This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Hi. Please be aware of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Ehud Lesar arbitration case. Thanks. Grandmaster (talk) 07:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since I know you are pretty experienced, I thought I would ask you this. I know a lot of editors use their userpage to have bios of themselves. But what about people who make bios with false info, like saying they won a championship or worked for a certain company. User:Animal91 is claiming he's worked for TNA and WWE and won titles in both organizations, all of which is BS. The editor is presenting this information as if it's real. Should I contact the user, or take this straight to WP:MFD? Or something else? TJ Spyke 07:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 3	14 January 2008	About the Signpost

From the editor: A new weekly feature
Special: 2007 in Review	Wikimania 2009 bidding ends, jury named
Controversial non-administrator rollback process added	Supposed advance draft of Jobs keynote surfaces on talk page
WikiWorld comic: "The Nocebo Effect"	News and notes: Fundraiser ends, $500,000 donation, milestones
Wikipedia in the News	Tutorial: Fundamentals of editing
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 (talk) 08:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment -- I've had the Hindman article on my watchlist for a while and noticed the fine job you did there. I have intended for a long time to go back to both the fire eaters and the Trans-Mississippi but I keep getting distracted. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 00:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the footnotes, that's the way i was taught to do it in school and seems to be the way a lot of historians do it. i find it more readable. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 00:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty much finished with the Trent Affair for now, but my long term goal would be to spin off much of the background stuff into separate articles on CSA and USA diplomacy durng the war. While I hope that it at some time gets promoted to GA, I'm not anxious to start the process myself. Thaks for asking. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 00:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're sharp!! I corrected the date. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 02:27, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, you are right. I've corrected the source. Arman ^(Talk) 03:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is just a carbon copy of [[Eddie Guerrero (minus the infobox and lead). Should this go to WP:MFD or just contact the editor? TJ Spyke 12:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These days I've gotten to where I feel bad contemplating even a single isolated rv of a good faith edit. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reason is because the Library of Congress made a mistake. The photo is actually of Daniel Pratt. See his congressional biography under the external links and you'll see it's actually him. -Ari Publican (talk) 21:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry! But I thought you could nominate 2 "DYK's" from the same article. Guess not. Keep that in mind next time. - Ohmpandya ^{We need to talk... ♦ contribs} 13:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

	<font=3> Thanks for your support, my request for adminship passed 60/0/0 yesterday! I want to thank Mrs.EasterBunny and Royalbroil for nominating me, those who updated the RfA tally, and everyone for their support and many kind words. To paraphrase a president ... I wish my mum and dad could see the comments made. My dad would be so proud to see the comments ... and my mum would have believed them". I will do my best to use the new tools carefully and responsibly (and you may be surprised to find that I have not deleted all of the pages by accident..... yet). Thanks again, Victuallers (talk) 20:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been working on the article in my sandbox, and I guess I am ready to show you the first draft. Along with third-party refs I have retained a few first party refs, as it retains the complete story (which may be fine as soon as the notability and authenticity of the subject is established) as opposed to third party refs providing the scenario in bits and pieces. I hope all information now is backed up by third party sources, apart from the "History of encyclopedias in Bangladesh" section (I am working on it). I also have used a few first party sources to refer to direct quotes and direct references (i.e. "according to Banglapedia..."). I also need to copyedit the version of the article which is greatly expanded and totally reorganized, along with writing a proper lead and turning redlinks blue. But, it would be greatly helpful if you took a look at this draft and left comments on the talk page. Thank you for your attention and patience. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 16:01, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved the material to the Banglapedia page. The help with copy and the lead will be highly appreciated, of course. I have already done a bit of copyedit, and added further refs. About the multiple refs - you'd see that it's basically the editors preface that's serving as a second ref in most cases. I kept it because that preface contains a comprehensive overview of the information, though it may not be usable as a stand-alone references (being primary and all). Well, may be it can be removed from most places, apart from the "History of encyclopedias in Bangladesh" section, and put in the "External links" section. Thanks for the offer to help, again. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 06:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I did forget cats and interwikis. What a shame! Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 04:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am very much into editing the article of Vidarbha over the past few days. I have enriched this article very much along wikipedia standards and will continue going forward. But I want to know the number of people visiting this page on Vidarbha. How much the info I am adding is of any value to people outside. Is there any tool which I can setup on this page to know the visitor count? I mean wikipedia tool.

