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.

Why did you delete the screenshot of Ars Technica? The deletion summary says you deleted it because it had been orphaned since 6 September. However look at this diff and the rest of the page history. I uploaded the image on the 12th and put it in the article. It stayed there, obviously not orphaned, until you deleted it, and then 20 minutes later it became orphaned because the bot noticed a broken image link. So please restore the image. --froth^t 22:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. But I thought the speedy deletes were only for orphaned images without fair use rationales.. are you sure it applies even when it's not orphaned? I'll buck up and write one just to be safe, but to be honest that's one wikiproject I cannot stand --froth^t 22:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 38	17 September 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor: Reader survey
Wikimedia treasurer expected to depart soon	WikiWorld comic: "Sarah Vowell"
News and notes: Template standardization, editing patterns, milestones	Wikipedia in the news
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 03:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nishkid, I was wondering if you had any suggestions for User:AndonicO/Vandalism: it's an essay of sorts. · AndonicO ^Talk 14:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know? was updated. On 18 September, 2007, a fact from the article Sikh diaspora, which you recently nominated, was featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Allen3 ^talk 22:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		Happy International Talk Like a Pirate Day!
		Ahoy, me hearty! How 'bout a good ol' jug o' grog? RegARRds, Húsönd 16:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

this is a high school that i attend and i want to prevent them from spamming wiki Staffwaterboy 13:46, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, Just trying to help out Staffwaterboy 13:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Understood Staffwaterboy 13:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers for removing 190.39.204.140 from AIV, see WT:AIV seemed a bit quirky there for a minute or two. I left another message with the guy who reported it after yours. Ta ^Khukri 14:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I don't want to question your action, but Tegwarrior basically vandalised a well discussed, featured article candidate. Okedem just tried to protect the page and as he stated, he is not used to 3RR, as there is no such thing in the Hebrew Wiki. I think he acted in good faith.
Someone who opposed the FA status, mentioned it was not stable. Tegwarrior clearly stated that he liked best if that article would never reach FA status[1]. Squash Racket 20:48, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Similarly, editors who may have technically violated the 3RR may not be blocked, depending on circumstances." A quote from 3RR. As I said above, I don't want to question your action, because that was an edit war, but the rule is not so exact as you can see. Squash Racket 21:01, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I understand, perhaps this had to be this way. Thanks for your answer. Squash Racket 21:08, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Funny, I was going to ask you to review the block of Tegwarrior (talk · contribs). I didn't know you also blocked Okedem (talk · contribs). My request was based on Tegwarrior being a new user and 3RR being a preventitive tool rather than a punitive measure. Plus, I also didn't see how he actually violated 3RR. Regards. Tiamut 21:28, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, now I see he filed the report against Okedem. So he does know about 3RR. I still don't see where the 3RR violation is on his part, though it was edit-warring. Tiamut 21:31, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since I'm being bad-mouthed here, and since you seem to be buying into some of it, here is your comment on my blocking with some responses from me:

• Diff1
• Diff2
• Diff3

FWIW: This third revert was done to undo user:okedem's fifth revert of the day, which I had asked him to undo himself in order to avoid being blocked (he wouldn't) and which I had reported him for an hour earlier (no action taken in that hour) and after I pleaded with several other editors involved in the article to restore just the POV flag I had placed and that okedem had removed with his fifth revert of the day (none of them would).

• Diff4 (partial revert; POV tag removal is what I counted)

FWIW: This fourth "revert" was to place a POV flag on an article that had changed and that in my opinion had become more biased than the article on which I placed my earlier POV flag, which this POV flag was allegedly a "reversion" to. I note that any deletion of a POV flag while the person who placed it is still involved in discussions over the matters of alleged bias is a clear violation of the direction on the POV template: "Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved."

• Diff5 (this edit is essentially equal to the previous POV tag removal)

FWIW: This fifth "revert" was to add sectionPOV flags to all of the sections I believed had POV issues after another editor replaced my article POV flag with a sectionPOV flag that he decided, without consulting me and without any apparent regard for comments that I had made to him about my concerns about bias, addressed every concern I had raised.

