the Wii points isn't getting anywhere (the talk page clearly shows this, even if you don't want to admit it). So don't use my accustation of bad faith as an excuse of it not going my way. I can say the same thing about you: the article isn't the perfect way you like, so you harass me and basically think I should apologize, and agree with you. Since that's not happening: you wont leave me alone. Wikipedia is supposed to be about editing and discussing article changes: not fighting and try to force others to think a certain way just to get the article changed to your view of how the article should be. RobJ1981 04:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rob, I've already pointed out the violations on more than a few occasions within the article's talk page, and as I said before, I'm not going to jump every time you tell me to; I'm not going to go digging through that huge mess just to restate the same things over and over. I used to think that maybe you were taking all of this too personally, but after seeing how keep "passing the buck" even now on the talk page, I believe you're just looking for reasons to get offended; even Neo Samus agrees with me: comment I would like to comment on the fact even though I have not said much in any of the discussions, it's not because I don't want to. PCB (I hope you don't mind that I abbv. your name) has basically said almost everything I feel about the situation. If I were to say something, it would be like repeating the same comments over and over again. Neo Samus 04:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

From there, you responded with Whatever, harassing me like this isn't needed. Holier than thou? Give it a rest, I don't think that at all, so don't assume things in an attempt to either get me in trouble or just make me more angry with this situation. and you go right back to the argument that someone's just trying to get you in trouble or harass you. I've only ever seen you say "please" once, and I haven't seen a kind word out of you since; do you call THAT "good faith"? Even since other people have replied on that talks page, you're just indiscriminately attacking everybody who is disagreeing with you, and writing them off. I really don't think I'm the one with the problem, as demonstrated by everyone else agreeing with me or siding with me on the matter in the talk page. --PeanutCheeseBar 12:26, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. That whole comment was towards you, and you know it. NeoSamus didn't say that holier than thou garbage: you did. Don't twist around things, just to accuse me further. I'm defending myself, and I don't see any so called "attacks" in response to many people. I state my opinion on things, and because I disagree: that's attacking? That doesn't make much sense. A main reason NeoSamus agrees: is because he wants the Wii points back in the article, so of course he will agree with you. If it was different: he wouldn't be in agreement I bet. You claim to point out my violations: but you haven't listed the actual policies you "claim" I violated (except for bad faith I suppose). You think I'm violating policies, but I'm not and you are just assuming I am. Read up on guidelines and policies more, before assuming I'm breaking so many. Trying to get me blocked or whatever: is very uncivil, and doesn't need to happen. But go ahead and deny that as well. RobJ1981 19:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter if another user didn't specifically state those words, but you're attacking me more than you are those other users because I keep pointing out what you did (and continue to do) wrong. Constantly telling me that I'm wrong with the attitude you have will only encourage me to stay the course because you're not acting as civil as you'd like to think you are, and I will not be bullied by you; consequently, I've posted the proof enough times, and I'm not going to do everything you tell me to under threat of duress. I'm not your dog, and I really resent you treating me like one. --PeanutCheeseBar 19:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Rob has come to my talk page to continue attacking me because you have not replied on yours; please take this fact into consideration. --PeanutCheeseBar 20:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rob and PeanutCheeseBar, you both need to stop arguing. Even if I mediate the dispute now, what good will that do? You're going to be back fighting each within a few days. I request that both of you guys take some time off to cool down, and stay away from each other and the Talk:List of Virtual Console games (North America) page. Also, if the attacks and incivilities continue, a formal mediation request may be necessary. Nishkid64 (talk) 21:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't mind backing off from the VC talk page, but it doesn't appear that Rob has the intention to do so, given that he's still posting there even after you posted this, and another person has told him to watch his attitude. That aside, I really wanted to work out the issue here, but as long as he maintains that belligerant, unconciliatory attitude, I'm likely not going to be the last person he clashes with, since it's still going on now at the talk page, and he's dragging the discussion back to this page in an effort to resurrect the issue there, since the consensus on the VC talk page isn't agreeing with him. --PeanutCheeseBar 22:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nishkid, I'm only posting this here because I am heeding your request to stay away from Rob, but he won't leave this issue alone; he's taken to telling Neo Samus what to do on his talk page because of something that Neo Samus said at the VC article (which wasn't very tactful, I will admit), but it was not Rob's place to correct him on a matter he was supposed to be distancing himself from in the first place. On that matter, although Rob had previously stated before that he brought the issue up again too soon after it had been decided before, he opened up ANOTHER discussion yesterday concerning the Wii points (as I pointed out in the above reply), and even now is continuing to indirectly involve himself with the Wii points issue through the page. To me, it just looks like he's forum shopping all over again, and intentionally adding fuel to the fire because he's not getting what he wants. I've respectfully abstained from posting ANYTHING on the subject since you've requested me not to on my talk page, but I'm finding it difficult to sit idle and not say anything while he continues this behavior. --PeanutCheeseBar 20:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rob is questioning Neo Samus' comments. I don't see any fault with that. Please do not keep up the accusations of "forum shopping". People do take these things personally, and using that against Rob is not helping the matter. Also, if you have any personal complaints, please e-mail them to me, instead of posting on my user talk page (where they are visible to Rob and others). Thanks, Nishkid64 (talk) 20:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, This article has been undergoing a "Battle of the Bulge" kind of edit war and needs your attention.thanks.Dineshkannambadi 14:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nishkid, Can you please unprotect the article? I need to add some stuff(pics, text, refs etc) to the article. Thanks. Sarvagnya 17:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would be best if you use the {{Editprotected}} template on the talk page. I'll see if the requested additions will not be problematic. Thanks, Nishkid64 (talk) 20:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure it wont be problematic. There are no content issues on that page. Just some people trolling with gratuitous use of tags. Thats all. I need to add some external links, refs etc that has never been on the article before. It is not like I am trying to add something that is disputed or anything. Sarvagnya 22:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I unprotect the page, I could potentially be criticized for double standards, and I'm not really in the mood for that type of talk. However, if you show me first what edit you wish to make (create a user subpage and I'll look at it), then I can probably unprotect the page temporarily. Thanks, Nishkid64 (talk) 23:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sarvagnya is right. There are no content disputes. I believe the people causing the reverts dont even know the topic well enough to critique it. A look at the user pages causing the reverts makes this apparent. I believe the issue started with tagging the article as "lacking in citations", thats all. My apologies to both NishKid64 and Sarvagnya about the inconvinience caused.Dineshkannambadi 00:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, my only problem is that Sarvagnya said he also wanted to add text. The OR and weasel words relate to content issues, and it wouldn't be appropriate to be adding content that could potentially relate to these tags. Nishkid64 (talk) 00:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. I am not adding any text. I only want to add a pic and some more refs. And then if I find the time, I'll probably cpedit. You cant act on imagined disputes. Right now there are absolutely no disputes(if there is, show me where it is. I looked on the talk page and I see none) on that article and it is inappropriate that you have tagged it for refs and also locked it. I dont see how anybody can construe it as double standards if you unlock the article! Also [1], [2]. Sarvagnya 23:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[3] Sarvagnya 00:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On 21 June, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Half-Breed (politics), 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.

