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.

Volume 2, Issue 39	25 September 2006	About the Signpost

Erik Möller declared winner in Board of Trustees election	Wikimania 2007 to be held in Taipei
Arbitration clerk Tony Sidaway resigns	Report from the Dutch Wikipedia
News and notes	Wikipedia in the news
Features and admins	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View	RSS 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 08:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I noticed your apologies. I still voted oppose, and that stands. To post such a comment first time round is unacceptable IMO for an admin, no matter how many apologies you make later. Moreschi 20:37, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Though like the rest of us you're not perfect, those participating in your RfA have placed their trust in you to be an admin. Do your best to live up to that, as I'm sure you will. Use the new tools conservatively, especially at first, and re-read the relevant policies before taking action. It's better to warn politely than inflame things and don't block unless it's needed. If you get stressed, take a break before hitting save or block, etc. After you get the hang of it, dig in and help out with the backlogs. - Taxman ^Talk 22:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well done on your status change to admin - please ask if you have any questions regarding the use of the admin powers. Regards, (aeropagitica) 22:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats! Remember that you are a very good editor, and now that you are a new admin, WP:BITE applies here too. Proceed with caution, ask questions if you are not sure on something. Usually getting more people involved will get answers in a better method. Enjoy your promotion! Later - JungleCat talk/contrib 23:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations! You will find my reply on your RfA comment on my talk page. Equendil Talk 23:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations! Well deserved! - Mike 00:51, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats, Nishkid. Picaroon9288 01:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats, do us proud! I know you will think about the criticisms in your Rfa, but don't let them break your spirit. I think you'll be a better admin for having to weather a storm or two early. It's a tough process and you did well. It's a tough job and you'll do great. Dina 02:08, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More congratulations! It looked like a tough RfA from where I was standing, so I hope you've got through it more or less intact :) Enjoy the new tools responsibly! — riana_dzasta _{wreak havoc|damage report} 02:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Congratulations on your mop and bucket! :) - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 10:16, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please take a quick look at the IP 201.... --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 00:53, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 00:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad you are now an administrator, you seem like a good person, and definitly sutible for a job such as this.--Seadog.M.S 01:18, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats, now get to work! (carefully of course) :) --Andeh 11:47, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry. I had posted the vandal before only a day ago, I figured the page would be remembered. I'm sorry for any inconvience it might have caused. Thank you.Ganfon 01:36, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you just look for vandalism on Vandalproof or is there a special setting to detect vandalism? Clay4president 01:40, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's basically a live feed for recent changes on Wikipedia. You just click links and see vandalism. --Nishkid64 14:17, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I sound like a pest on my second day as admin, but I just wanted to remind you that you should check the article history before deleting a page. I noticed that you deleted Longtail stingray because it was a blank page, but when I went back to see the history of the article, I saw that someone blanked the article yesterday, and then Crzrussian tagged it for speedy deletion. I restored the page, though. You can see the log here. Thanks! --Nishkid64 19:51, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now is the time to take a break from admin duties! Regards, (aeropagitica) 19:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No break! CSD G7, blanked by creator, so tagged. Nishkid is still green - and you're doing fine. Cheers. - CrazyRussian talk/email 20:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the vote of confidence! We're all still learning, doing this job. (aeropagitica) 21:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh !@#$%. I take that back. I really need to get my eyes checked out. It was blanked by creator. My bad, aero. However, I don't understand why the creator blanked the redirect link. It's a valid redirect link that doesn't exist. Should I put it back in? --Nishkid64 20:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the redirect is valid then there is no reason for its deletion. If it redirected to another redirect page or to a deleted page then it is logical to delete it. Check Wikipedia:Redirect#When_should_we_delete_a_redirect.3F for details, particularly points 1,5 and 6. Regards, (aeropagitica) 21:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks a lot. This re-direct is valid. I did my own external research and found that these two animals were indeed the same, so I restored the redirect page. Thanks for all the help, aero. --Nishkid64 21:06, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats to our newest sysop. Longtail stingray was deleted under G7, because it was blanked by its creator. Please redelete. - CrazyRussian talk/email 20:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Woops! My bad, Crzrussian. I really got to check my eyes. But actually...it shouldn't be deleted. It's a valid re-direct link, and I don't know why the creator blanked it. --Nishkid64 20:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've been working Special:Shortpages about as long as you've been a Wikipedian. I get through several dozen {{db-g7}} cases a week. Essentially, they're entitled to have it deleted if no-one else substantially contributed to it. It's part of our my Wiki philosophy. I certainly don't know enough about Stingrays to tell which name should redir to which species, and neither do you, I assume. We have CSD G7 for that very reason. Go ahead and restore it if you do the research and confirm the naming. Cheers. - CrazyRussian talk/email 20:11, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ort like this: Jared Brown - CrazyRussian talk/email 20:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But how do you the same dude didn't put that in? Maybe he changed his mind and failed to clean up? Outside research, Nish. - CrazyRussian talk/email 20:17, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I did my research and found from this (and a few other websites) that they are indeed identical. --Nishkid64 20:25, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I've made a mistake, I apologise. I didn't think links from old scientific names were needed. Please just do what you think is needed to fix the situation. Chers GrahamBould 20:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nishkid64, I've now had another look at the 2 rays in question. I'm afraid I can't see any evidence that Dasyatis longa & Dasyatis longa are one & the same. Fishbase quite clearly has them as separate species. The reason I blanked the link from 'Longtail stingray' > 'Thorntail stingray' was that it was only a lesser common name for Thorntail - it is the main name for Longtail. Soon I will write the article for Longtail which will use the common name correctly. At the moment anyone looking for Dasyatis longa using its correct common name goes to the wrong species. OK? GrahamBould 21:12, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That does bring up a problem. I think that since at the moment we don't have an article on Longtail, we should just keep the redirect for people who may be looking for Thorntail stingray. For now, the article should remain as a redirect, and when you do actually make the article, you can remove the redirect and add in your content. Thanks for addressing the issue. --Nishkid64 21:16, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nishkid64, Dasyatis longa article now written. Please check the way I have handled the redirect (in the article) & let me know if you can suggest a better way. Ta GrahamBould 07:36, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great job with the article so far. I think it's in perfectly good shape for now. Thanks for all! --Nishkid64 14:15, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I was wondering if I could get your opinion on New Hampshire State House of Representatives Election, 2006.