Thanks, Nishkid64 (talk) 20:36, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tegwarrior 03:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with your removal of the report at AIV, as blocks are preventative rather than punative and the account had not edited since the final warning but it certainly appears to be a SPA - and one with a distinctly disagreeable "purpose" when given the username. If it does edit again in the same manner I would be inclined to an indef block. Cheers. LessHeard vanU 22:08, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another sock of User:Malfunction has emerged in the form of Username43 (talk · contribs) (it's starting to be a trend) 156.34.142.110 19:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nishkid64 has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as Nishkid64's day! For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian, enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Nishkid! Love, Phaedriel 06:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply] A record of your Day will always be kept here.

Snatched from the jaws of stub-dom! LOL. It might be notable w/ nine google hits. I'm willing to create and source the stub if you are willing to bring it back. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 20:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I checked it out before I deleted, and I didn't find any reason to keep the article. I can't find any reliable sources to back up Isiolo School for the Deaf, and I don't even know if it would meet notability guidelines (I believe it's a primary school). Nishkid64 (talk) 20:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Nishkid. That's what I was afraid of. Looks like you were two steps ahead of me. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 20:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I see proposed guideline for schools bit the dust while I was away. What are we using these days?

Cool, Thanks Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 21:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yay! --KFP (talk | contribs) 20:51, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Double yay! \o/ ~ Riana ⁂ 20:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Volume 3, Issue 39	24 September 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor: Survey results
Wikimedia announces plans to move office to San Francisco	WikiWorld comic: "Ambigram"
News and notes: Times archives, conferences, milestones	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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. R Delivery Bot 02:25, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your deletion of the APEASS page due to the 'advertising personal websites', I would have appreciated it if you had told me sooner, rather than deleting both talk pages and then thelling me. However, I am sorry that I used the website for reasons other than those intended. Rosstoph 20:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Anyways, sorry about what I did. I didn't realise I wasn't supposed to until you told me. Sorry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosstoph (talk • contribs) 20:30, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm glad you're not verbally kicking my ass for abusing the website, so thanks for that. Rosstoph 20:34, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! you have just beaten me to the draw in five consecutive warnings/blocks!! I may go and play in WP:AfD instead! --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 20:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll check it out. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 20:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, just so you know, you indef blocked this guy, but the note on his talk page said that he's only been blocked temporarily. Dunno if you want to fix it, seeing as he's not coming back, but I thought I'd let you know. Cheers! GlassCobra 21:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. Happy editing! GlassCobra 21:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I reported User:Drewgu111(contribs) to WP:AIV as a sockpuppet of Dingbat2007 based on edits made during a string of vandalism by User:76.194.64.13. Those edits also looked like Dingbat2007's work. However, after examining Drewgu111's contribution log again, I concluded that I had misidentified him as a sockpuppet, and was about to withdraw my request for intervention. However, before I could post my withdrawal, you blocked the user indefinitely, which would have been appropriate for a sockpuppet. A bot had mentioned that the user was found in a list of sockpuppets, but I believe that I have made a serious mistake. Please review User:Drewgu111 again and consider lifting the block. I greatly regret my error and any problems that it may have caused. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your last revert to Thomas Hobbes inadvertently added this... I've reverted it back to what (I hope) is a clean version. Guess we know who the class project at that school's about this week. — iridescent (talk to me!) 00:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering about the block on Bdjake58 (talk · contribs), as it seems to be a vandalism only account, and I thought those were usually permanently blocked. I am not trying to tell you how to do your job, just wondered if you had seen all the vandalism from this account lately? Thanks for all your good work, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 00:57, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• OK, thanks for the explanation and the block. Keep up the good work, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you blocked User:172.171.127.62 with an expiry of indefinite. However, that's an IP address. I would think that that long of a block would be unwise on an IP, at least without a checkuser or somesuch being run. Even then, there's the question of whether the address is dynamic or static. Did you really mean to block the IP indefinitely? —C.Fred (talk) 03:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blame the mouse for being hypersensitive and not going to the dropdown item you wanted. That's what I do. :) —C.Fred (talk) 03:49, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to see you again! Remember me? I'm PrestonH, as you can tell, and I want to say that I'm glad you are back to editing rapidly (exceptionally late notice). Well...if I'm disrupting you for anything...I apologize. I'm glad to see you again!--PrestonH 04:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you (swiftly) blocked the guy who was vandalizing RNA. I'm trying to get better at helping out with the vandal effort... I was wondering if you could take a second and let me know if I did everything appropriately and properly (leaving a warning on the IP page, appropriate notice on admin vandal warning page, etc.). Trying to get some feedback to improve my response. Thanks! Macboots 04:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On Jesse Sartain, here and here. -WarthogDemon 17:03, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"you idiots"?, some people will never learn. Bmg916^Speak 17:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I knew he is never going to stop vandalism. If you blocked that IP then how long is indefinite when you blocked that IP. Is it 3 week or 12 weeks? Freewayguy--Let me know what's up? 22:19, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning the 3rr violation by User:Taharqa, The first edit WAS a revert. The first revert was this one which was in response to information added by User:SenseOnes. The three subsequent reverts are listed on the 3rr notice board. The user reverted a total of 4 times in a period of a few hours and would have continued to do so had the page not been protected. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 23:02, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that this user has a long history of violation 3rr and I fear that this user will resort to the same tactics on other pages or will resort to the same tactics on the page in question once it's unprotected. The users first reverts were totally lacking an edit summary and subsequent reverts failed to explain all of the info being reverted but was continued to be reverted. Also, WP:3RR doesn't specify that users shouldn't be blocked if the page in question is protected or should be blocked only to prevent the page from future violations. The user in question doesn't even acknowledge that he/she made a mistake and is even accusing me of violating 3rr. I think that given the 8 previous blocks for 3rr in the past 5 months, a block is in order, longer than the previous ones. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 23:11, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What page did you protect? Also, If blocking this individual for violating policy won't help, then that's what "longer blocks" are for. A longer block each time the user violates policy would lead to perhaps weeks or months being blocked, which might change the users mind. This user has violated the 3rr policy 8 times in the past and has only received fairly short blocks. I think you should block this user for at least a week, otherwise they will think that they can get away with violating policy, which seems to be the case currently likely due to very short block durations after repeated violations of policy. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 23:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've never read where WP:3RR says that blocks are preventive opposed to punitive, however given the fact that the user has violation 3rr 8 times in the past 5 months, I would say it's obvious that the user has little regard for policy at this time and would likely violate 3rr again given the chance on the article in question or another article. The user has not admitted mistake but simply shifted the blame to me for reverting edits lacking summaries or edits failing to explain the reverts being made. The user also has accused me of "POV pushing" and edit warring. So I believe that a block based on the previous violations of the policy would be quite preventative. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 23:29, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd already warned the user and he/she continued to make reverts, apparently ignoring my warning. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 23:33, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know? was updated. On 29 September, 2007, a fact from the article Who Stole the Cookie from the Cookie Jar?, which you recently wrote, uh nominated, uh, helped inspire (in the super secret cabal channel), was featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, blah blah blah.

--Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 00:54, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

School phobia is a word. As it is a word, I did not make it up. So is didaskaleinophobia. School phobia has been used for... as long as I can remember. Sorry to bug you, bye.

--Mathiea 01:46, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In my experiment to see how you vandal hunters deal with vandalism, you appear to have been caught red-handed reverting non vandalism just because the edit followed some vandalism, as if you did not even look at what was being reverted. I'm talking about this edit where the tag is perfectly correct iven the article is going up for GA candidacy and yet lacks inline citation.

I suggest next time you revert a string of edits of a shared IP address that could be two different people with different views. You then removed a whole string of legitamate citation needed templates. Textbook case of bad counter-vandalism. 131.111.213.37 01:14, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for unblocking. If you really want to know why I did this, some lame ass editor did the same thing to me with my GAC. Tagged a fact and overnight my article got quick failed. 131.111.213.37 01:26, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And next, please promise me you'll be less hasty with a block. Revert by all means, but at least discuss the issue first. 131.111.213.37 01:29, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bah! You beat me to this one! :) Acalamari 01:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It couldnt hurt to ask...and why does the software allow us to create long names if we're not allowed to use them?

P.S. I (mostly) share your philosophy about knowledge. One problem being, life is short and you gotta prioritize. I've also noticed that just like HP Lovecraft says, knowledge often comes at the price of sanity.