--howcheng {chat} 19:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nish,

Our services are intented for education evaluation services, for the poeple who come to United States.

Appreciae if you can please relook at it.

Thanks, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajeeva.bagepalli (talk • contribs)

Thanks for protecting the article Unification of Karnataka. I hope you will look into my edit request on the talk page. Lotlil 17:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was quick, thanks. Lotlil 17:40, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I've explained why I think the article needs those tags I'm adding. The rest of the users are reverting without discussions. I hate to interrupt you like this, but request you to protect it again with whatever version you think is good. I will re-add my request in the talk page then. Lotlil 18:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nish. I see that you are in the middle of this with your arms stretched out trying to keep things at bay. I don't know whether you have see WP:NOT:sales catalogue. It was added as a result of this discussion, which was a continuation of multiple discussions elsewhere. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 14:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to be ready. Would you mind seeing if I left anything out (other than my signature). Thanks! -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 23:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No thanks. I have a lot of article writing/real life things to do over the next few days/weeks, as well as some template and category stuff I said I'd do a while ago, so it'd be a pity if I put the silly RfA process before those and go rou/ge while forgetting all about them. Let me game the system by racking up more trivial edits, then I'll get back to you. –Pomte 19:56, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On June 25, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article 1880 Republican National Convention, 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.