Will it load faster with tempates or not or should I split it up into little teeny sub-articles? It's already a sub-article itself.

Also, if you know where I can find more opinions, that would be greatly appreciated. People Powered 22:49, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have high-speed internet and that article took a while to load. My question is whether or not it is really worth putting up all those templates? Couldn't you get the same type of page just by doing it with text? I'm no template expert, but I know that one of our most recently promoted admins is a template expert. I suggest you contact Ligulem. I think he could help you out in this situation better than I could. 23:32, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha. I just wanted it to look good. Whatever works best while still keeping those maps. People Powered 23:35, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, try it now

I took out all the templates. Tell me how the load speed is. Grafton County is still a bit...well, i'm working on that. People Powered 00:00, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Still a bit slow. Like I said before, contacting Ligulem would be the best suggestion. I bet he could give you an answer to your question. Thanks. --Nishkid64 00:10, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

yo, just wanted to say that it looked like you made a mistake by blockin' White Dawg. That user vandalized his page, falsely claimed to be Elijah Muhammad, and made actual DEATH THREATS. Given how serious that really is, I don't think White Dawg should have been indefinitely banned for responding to the hatred against him. StepIntoThaTHUGzone 00:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so you are basically saying user:Whitedawg is User:BrowardPlaya? Okay, so you're saying that he is a sockpuppet of BrowardPlaya. Are you BrowardPlaya aka WhiteDawg? Anyway, I don't understand what you are saying. Who vandalized BrowardPlaya's page? Can you show me some proof? --Nishkid64 00:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peep this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:BrowardPlaya&diff=prev&oldid=76495399 StepIntoThaTHUGzone 16:21, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so they may have made a personal attack on you. I will deal with that person separately. You have had a long history of blockings on Wikipedia, and retaliating on other users is not the sort of behavior we would want to see from anyone. You have to learn that there are always people who will try to bring you down, but you have to try your best to just ignore them. I will consider the circumstances, and I may possibly unblock you within the next few days. --Nishkid64 19:41, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my user page. --Nishkid64 21:47, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. BTW, I forgot to respond to your other talk message. Congratulations on becoming an admin and let me know if you have any questions or concerns. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:50, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

i'm sorry it took so long (and so many edits) on the bacardi article but I've reverted the text back to a 'final' version and wont be making any more changes.