--I Love You All. You Make Me Feel.."Wikified" 01:52, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you just blocked this user. I'm not sure if that was vandalism, looks like an edit war. Thought I'd alert you. The Evil Spartan 01:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure we are talking about the same user? I just checked the edits again, and I see vandalism, vandalism everywhere. A possible mix-up? Nishkid64 (talk) 01:59, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This and this are edit wars. This and this are vandalism. Didn't see the last two, though I guess he gave up any right to contribute with those last edits. The Evil Spartan 02:01, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Protected titles/Specific Admin. Since you added an entry to Wikipedia:Protected titles/Specific Admin and may have some insight into the issues surrounding the matter, you might want to participate in the deletion review. -- Jreferee t/c 02:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{subst:Uw-test11}} MiszaBot III 13:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See the "Uw-test11"? It goes all the ways from warnings one to three ("Uw-test11-13"). Can you fix this bug? PrestonH 19:24, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I press on the "test", "vandal", and "vandal2" tab button but the "Uw-test11", "Uw-test12", and "Uw-test13" appears on the talk page, respectively. The new warnings work just as well as the old warnings but this little bug is irritating. Anyrhing wrong here? PrestonH 19:36, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • It's working! Thanks for fixing it!--PrestonH 19:49, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for letting me know that a fact from the article I created on Ralpacan was chosen for DYK. I have not paid too much attention for the DYK section until now - but will certainly keep it in mind for the future. Thanks again - all best wishes. John Hill 21:59, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can't be serious [3]. This needs to be blanked, you can find the rest in the page history if you care enough. CO₂ 01:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, I appreciate it. To be frank, I was not even thinking about nominating this article to DYK, my purpose was to create a little remainder to an unknown hero, who spent great part of his life in the vicinity of my hometown, Debica. Unfortunately, the article turned into a big issue. Thank you again, greetings Tymek 04:23, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What did you mean by this comment? I wasn't aware that I said anything offensive towards you (or anyone else, for that matter). I only said that I was a little disappointed with two of the nominators, as they're people I trust and respect, and I was surprised that they nominated Kelly Martin. Walton^One 14:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just meant that I especially trust and respect Moreschi and Riana. I haven't had much interaction with Danny. If I disliked him, I would have explicitly said so. Walton^One 15:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IP 208.108.197.96 continues vandalism, you warned last time, can you please block? Thank you Jenny^Len☤ 17:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response, we can do that Jenny^Len☤ 05:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		It seems you never stop working! Keep up the great work. Wikipediarules2221 23:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, you are currently listed as a member of Wikiproject Futurama though you may be inactive. This seems to be the case for many members so I am sending this message to help renew interest in working on these articles. If you are still interested in working on Futurama related tasks please visit the wikiproject page to see how you can help. If you have time please also join in the recent discussions on the talk page, in particular I would personally appreciate comments on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Futurama#A new proposal for episode articles. Thank you for your time, hopefully I didn't annoy you too much. If you would not like to receive messages such as this in the future then consider removing yourself from Wikipedia:WikiProject Futurama/List of participants. Happy editing. Stardust8212 01:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have reviewed your GA nomination of Thomas C. Hindman and placed it on hold so that minor changes may be made to fulfill the GA requirements. Please address these concerns within seven days, so that the article may be promoted to GA status. Excellent work, by the way. Cheers, CP 04:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amazing job overall! I have most happily promoted the article to GA status. Congratulations! Cheers, CP 15:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Volume 3, Issue 40	1 October 2007	About the Signpost

WikiWorld comic: "Buttered cat paradox"	News and notes: Commons uploaders, Wikimania 2008/2009, milestones
Wikimedia in the News	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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

That tie doesn't go with that shirt. What on Earth were you thinking? ~ Riana ⁂

Since you are the one modifying User:Voice of All/Adminwarnings/monobook.js which I'm currently using, I keep having this problem...

For example:

Hello Nishkid. You recentrly protected this template in order to avoid an editwar. In the time the protection was enforced, there was little debate about it. However, user Corticopia immediatly reverted the template after the protection expired. That user is known for being highly uncivil, so I'd like to ask you to protect the template until an agreement is reached. AlexC. ^{( Talk? )} 05:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]