Keep cracking with the DYKs Nish...but you gotta get it to GA before you put it on DYK ;)Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, wait, you wrote that all yourself? Jebus Harman Christ, that's good work for one damn person -- Phoeba Wright^OBJECTION! 06:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah that was my reaction too! :) That's near FA material. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 13:09, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 26	25 June 2007	About the Signpost

Board election series: An interview with the candidates	RfA receives attention, open proxies policy reviewed
WikiWorld comic: "Thagomizer"	News and notes: Logo error, Norwegian chapter, 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 07:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you post the new DYK, which is rather overdue? It has six items, but looks okay with the short on this day today and tomorrow. Rigadoun (talk) 18:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Nishkid64,

Thank you for your work on these two pages. I have followed administrator Jossi's suggestion that the Sahaj Marg page be replaced with a neutral stub (and protected), and that the Shri Ram Chandra Mission page be deleted and merged with the Sahaj Marg page (it has the same people and the same sort of information on it).

Right now, the Shri Ram Chandra Mission page reads as a propaganda piece designed to promote a specific point of view. The Sahaj Marg page does as well starting with the "teachings" section (in consultation with other editors, it had been edited up to that point). The problem is that a few anti-Sahaj Marg/SRCM persons are trying to re-create their blogs here. In fact, up until yesterday when he received an administrator warning, Shashwat Pandey's stated goal on his user page was to promote his specific negative point-of-view toward Sahaj Marg/SRCM (see his history, click June 22, 2007, for example).

You'll see they are posting exactly the same information here as on their blogs. Specifically, they are posting information which is contested in court (and in fact, the court ruling have always come down on the SRCM side and what is currently on the site is merely an appeal), posting selectively chosen quotations and topics to promote a specific point-of-view (see their blogs, they post their opinions and then comb the large Sahaj Marg literature to find out-of-context supporting quotations), and posting several theories and allegations (not fact).

As Jossi (administrator) pointed out, there are no valid 3rd party cites and she recommended either deleting the articles or reducing to a stub. Hence, I wrote a stub trying to reflect the three factions as briefly and accurately as possible.

*I'm wondering if you could replace what's on the Sahaj Marg page with the stub that appears on the talk page and protect that, and delete the Shri Ram Chandra Mission page so we can start our discussion on an article that meets Wiki standards ?

Otherwise, we'll have another 2+ years of edit/opinion wars instead of an encyclopedic entry.

Any advice is appreciated.

Sincerely, Renee --Renee 10:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm reviewing the 1880 Republican National Convention, I'm still reading through so before I finish perhaps you could take a look at Image:John-Sherman-2.jpg, it doesn't seem to have a PD tag. By the looks so far that is the only problem I can find. If the image is sorted it should be passed once I've finished checking it. - J Logan ^t/_c: 12:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments on the Runcorn article. My response is on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Runcorn. I am intriged by your 'chuckles' comment. Is anything known about Runcorn, UK, in USA? In UK it has been regarded as a town to make jokes about because of its poverty and its inheritance of pollution from the chemical industry. But its reputation has not got as far as USA, has it? Best wishes. Peter I. Vardy 11:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've received a explanation on my talk page here. Interesting! Before my Wikipedia-time. A good job I did not choose that as my own user name. Peter I. Vardy 15:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Go back to Acalamari's RfA and re-read your support ;-) Ryan Postlethwaite 18:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ,

I have noticed recently that Renee is approaching various admins with request to block me without citing any valid reason, however i have also noticed that she even tried to interfear with mediation process, by asking the mediator to ban me !!

I had repeatedly tried to convince her that this page is under mediation and no major changes should be done while this process is underway, but insted of waiting to let the mediation process get over, she/he (?) changed the complete page and disturbed the process.

Moreover, she is even connicting me with a friend of mine who is well versed with wiki policy but is not very much involved.

It seems her one point agenda is to get me banned, this is against wiki policy to supress any POV, also i have serious doubt about her being new to wiki, as i have many times observed similar behaviour in past, by various user names also.

For your reference kindly see these comments by her/him.

1. [4] She contacted another admin who banned me just by reading her POV, without even asking for my POV.

2.[5] here she directly approached the mediator and asked him to block me!!

3. [6] i tried to convince her for not making any major changes in the page as it is under mediation.

4. She is putting false and factually incorrect information in the page to establish a POV such as this [7] case is still pending and claim is it is in favor of one group !!

5. Note this [8] Sahaj Marg is not an organization put for POV push she/he mentioned that it was registered as organization.

6. Kindly note religious claims which she is representing as fact's like in case of connection with God etc, they are just claims and cannot be stated as fact in any neutral article.

7. There are many more cases like this [9] when i was out of town, i asked one of my friend to get involved in this article, which was not at all hidden, he even exposed his name etc to renee even after that just to get me banned she is making such absured claims.