Gaurav (talk) 16:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC) My talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gppande[reply]

Thanks, that was an interesting list :-) Tells us of what people look for more in Wikipedia. I have been seeing this tools portal for quite sometime now but dont know how to use it. It is similar to what wikipedia is? Can we go in and create our own tools? How do I get access to Wikipedia servers and backend database? Gaurav (talk) 08:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, Nishkid. On 1-21-08, you wrote, "Unprotected Battle of Bunker Hill: Page protected for a while; hopefully protection is no longer necessary.)" I do not share your optimism. I was the one who requested long-term protection for this article (and a small group of others), back in November, in response to massive vandalization. This and the other articles in the group apparently are school assignments, and heavily targeted by some of the schoolchildren. As is plainly evident in the edit history, their predations resumed as soon as you lifted the protection. Cleaning up after 10-12 year-olds and admonishing them is a tremendous waste of editors' time that could be put to better use. Relief is needed. Please restore the protection. Hertz1888 (talk) 19:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the helpfully prompt response, and your message. Very best, Hertz1888 (talk) 19:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a proposal afoot to move "Joshua A. Norton" to "Emperor Norton I of the United States of America" Thought you might want to weigh in. --Paul (talk) 22:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 4	21 January 2008	About the Signpost

Special: 2007 in Review, Part II	New parser preprocessor to be introduced
Commons Picture of the Year contest in final round	WikiWorld comic: "Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo"
News and notes: Freely-licensed music, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

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 (talk) 00:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Nishkid,
I would like to bring your attention into repeated additions(Bharatanatyam, Veerappan, Tamil-Kannada languages are example articles) of certain templates by User:Wiki Raja. In the past, there were several revert wars because of this template, and you had advised that user not to post the template without discussing first. He was even blocked that time. But he has started all over again, and shows no interest in discussing them and instead reverts accusing me of stalking here, while I have been editing those pages since long. Your intervention, as an Admin who knows the history of this issue is very much required. Thank you - KNM ^Talk 01:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, I too believe that this template created by WikiRaja has been causing too many revert wars in the last 12 months or so. We need to put this issue to rest for good now. Hope you can help us.thanksDineshkannambadi (talk) 03:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your time looking into it. First of all, there is no such thing called, "Tamil Civilization" and the current link of Tamil_civilization is just a redirect to Dravidian civilization. Now, logically it tells me, there is no difference between {{WPDRAVCIV}} template and {{WPTAMCIV}}. Second of all, in the name of this new template he has created, he has even started adding back the old controversial template {{WPDRAVCIV}}. See this, and this as examples, with the latter being termed as "rv vandalism". WP:Vandalism does not tell me by any stretch of imagination, that it is a revert of vandalism. His accusations on other editors does not stop there, but continues for stalking also, as he did here. However, the history of the page shows, I have been editing those pages since long time. I'm afraid, there is absolutely no assumption of good faith on other editors.

My primary concern here is, there is no discussion whatsoever regarding addition of these templates to article talk pages. There is no apparent connection between the template, the so-called civilization(s), and the article. For example, I am wondered with awe how Veerappan is connected to Dravidian civilization.

• Note: The entire article Dravidian civilization was revamped and brought into a good shape by admin Utcursch, after the discussion in its AFD. In Sept 2007, the previous article was thrown out and a new stub was created. According to that, the defn. of Drav civilization is The term Dravidian civilization refers to the civilization of the ancient speakers of the proto-Dravidian languages. Now, based on this, it is completely meaningless adding the template {{WPDRAVCIV}} to all these article which are totally irrelevant. If some editor thinks, he has a valid justification to add the template, atleast for courtesy sake, it needs to be discussed first, and other editors should be allowed to comment.

I hope, this explanation would help you understanding the situation, and help recalling the incidents in the past. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you - KNM ^Talk 03:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He has also violated WP:3RR today at Talk:Bharatanatyam. first at 09:29 GMT 23-Jan, second, third, fourth, and fifth at 06:26 GMT 24-Jan.

The first diff is a revert, because he has clearly undone other editor's edit there by adding back the template, which was part of earlier revert wars.