I hope this is acceptable!

I personally don't think your additions to the page are necessary. It seems that the material you added is just basically all references to another person's book, and not really about the company entirely. Don't summarize the book, but if you want to add the material back, please write it in a formal style (see WP:MoS for help). It would look awkward if someone's reading an article about someone else's story about the Bacardi family in Cuba. --Nishkid64 23:25, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the page reads like a piece of PR and ignores the company's shady practices against the cuban state; what you done, i feel, is taken the easy way out of simply removing the info - rather than adapting it to what you feel is an 'acceptable' text. In this sense, i can never 'win' per se. In the sense that I've digested the main points of this mains argument, then yes, that text is a summary of his book about Bacardi's activities in Cuba... I hope you think again about it.

Please look carefully again at what I said. I said "on't summarize the book, but if you want to add the material back, please write it in a formal style (see WP:MoS for help)." I don't know enough on the subject to edit the article myself, and I would prefer to stay out of a subject matter that I have no clue about. It appears you know the subject quite well, and I said that you could re-write the article. In the references section of the article, you could add the book as a reference for your additions to the article. Remember, I'm your friend, not your enemy. --Nishkid64 23:36, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the pages: Nick Healey, Matt kennedy and Sam McNulty. I believe the Matt page was previously upper case K. I've put speedy on them, but they usually get removed by the same users that always recreate. RobJ1981 00:17, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, thank you for the headsup. I have deleted several of these articles already, and I guess I'll do something about these guys now. --Nishkid64 00:20, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello I wanted to apologize (sort of) for the fact that some of the random editing you have done(NEWBURYPORT site in particular) was due to my students' experimenting with the "democratization" of knowledge on the Wikipedia. We are studying in our social studies class ways to evaluate websites and information online. We are also studying the development of the US government. Wikipedia is a great resource for both *it also is a great example of john locke's theories of states of nature. Therefore, many of the students are testing out the limits of wikipedia. They are finding the limits thanks to administrators such as yourself. I hope you know that I,as their teacher, am using these experiences as "learning moments" and not encouraging them to continue being silly.... Thanks for being out there! Jen Groskin Rupert Nock Middle School Newburyport, MA

Heh, thanks. Although students were basically vandalizing pages and such on Wikipedia, if it was for an educational cause, then no harm has truly been done. Hopefully, this hands-on experience actually registered into their brains, and they won't take advantage of facilities such as Wikipedia by vandalizing pages. Anyway, thanks for the note you posted, and keep up the good teaching. --Nishkid64 21:11, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jirachii has been constantly vandalizing Naruto and Pokemon articles recently. Usually the user's edits involve a stomach grumbling, which has no importance to the articles where it's posted. RobJ1981 20:07, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for the notice. I blocked the user indefinitely. For future reference, I just would like to tell you that you can report bad users to WP:AIV and they will be dealt with asap there. --Nishkid64 21:18, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! You look like someone who might be interested in joining the India WikiProject and so I thought I'd drop you a line and invite you! We'd love to have you help us :-) Ganeshk (talk) 09:08, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for catching my userpage vandal. How dare he or she insert a poem about, uh, masturbation in my user page! I would have reverted that vandal, but I was probably eating then. SupaStarGirl 12:53, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you're talking about. I haven't made any changes to that article - I hadn't even looked at it till you left me that message.

I'm taking your word for it that you're being truthful here. There are two possibilities here.

1) Your IP is shared by multiple users.

2) Someone else on your computer could have made those additions to the page.