8. Kindly make sure any other admin is not influenced by her false propaganda against me, like the case was with Riana.

9. Does this qualifies as personal attack ? if yes what is the next step. I have even tried to convince her/him about validity of difference of openion on wiki [10] but i feel this will not have any effect on her, as her one point agenda seems to be to get me banned so that false and incorrect information such as pointed above can be placed without any discussion.

10. How can you help in getting her quite till mediation process is not complete ?

Also note [11] when she tried to put a block on me, without signing her name, and then shusequently she tried to protray as is that message was from someone else [12] here she had stated Please note that you are receiving a vandalism warning for your immediate reversions to your original page what would you call such a behaviour ? if this qualifies with personal attack policy of WIKI, what are the steps that i can initiate ?

Thanks in advance--Shashwat pandey 19:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I feel renee [13] has seriously violated WP:NPA by trying to connect me with a blog on internet, this in my view is a clear case of attempt to expose a person's identity, and was done with same intention, as there is/was no referene to any blog on my user page ever.

Even if i am not the owner of that blog, people may take this as truth and my personal safety is direct under threat!! This act, of connecting me with a blog, which is so much against one group, may put me in serious threat for personal safety. I feel renee is suitable to be banned for a longer duration of time, according to stated policy at WP:NPA

Threats or actions which expose other Wikipedia editors to political, religious or other persecution by government, their employer or any others. Violations of this sort may result in a block for an extended period of time, which may be applied immediately by any administrator upon discovery

Expect your kind co-operation. --Shashwat pandey 19:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I have stricken your vote from the Simple English Wikipedia in the current board election. Each editor is only allowed to vote once, even if xe meets he voting criteria in several projects. I therefore struck your vote from the Simple English Wikipedia and kept the one from the English Wikipedia, because you have more edits here than on Simple English. Thanks for understanding, Jon Harald Søby 19:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. I wasn't sure who I was supposed to contact about striking out my simple.wiki vote. I was just toying around, and I didn't think it would actually record my duplicate vote. Nishkid64 (talk) 20:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - can I request that you don't delete Talk:Article/Comments pages just because they contain only a signature? This is useful information because it informs Wikiprojects when an article rating was last updated and by whom. Admittedly it would be better to have more than just a comment on these pages, but a "sign and date" is better than no information at all. Thanks - Geometry guy 20:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I only did that for Talk:Srinivasa Ramanujan/Comments. I don't think the pages are really necessary. People can just as easily look at the talk page itself, or in the talk page history. For example, it says you evaluated the page, but if you look at the talk page history it shows that Konstable was the last person to evaluate the articles (he did the GAC evaluation). Nishkid64 (talk) 21:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The two evaluations are not for the same purpose. The one I did is from the perspective of WikiProject mathematics, and assesses not only article quality (from the math project perspective) but also priority and field. Furthermore, the /Comments pages are not just used on article talk pages: they are also transcluded onto project tables. Geometry guy 12:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have this up at FAC. I looked at it when it was at FAR and couldn't really help but was going to do an article on Bummer and Lazarus at some point as they seem notable in their own right. Looking through the article now I see that the text has changed to include this sentence: "Norton did, in fact, eat at the same free lunch counter as the two dogs, but he did not appreciate their society, nor did he own them." Where does that come from (it isn't covered by ref 28)? Yomangani^talk 23:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know I've seen sources that describe the relationship between Norton and the two dogs, but I couldn't find it at the current time. I have rephrased the sentence, and added the appropriate citation to go along with it. Nishkid64 (talk) 23:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User owns several sock-accounts, and has much connections to several sockpuppets. this might be interesting? He is also did some rather useless edits, and marked several articles for blocked users for deletion, without even watching sources. He also triedv to change his own RfA, months ago. here, connections with the vandal Murlock can bed found. I think, you'd better ban the user indefintelt now; he has got away with it to often. block him indefinetly, and protect his talk-page, so that he cannot svae his ass this time. Just the way you blocked Haggawaga - Oegawagga aswell. Randalph P. Williams 11:48, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, please give me permission to make a few citation edits to the locked Kannada page; to add a few citations and remove one (put in by me) which is feel is unclear after a second reading.Dineshkannambadi 23:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.Dineshkannambadi 01:17, 30 June 2007 (UTC) In addition, I have removed two more citations that are contentious and caused the edit wars lockup in the first place. I will leave a note on the use page of the concerned user also.Dineshkannambadi 01:46, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nishkid64. Thank you for your unwavering support and willingness to tie your reputation so closely to my actions by nominating me twice for admin. My RfA passed with 95 support, 1 oppose, and 1 neutral !votes. It means a lot to me to have your individual support and the collective support of so many others. I truly will strive to carry myself at a level representing the trust bestowed in me as I use the mop to address the never-ending drips of discontent in need of caretaker assistance. Jreferee (Talk) 06:38, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. User:Jreferee suggested I stop by here. Earlier today, I fixed his toolbar so the images link to the proper articles and stuff. I've just retrofitted your userpage with the same code. It's much simpler and neater and still looks the same. Check out his talk page for the details. Revert if you don't like :) - Alison ☺ 15:59, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I have seen that you were member of the WikiProject Biography. Would you have time to review the article on Kamil Idris, who is the current head of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), a UN organization? A recent edit by an IP address in Switzerland (the WIPO is in Switzerland, thus this may indicate a conflict of interest) deleted a complete section without comment. I have expanded the article to add more references. Thanks in advance for any help. --Edcolins 16:34, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Can you please take a look at my post [14] on User:Zeraeph's talk page? --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 02:02, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Nishkid64,