This disruptive editing, and ownership of article must end. Thanks, - KNM ^Talk 07:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your time and attention on this matter. Much appreciated. - KNM ^Talk 05:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, the problem here is a little more complex than what was described on the 3RR page. Note that I was reported for 3RR violation, but did not actually violate the 3RR rule, and started trying compromises after the third revert. On the other hand, the other user did straight reverts for more than four times. That same user continued to assert in substance the same point of view that he had forced through with straight reverts in violation of the 3RR rule -- and the protection basically rewards that. IMO this is problematic, though I understand that the issue might not have been clear from what was described in the 3RR page. Thank you. Larry Dunn (talk) 21:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for getting back to me. Like on many pages, a consensus will never form, unless people who have a fairly objective take on affairs decide to leave the page to the POV pushers. This page, like many pages of strong national interest to certain users, will forever be a battleground. I'm sure you've seen it elsewhere as well -- there is a cadre of users who post on one topic only, and large numbers of them congregate around a topic of interest. They post a certain perspective on the topic, and basically exert ownership over the topic. People who come in and see what might be considered to be bias, and try to change the page, are quickly overwhelmed. Even when they are not, and achieve some sort of compromise after a long struggle, sooner or later a new account will arrive and undo the consensus. This is exactly what happened here. (Of course, it's even worse when two interest groups who are hostile to each other try to gain control of a topic of interest -- then it's world war III! I'm sure you've seen that too.)

This is what has happened on this page and others relating to pre-Islamic Iran, a topic of considerable passion to many Iranian emigres in particular. Many of the users who post regularly on these topics post about Iranian topics, and Iranian topics only. It is an uphill battle to get some of the evident POV bias removed, and when it is, surely enough, along comes a new account do undo the cease fire. The unfortunate thing is just how easy it is for wikipedia pages to be owned in this way, the result being that the page reads like propaganda. Larry Dunn (talk) 22:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

... has a reply. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 10:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Please check my request again. He has no activity and even no email address to contact! —Preceding unsigned comment added by MohammadEbrahim (talk • contribs) 20:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could I hear some opinion on this? I added a "Citation needed" tag for the alternate spelling of the name, which was promptly removed. I added it back, it was removed again by the same user. I then found and added a source myself for the alternate spelling, but that too was reverted. The alternate seplling is used primarily in the UK, so most people would not be aware of this alternate spelling and thus the source shouldn't have been removed IMO. TJ Spyke 04:02, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		Thanks for participating in my RfA!
		Although it failed 43/27/0, I'm happy because the outcome has been very helpful in many meaningful ways. Moreover your input alerted me to your understandable concerns about my comments towards BusterD and Rklawton during the RfA. I am in the process of addressing this with BusterD and hope to do so with Rklawton if he's willing (and whenever he may be ready to do so). As for 3rr, I believe I'd already addressed this and it is no longer a concern, however your comments obviously strongly reinforced my conclusions on the topic and I thank you for that. All the best, Gwen Gale (talk) 05:28, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NHRHS2010 12:34, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On 26 January, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article John Maclean, Jr., 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.

--BorgQueen (talk) 12:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for helping out at WP:CHU and WP:CHU/U recently. My activity there has reduced greatly over the last week or so, but hopefully I will be back to normal soon. Again, thanks for helping out. Much obliged. Qst 20:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The image is of Mercury and we are very lucky to get any picture when he was young at all. We are have trouble getting free images of Mercury as it is so it would be madness to throw this image away. The image was a private submission so no source can be provided. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 22:29, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How can a private submission have a source? The image is high resolution and the comments made by the uploader seem perfectly genuine. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 22:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know they weren't aware of our image policies? They added the creative commons license themselves. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 22:42, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It clearly is of Mercury. If you want to go and find a better free licensed image please feel free to do so. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 22:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen other photos of him at a similar time of life. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 22:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I would like a third opinion on Religious violence in India, it's not a major dispute so I don't think there will be any major tension involved. Thanks. Darrowen (talk) 03:09, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nishkid64, thanks for your note and for all the work you do with DYK, and elsewhere! HG | Talk 06:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blackbeard did not allow Bonnet to command the Revenge. Instead, he basically locked him up in the Queen's Anne Revenge, which is why Bonnet confided to his crew that he would rather live a life of self-exile than be subjected to such treatment. The men had been on good terms before, and this sudden betrayal of sorts is why the word "treacherous" is used. Nishkid64 (talk) 19:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Could you please edit the article accordingly? In the statements up until "treacherous", this was, at most, implied, if memory serves. In my reading of the article the personal relationship between the two was not really discussed up until then - just the facts of capture and plunder - so I found it jarring and wondered if it had been vandalism. Thanks - Tempshill (talk) 07:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Nishkid64. I've just noticed that Malik Umar Hayat Khan is on the main page, but I didn't get a DYK notice for my collection! I see you did the others in the same batch. Thanks for your help, Xn4 13:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Nishkid64 … regarding my sandbox bio, I seem to recall something about "Internet celebrity" as a "notable" achievement … I note that Ahlul Bayt Digital Islamic Library Project uses:

Their current project site, Al-islam.org, is notable for being the the top site in Yahoo!'s list of Shia sites by popularity.^[n]

as a claim of notability, so how should I rephrase

Just Google his first name.

to make an indication of notability in the opening? How about:

He is notable in that over half of the first ten pages returned by a Google search of his first name are pages either about or by him.^[n]

BTW, it looks like it took less than a month for that sandbox to show up on Google among the first ten returned for a search on my name. (Tee-hee! ;-) --Dennette (talk) 23:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look up "victor airways". Wikipedia might be a good place to start. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.157.140.121 (talk) 17:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I replied here. · AndonicO ^Hail! 18:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ehud Lesar/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ehud Lesar/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, — Rlevse • Talk • 02:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion going on regarding whether or not the following image should be a part of the Poverty in India page. Most Poverty in *Country* pages do not have any images, at most 1. User:Otolemur crassicaudatus has brought many images showing extreme poverty in India and has tried to mislead people into thinking this is the way a majority of poor Indians live. There is a vote in which your input would be appreciated. You can find this discussion here

Nikkul (talk) 03:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nishkid64, in your talk page this user has made wild accusations on me. I will request you please read the relevant sections on Talk:Poverty in India to give you an inside in this user and to understand who is incivil. You please read the texts like these [2], [3], [4]. The Bodggaya beggar image is more appropriate than others because:

• You may know, many beggars live a condition like this, many of them have various disabilities.

There is no "typical" definition of poverty, or beggar. There are abled beggar, disabled beggar. The purpose of the article is depicting poverty. The other beggar images which this user want to place deleting the Bodhgaya beggar image are not good quality, one is B&W, and the other depicting a beggar girl in Ladakh. But my objection here is that Ladakh is quite different from rest of the country because of its geographics. Majority Indians live in plain. And this Bodhgaya beggar image is showing poverty at its most extreme level. It is not right to conceal the situation of poor men like this, it is the truth, the reality. This image touches the heart of the reader, which is a real situation. Yes not all beggars are disabled, but is this an argument? On the other hand it also can be said that not all beggars are abled. Our job here is not to understand who is abled, or who is not. But to find a good image which is representative of many.

• This user is repeatating his arguments and has taken a densive position by his ad hominem attack on me. Any one do not agree with him, here I am trying to depict poverty, and he is labelling me as Indophobic. There are other editors who honoured me for my contributions. It is ture that on the article like religious violence, we may share some different point of ciew. Not all people living on Earth share the smae opinion. But other user, like user Darroween, who also share a different point of view, he himself honoured me for my contributions. The only reason given against this image that "since all beggars have not messed up legs, this image is undue". But it is an anti-individualistic argument. So what if not all beggars do not have messed up legs? The fact is that such secenes is a reality and it would not be right to conceal it. Such scenes exists, it is the truth. If it is reality, if such scenes exits, then an article depicting poverty i.e. "the condition of lacking full economic access to fundamental human needs such as food, shelter and safe drinking water", only those images should remain which clearly illustrate this fact.
• Please remember the article is not about India, but the article is about poverty. This article is not depicting India, depicting poverty in India. So such image is not deriding India, it is illustrating the poverty in India. This image, I think, will be very appropriate. This user has informed many partisan editors, like User:Bakasuprman about the image. I will also request you check this user's contributions. I hope you are really neutral editor and your right judgement will be appreciated. I have told you why I am supporting the includsion of this image. Regards. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 06:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Thanks for your help to improve the article on Grameen Bank. All the reference issues of this article have now been addressed and several new "independent" sources have been added. Could you please reconsider the assessment of the article if you are happy with the progress. Thanks and regards, Arman ^(Talk) 09:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your constructive feedback. I have further worked on the areas you have mentioned. Could you please take another look and let me know if there are other obvious shortcomings? Arman ^(Talk) 01:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 5	28 January 2008	About the Signpost