It's possible that your internet provider, BTNet, has multiple internet users under one IP address, and someone else vandalized the page. However, for now, I suggest you just continue editing in a positive and productive manner, and hopefully such an incident will not happen again. --Nishkid64 17:38, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and created a WikiProject page: Wikipedia:WikiProject tennis --Dantheox 22:48, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying not to stress about it any more. It's been a nerve-wracking experience, but I feel I'm learning a lot from it. If it fails, it fails, and I'll try again in three to six months. Thanks for the encouragement! -- Merope ^Talk 00:23, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A one-week block for 216.214.100.185 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)? From what I see, there was a legit edit on August 1 followed by a single vandalism on September 27, one more on September 28 and then one on October 2. All of the recent warnings were for the last vandalism, after which the kid stopped. So basically one warning over six days and three mild silly vandalisms and they get a one-week block? Sounds pretty severe to me. I wouldn't complain except the IP seems to be used by legit editors as well. Don't get sucked in by people freaking out and posting multiple messages over what amounts to a single vandalism edit. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:15, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed the sporadic editing by the user, and that was why I made the initial block of one week. I have changed it to one day now, because I don't want this block to affect other potentially good users from editing on Wikipedia. My reasoning for the initial block was because the edits were so spaced out, and the person had vandalized every few days, and I thought if I blocked them for a week, I could possibly discourage them from contributing negatively to Wikipedia. --Nishkid64 18:22, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I have a question here. See here. I was about to block that user for maybe a day or two, but not for a whole month like DVD did. Would this be a case in which a long-term block is appropriate because the user has only made bad edits? I would think that is the reason for his decision (and also because the last block was a month long), but I just want to make sure. Thanks for answering my question. --Nishkid64 18:27, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a matter of personal preference but I'll usually block when someone is vandalizing in waves - 5 or 10 times in 10 minutes or whatever. I like to imagine all the kids huddled around the high school computer giggling like 3-year-olds and then crying when I catch them in the middle of a wave and they get a block message ending their fun with another 40 long minutes to go in study hall. Blocking two hours after the fact or blocking someone who has only vandalized three times in the last week just seems pointless to me. The potential harm (a genius and future admin getting that IP address from their DHCP server and deciding not to bother with WP because they're blocked) outweighs the good in that case. Maybe it's just me though. As for the month-long block you referenced, it's clear that IP address was being used frequently for nothing but long waves of vandalism. I still would've liked to have seen more warnings there but I can understand that. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:06, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...but I'm not certain a 24-hour block will do much more than insure he doesn't pose a problem for a day or so. I'm not complaining; any relief is better than none, but as I said, I'm not sure he'll stop unless he has no choice.HalfShadow 20:23, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't block him for 24 hours. I blocked him for 48 hours. The user has very sporadic editing habits, and I think he's done for a while now. If he comes back and gives you problem, let me know asap and I'll deal with him. --Nishkid64 20:24, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. Like I said, I wasn't complaining or anything, but I can tell you from experience of my own that some of these guys just don't know when to call it quits... Still, I suppose we'll burn that bridge when he gets to it. Thanks for the quick block.HalfShadow 20:35, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to butt in but this happens to be on my watch list. The best way to deal with attacks like this are to ignore them. If you think an average of one per day are bad, you should take a look at CFIF (talk · contribs) who has several people attacking him in waves of ridiculous page moves and deletion attempts (and even successful deletions) along with nasty comments and threats. You should take pride in the fact that you've pissed someone off to the point where all they can do is resort to name calling! —Wknight94 (talk) 20:47, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eh. Personally I consider it just infantile. Still, I suppose he'll eventually get his if he continues. I can be patient. All he's doing is making things worse for himself, right?HalfShadow 20:54, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. So, don't worry about personal attacks. Just shrug them off, and continue editing normally. If you let your emotions get the best of you, you will just be making the situation worse. --Nishkid64 20:57, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry. I just thought since the situation was effectively 'dealt with', this conversation was just taking up page space. I was unaware I was doiing anything wrong by deleting it.

I think he's back again. Now he's using 207.67.146.16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). I'm fairly certain it's him because he's using exactly the same terminology. Unfortunately, the address is completely different. Maybe a school address?

I don't think it's him. I did an IP address check on him, and this IP address is from Englewood, Colorado, while the guy who was previously attacking you was from London, England. I'll check this guy's edits though. --Nishkid64 23:15, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know. It's weird, it just seems to be those two edits and that's it. I'll see if he comes up as anyone from my end. *sigh* Bloody kids... HalfShadow 23:20, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for stopping the rampant vandalism of the above user. I noticed that as part of your cleanup of the vandalism, you deleted the Luna Santin page. However, before you did that, I nominated the Luna Santin article for deletion because obviously I can't delete a page. Should I simply delete the nomination from the log, or do you have to put a sticky stating the page has been deleted? Ramsquire 20:55, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DVD R W deleted the page, not me. Anyway, I will speedy close the AfD, so you don't have anything to worry about. --Nishkid64 20:59, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.Ramsquire 21:00, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did not remove any content i edited the page to make it truthful...it was ashame the kind of rubbish in the previous article..to prove the authenticity i invite you to sikhsangat.com to ask anybody to tell u the real truth or debate the article.