I must admit I’m a little taken aback about Wikipedia’s attitude regarding facts, in particular the facts contained in the subject article “Elvis Presley’s favourite books”. On reviewer said, "It’s just a list of books,” as if a list could say nothing.

Imagine if you and I were in a Starbucks and I asked you what your all-time favourite CDs were. Do you think your list would tell me something about you? Of course it would.

At an interview, employers often ask prspoective candidates what their hobbies and interests are. Why do you think they ask this? If you answered "I’m a huge Bruce Lee fan and I love boxing, kung fu, and Zen meditation." Do you think that would say something about who you are?

It's the same with a list of books Elvis Presley liked. The list speaks volumes about him (pun intended).

Elvis has an enormous fan base (probably not too many among Wikipedia moderators). Despite that large numbers of people want to know more about him, what made him tick, what made him so charismatic. This list of books tells so much about Elvis that I’m staggered that it is not considered to be good enough for inclusion on Wikipedia. I’m flummoxed, stumped puzzled and mystified. Im short I think your deletion is really fu&^%$g stupid.

I’m not one for conspiracy theories, but I’m seriously considering that the religious right might be behind Wikipedia’s refusal to post “Elvis Presley’s favourite books”. Elvis was and still is a very influential figure and he had a lot of ideas and beliefs that are not considered orthodox by evangelical religious extremists. Elvis joined the "Self Realization Fellowship" for one – definitely not something that Jerry Falwell would approve of.

One early critic of “Elvis Presley’s favourite books” said that if Elvis read this list of crap he would roll over in his grave. Elvis actually created the list. Another called it bollocks, which I assume is a synonym for nonsense - to him or to Elvis? Another "Einstein" said that he might as well publish a list of his own favourite books – well I guess people would be interested in his list if he had sold a billion records. I don't think he had.

Elvis Presley is someone that many people are interested in. The article “Elvis Presley’s favourite books” says something about Elvis Presley, ergo, the article deserves a place on Wikipedia, regardless of whether or not the religious right wants it there or not.

The article is well referenced and accurate and to many people who are interested in elvis RELEVANT. Put the article back!

If, as I suspect, the religious right might be behind the deletion of “Elvis Presley’s favourite books” then I will back off. They are a powerful group and could seriously damage Wikipedia if they so desired.

Bruce7777777 01 July 07 Bruce7777777 02:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notes, but I don't understand... there is clearly an archive box on the page. I haven't removed anything from the page without archiving. Informatively, Timneu22 10:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I think it was just standard "weird server behavior"??

Also thank you for your consideration and good faith, I promise you I will not abuse either. --Zeraeph 17:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh - we hit it at exactly the same second! Great minds, and all that :) - Alison ☺ 20:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for unblocking me. I will not vandalise pages anymore. --William Howard Taft 22:05, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 27	2 July 2007	About the Signpost