From the editor: New feature
Special: 2007 in Review, Part III	Signpost interview: John Broughton
New parser preprocessor introduced	Best of WikiWorld: "Truthiness"
News and notes: Estonian Wikipedia, Picture of the Year, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Tutorial: Reporting and dealing with vandals	WikiProject Report: Molecular and Cellular Biology
Wikipedia Dispatches: Banner year for Featured articles	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 (talk) 04:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. It wasn't that much work. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The January 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for cleaning up my edits with on the In the News template. Quick question ... do you think that a dash or "17 to 14" is better? It was determined for last year's Super Bowl that "to" was preferred (check the history). If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 03:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It has been changed to "to." Thanks and have a great night! If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 03:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This one which unfortunately was entered about ten minutes minutes before the game ended. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball Gwernol 03:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was my bad. I wanted to beat people to it, so I kept a separate page open with the writing prewritten. Didn't mean to write it. I also screwed up again that other time, but I undid the work myself. But on my THIRD TIME, I was warned unmeaningfully by some other guy Playhacker (talk) 03:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks for defending my writing under the Superbowl 42 thing. I'm this close to getting him/her into trouble. You are awesome! Playhacker (talk) 03:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I'm certain, I was watching the game live and he added that just as the Giants scored. There was 35 seconds left on the play clock and it took about another ten minutes before the game officially ended. He made that edit before the point after on the Giants' touchdown. Gwernol 03:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was my bad. I wanted to beat people to it, so I kept a separate page open with the writing prewritten. Didn't mean to write it or have the info sent in. I also screwed up again that other time, but I undid the work myself. But on my THIRD TIME, after the game, I rewritten the info, but I was warned unmeaningfully by some other guy Playhacker (talk) 03:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but my warning to him was at 2:58, so his edit was at least 8 minutes before the end of the game. Gwernol 04:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't know which edit are you (Nishkid64) defending Playhacker (talk) 04:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No worries Nishkid64. Its much to Playhacker's credit that he accepts that the warning I gave him was valid. I think we can all accept he was being a little over enthusiastic. I certainly don't intend to make anything more of this incident. Gwernol 04:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I continue my contribution and request later (e.g. a month later), is it possible that single edit is ignored?

MohammadEbrahim (talk)

My I delete my previous requests? Or if not, may you do it please?

MohammadEbrahim (talk)

I considered just Qtel, but that's the company not the name of the cable, so it is "Qtel's". But nobody is going to complain either way, and it's next to be bumped off anyway! --Stephen 01:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nishkid64,

I wonder why you have deleted the article about pornstar Lori Alexia.
I don't know how this article looked like, but according to the deletion log, it was a speedy deletion because Lori Alexia don't satisfy wikipedia's notability guidelines.

WP:PORNBIO notability guidelines stipulates:
"Has won or been a serious nominee for a well-known award, such as those listed in Category:Adult movie awards".
Well, Lori Alexia has been nominated twice for the AVN Best New Starlet Award in 2006 and again in 2008. It's the porn-Oscar in case you don't know. You can't hardly do better than this...

Let alone for this, she satisfy the notability guidelines.
Magicstrip (talk) 14:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your quick answer!

I'll maybe create a new stub, with independant verifiable sources (again, I did not create the previous article, and have no clue how it looked like).

Magicstrip (talk) 10:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		My RfA
		Thank you very much, Nashkid64, for your support in my RfA which I really appreciate. It closed at 83/0/0. I was surprised by the unanimity and will do my best to live up to the new role. All the best, --ROGER DAVIES talk 16:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] The patio at the Partal Palace in the Alhambra, Andalucia.

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my user page. I've got an obsessive "fan". =\ -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 6	4 February 2008	About the Signpost

Special: 2007 in Review, Part IV	Tensions in journalistic use of Wikipedia explored
Best of WikiWorld: "Calvin and Hobbes"	News and notes: Milestones
Wikipedia in the News	Tutorial: Adding citations
Dispatches: New methods to find Featured Article candidates	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 (talk) 08:24, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, Nishkid64 ... I think I figured out how to phrase it and where to place it as an assertion in the opening of my sandbox bio...

"Dennette is a single-name Internet phenomena.^[3]"

Please respond on the sandbox talk page and not my user talk page. -- Dennette (talk) 23:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]