What you told me is your own personal opinion on the guy. On Wikipedia, we try to maintain a neutral point of view in ALL articles, and that includes this one. So, please refrain from changing the article to make Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale a glorified Sikh hero. He may be a hero to you, but that's your own personal opinion. You don't so people going to the Gandhi article and writing that he was the greatest leader of all-time or something. So, just please avoid making such edits in the future. --Nishkid64 23:07, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didnt put my personal opinion..the opinion of the sikh religion was put..in response to your reference to the gandhi arcticle people are calling gandhi a terrorist either. Second if u want to dispute what should be written in the article i once again encourage u to come to sikhsangat.com and post. I don't appreciate u trying to degrade the sikh religion. If u would like to contzct me personally my email is <<removed per request>> .. for now i ask that u allow the truth to be posted

Okay, fine. That's the opinion of the Sikh religion. I encourage you to edit the article to make it better because it seems you have a deep knowledge of the subject. BUT I would still like it if you wouldn't put in certain non-neutral views such as "Sant Jarnail Singh Bhindrenwale was a (and to some extent still is ) Sikh hero of modern times" or "Bhindrenwale within his seven brief years of a total of 37, marked by a precipitous course, emerged as a man of extraordinary grit and charisma." I know that you may not understand why I was telling you not to do this but this is only for the article's sake. There have been thousands of incidents on Wikipedia where a user edits an article and puts in a non-neutral point of view, and as a result a whole big edit war results. I do not want this to happen to Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale and I don't think you would want that either. Also, if you wish to make contributions to this page, please write in an encyclopedic form. Be sure to copyedit and double-check for spelling errors, punctuation and other grammar issues. If you have any more questions, please contact me on my user talk page. --Nishkid64 23:23, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i will be glad to have the page edited within a couple days to make it both more neutral and to make it into encyclopedic form

Thank you for understanding. Please also note that I'm letting you slide here on the WP:3RR rule, which states that you can not revert a page more than 3 times in one day. You did it more than 3 times, and technically I can block (I am an admin) for this. However, I see that now you understand the situation, and I hope that you will be aware of this Wikipedia policy when you edit in the future. Also, I have reverted back to the previous edition. Whenever you write the neutral version of the article, just add it to the current version. Thanks. --Nishkid64 23:30, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi -

Please note that Wikipedia does not consider itself the official source of information on any topic, other than Wikipedia. There is no requirement that Wikipages must be sanctioned by external authorities. Thank you for your interest in this topic!

You can still be blocked for violating the three-revert rule. You reverted back edits made by other users and thus violated WP:3RR. You can be blocked for this, so please do NOT do this in the future. --Nishkid64 23:34, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for rm vandalism on my talk page. Best regards.--Húsönd 23:51, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for helping revert vandalism, but don't forget to check that the edit you are reverting to does not itself contain vandalism. 1 --Dylan Lake 01:55, 3 October 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Volume 2, Issue 40	2 October 2006	About the Signpost

New speedy deletion criteria added	News and notes
Wikipedia in the news	Features and admins
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View	RSS 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 06:35, 3 October 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Hey, if you want some help on Portal:Business and Economics, let me know. I've been doing Portal:Numismatics for over six months now. It shouldn't be to hard to fill out everything. I won't have time to do alot, but let me know what you need, I'll see what I can do.  :) Joe I 03:49, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the offer. I need some help with the topics and categories section of the page. I'm not that familiar with all material relating to business, so any help there would be appreciated. I think I got a handle on everything else though. --Nishkid64 19:28, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would you protect the page please? Someone keeps putting links to porn sites. Sorry to bother you. Thanks for your time.Cameron Nedland 13:22, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that the vandal who kept adding porn links has stopped, so I have decided not to protect the page, since much of the material being added is done so by anonymous IP users. For future cases, please go to WP:RFPP and post your request for page protection there. Thanks. --Nishkid64 19:32, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks. Sorry for bothering you.Cameron Nedland 19:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You shouldn't be apologizing for this. It's my personal duty as an administrator to help other users when they have problems. These sort of things help Wikipedia, not hurt. --Nishkid64 19:48, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.Cameron Nedland 19:49, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for following up on the vandalism to the Vijay Singh article by 69.248.31.117 that I reported. Regards, Jayanta Sen 21:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC) [reply]