IP unwittingly predicts murder of wrestler: "Awful coincidence"	Board election series: Elections open
German chapter relaunches website, arranges government support	WikiWorld comic: "Cashew"
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 08:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, just wanted to point out the DYK is due for a change. Thanks. Wrad 17:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, Howcheng just did it. Wrad 17:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You semi-protected Bobby Trendy back in February. There was a whole bunch of controversial edits, most likely due the huge publicity regarding Anna Nicole Smith's then-recent death. It seems less likely that there will be a huge number of edits to this page anymore, as much of the publicity has disappeared, and the NPOV tag has also been removed, seemingly resolving some of the problems. As per policy, I'm asking the admin who made the protection to unprotect it; since I'm not really following that article and am just trying to clean out semi-protections that seem no longer needed, I'm unlikely to pay attention to this again, so thanks in advance. Cheers! Telso 03:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nishkid, there is currently a dispute in this article regarding a section implying a genocide of Kurds in Turkey. The article has currently been locked and I would appreciate some third party involvement. Thanks, --A.Garnet 09:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as you're currently opposing me because of my lack of article writing, I would appreciate if you looked at this. I hope you don't mind me posting this on your talk page, but I know some people probably don't watchlist everything they ever edit. Thanks, R ^ParlateContribs_@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 02:03, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You also semi-protected Andre Agassi in February. Is it maybe time for a trial without it? Thanks --Slp1 15:45, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On reviewing your July 2, 2007 action here, I thought that you might like to be aware of this. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 17:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Psychonaut provided some of those links at AN/I, and linked to his user watchlist page in that posting. After I saw the evidence there, I was a bit unsure about a block (since the incidents were separated by a number of months). However, I saw SandyGeorgia was also harassed by Zeraeph in some incident back in September 2006, and that's what pushed me over. After I saw Jimbo's note at Zeraeph's talk page, I decided to give Zeraeph the BOTD, and I unblocked him. Nishkid64 (talk) 18:06, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, the "100px" on its own was just a mistake? I presumed there had just been a change to the size of the images (and thus changed the DYK section accordingly). The ToFA section also has been using just "100px" pictures recently. To be honest, I'm not sure why there was a height limit (or at least one as small as 100px). -- tariqabjotu 18:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen "100x100px" used at TFA, ITN and DYK, so I made this change based on a past precedent. Anyway, I think the height restrictions are necessary. From my personal experiences at ITN and DYK, some images are a bit extreme in the vertical or horizontal direction, and the restrictions for both dimensions correct this mistake. However, I'm sure that it's probably best not to use 100x100px when dealing with images such as paintings and wide-angle pictures. Nishkid64 (talk) 18:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see you did not get any takers at WP:PR. When you finish the autoreview changes, I will do a copy edit for you. Toss me a note when you have them done. You may want to look at Chris Young (pitcher). I know you have done some editing on that. I will be putting it up at WP:FAC in the next 10 days.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 21:27, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the Ramanujan article isn't too bad.. use of "genius" is the main problem. The Feynman article has more serious problems which I have started to try to rectify. Zargulon 23:11, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for dropping by at Chris Young (pitcher). I wanted your opinion on all the pics that were removed just after your edit.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 04:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your opinion on my talk page. I need your opinion here

I needed your comment on the images as much as your opinion on referenceing. Please comment on the pitching mechanics etc. at the ongoing discussion.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted the edits that were contrary to WP:MOS or that omitted necessary references. I did not see you add back any images.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 19:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 28	9 July 2007	About the Signpost

Seven administrators request promotion to bureaucrat status	Board election series: Elections closed, results pending
Wikimedia Foundation hires consultant, general counsel	Newspaper obituary plagiarizes Japanese Wikipedia
WikiWorld comic: "Ann Coulter"	News and notes: FA stats, top information site, 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 08:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Nightofthewerewolf.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 11:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Would it be possible for your to review your image uploads to [15], adding sourcing information (noted some already have this) and a DETAILED fair use rationale? If possible it would be much appreciated if you could do the same for other uploads in the same category. :) ShakespeareFan00 11:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I've noticed by your contribs that many of your edit summaries include user notice:, is that because of a script in your monobook.js or it is just what you type? Cheers – Fpt ^Talk 15:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, could you please provide a link to it so I can add it in to my monobook.js? FPT 15:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, . FPT 15:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, I dont think its quite for me, thanks anyway though – you rock! FPT 16:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Nish, for participating in my RfB, which ended unsuccessfully with a final tally of (80/22/3). I shall continue to work on behalf of the community's interests and improve according to your suggestions. Most sincere regards, Húsönd 22:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply] Obrigado, Nish, por participares no meu RfB, que terminou sem sucesso com um resultado final de (80/22/3). Continuarei a trabalhar em prol dos interesses da comunidade e a melhorar segundo vossas sugestões. Calorosos cumprimentos, Húsönd 22:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply] Thanks • Obrigado • Gracias • Merci • Danke • Спасибо • Tack • Kiitos Esker • Köszönöm • Takk • Grazie • Hvala • ありがとう • 謝謝 • 谢谢