I dont understand how I got the message I am vandelizing anything?Could you please explain it to me what you meant?All i am doing is trying to find out some information on a lady and her late husnad they names are christiana and appiah kuffour...As I am to be her beneficiary and I need to find out afew things.I apologize if I did anything or said anything wrong..God bless you.Laura

The solution to your problem can be seen on your user talk page. "This IP address, 205.188.116.9, is the address of a shared America Online (AOL) web proxy server and may be shared by hundreds of AOL users at any given time (see AOL ranges). Comments left on this page may be received by other users of this IP and appear to be irrelevant. Caution should be used when blocking this IP or reverting its contributions without checking." Apparently, you are one of these people using AOL and since your IP address is probably shared with hundreds if not thousands of people, it is definitely probably that someone else with your IP address has been vandalizing pages on Wikipedia. Please don't be alarmed by this, and continue to edit in a positive, coordinated matter. Also, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and does not contain information on every single person in the world. So, it would not be surprising if you weren't able to find what you were looking for. Thank you. --Nishkid64 19:35, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, AOL user IPs are a pain. I'm an admin on a game site and we keep track of players by their addresses to insure everyone is playing fairly. A fair amount of them use AOL, which means we often see cheaters who aren't there, simply because they both happen to be AOL users and are given the same proxy address. I really hate the system they have.HalfShadow 23:00, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, just i normally block first for 48 hours... while you shoot for the head. Not a problem, I will remove my warning... we happend to both try to block at the same time... you beat me to the punch. (I found vie WP:AIV) —— Eagle (ask me for help) 00:55, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was dreading going down the list to revert everything by 62.0.86.97 so I'm glad to see the many linkspam edits got cleaned up. Thanks and good job. Isn't there some kind of a bot that could revert everything by an ip in cases like this?-Crunchy Numbers 03:39, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are many anti-vandalism bots on Wikipedia, but they aren't particularly designed to handle external links spamming because the program fails to notice what is a good external link and what is not. However, it doesn't really make that big of a difference. Admins have a rollback button, so it's not that hard to revert back. --Nishkid64 18:56, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

how do you get the template that show a users status. I am Amrykid ,Elite wikistudent and I approve this message. 21:13, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is how you did it:

1) Create User:Amrykid/StatusChange2)

2) Add this html code:

<div style="position:absolute; z-index:100; right:10px; top:10px;" class="metadata" >I am currently: {{#switch:{{{1}}}
 | online=<span style="color: green;">online [[Image:ButtonGreen.png|40px]]</span>
 | busy=<span style="color: #FFAA00;">busy [[Image:ButtonYellow.png|40px]]</span>
 | away=<span style="color: red;">offline [[Image:ButtonRed.png|40px]]</span>
}}</div>

3) Then create User:Amrykid/Status2.

4) Add this html code:

{{User:Amrykid/StatusChange2|online}}

5) You are basically done now. Whenever you want to change your status (green, yellow, or red light), just go to the /Status2 page and then change the words "online" to "busy" to get a yellow traffic light, or "away" for a red traffic light.

If you have any questions, message me back. --Nishkid64 21:21, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tough day eh? =) --Edward Sandstig 22:44, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe. I wouldn't have noticed that those two vandals reported were sockpuppets had I not been the original blocker of SORIANO_FAMILY. I remembered the name he/she had added to the page, and that's when I realized the sockpuppetry. It's all good now, though. (hopefully) :) --Nishkid64 22:47, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pleae do not edit my contributions unless they are not factual, I am not playing in the sand box. There is no factual evidence that Bob Woodward has spent the most time of any journalist with President Bush. I corected that undocumented assertion. Welcome to the United States .Enjoy all of our lierties but do not step over the line again. Thanks

Your edits are not productive. You've basically changed the POV of the article completely removing certain words from the article. I reverted it for now. If you keep reverting back to the previous version, I will potentially block you. --Nishkid64 23:51, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My edits are factual. You should not edit them for POV or other reasons. Thanks

(Better watch yourself, Nish. If you push this guy too far he's likely to type mean things at you...*grin*) HalfShadow 23:41, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote me and said that I added "nonsense" to the Derek Jeter page. I just fixed the fact that Jeter is the SECOND player to go 5-5 in a postseason game (and added a reference from an Elias Sports Bureau article on ESPN.com), not the sixth. Six players have gotten 5 hits in one game (for example, the last person to do so, Hideki Matsui went 5-6 in Game 3 against the Red Sox in 2004), but only two (Marquis Grissom and Jeter) have gone 5 for 5.

I apologize for my mistake. I thought you added the text "He wasn't very good at all." to the page, but I guess I was mistaken. It was some other editor, so I am very sorry for that. I will remove the warning I issued on 70.19.9.238. --Nishkid64 18:59, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Could explain why my change have been reverted?

K.

I reverted your edit because it wasn't contributing to the article. It seemed like you were giving your personal take on the article, which doesn't belong in the article. If you have a comment about the article and how it can be improved, please add it to talk:Anti-Semitism. Thanks. --Nishkid64 21:17, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So anyone can write anything inaccurate and nobody can edit the content of his/her article?! Then, how can someone contribute to an article?

K.

"Anti-Semite and Anti-Semitism have been miss-used to describe anti-Jews sentiment! In fact, as it is described below, Semites include the Monotheist Abraham’s descents -- Arabs-Muslims, -Christians, and –Jews, non-Arab Jews and Christians, as well as some rare other non-Monotheists (Assyrians, etc)! Anti-Jews should not be described as anti-Semite because there are Semites who are anti-Jews!"

What you added wasn't in the appropriate space of the page, and it wasn't written in an encylcopedic fashion. I don't even know if your statement is true, but I suggest you post your proposed addition on the talk page of the article, so others can discuss it with you. --Nishkid64 21:32, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But it is becoming a starbucks I have consequetial proof. Please stop undoing my contructive edits improving the defination of the city.

Haha. You have proof that Mecca is becoming a starbucks? Interesting. Anyway, it's totally irrelevant to the article, and it isn't true. Please do not put up libellous material saying that Mecca is a terrorist hideout or anything like that. That's your own personal opinion, and leave it out of the article. --Nishkid64 21:43, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quick hello. Saw you around and realized we never conversed. Belated congrats on adminship -- Samir धर्म 02:57, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the nomination, but not now. I've only been here for three months and an RFA is unlikely to succeed. MER-C 04:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't anon only--AOL account 11:57, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for participating in my RfA, which passed with a tally of 66/11/5. I learned quite a bit during the process, and I expect to be learning a lot more in the days ahead. I will be taking things slowly (and doing a lot of re-reading), but I hope you will let me know if there is anything I can do to improve in my new capacity. -- Merope Talk 13:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KIARA IS SIMBA'S SUCCESSOR GOD DAMN IT! IT WAS MENTIONED IN THE MOVIE THAT SHE WAS HIS HEIR! AFTERALL, SHE IS HIS DAUGHTER!

I was recently blocked for activity that took place on Oct. 2 on the Eleonora Duse page. I believe I changed one letter in a name, thinking it was mispelled, then realized the next day that the spelling was valid, went back to the page to change it back, then found myself blocked. I am a graduate student trying to post an entry as a class assignment. I'm not entirely sure why I was blocked, but the reasoning given was vandalism and being a sockpuppet of mykungfu. I have no idea who mykungfu is and all I would like to do is complete my project. Please let me know what I can do to allieve this situation.

thanks Pamela

What account were you blocked on? I don't see any records of this account being blocked. I don't think I blocked you. Anyway, User:Mykungfu is another Wikipedia user who has been repeatedly blocked and has been making other accounts to bypass his original blocking. He's been fairly rampant, and I guess another person mistakenly thougtht you were Mykungfu. Just give me the name of the account you were blocked on, and I'll try to sort out the situation. --Nishkid64 21:13, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]