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.

Thank you for your comments at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Puppetmaster Mattisse repeatedly removing puppetmaster tag, as well as you kind edit comment when you protected the userpage. I wasn't aware of the conversation going at the admin notice board at the time, but from this comment confirm my fears that Mattisse was in a perilous position. I really do believe that Mattisse is a good editor. Makes mistakes sometimes in edits, but given the volume of contributions, that is to be expected. Thanks again. --BostonMA ^talk 12:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A tip o' the hat to you. Your handling of the Mattisse issue was quite classy. Cheers, TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:48, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for contributing to my RFA. Unfortunately it failed (final tally 26/17/3). As a result of the concerns raised in my RFA, I intend to undergo coaching, get involved in the welcoming committee and try to further improve the quality of my contributions to AFD and RFA. All the best. Cynical 14:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hey Nish, Is there any way you can use your admin powers to move this category Category:String theory physicists to Category:String theorists. I don't think i can do it --Ageo020 (Talk • Contribs) 17:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

dude, you have to give it time. i'm very notable. plus, i know lots of livingston high grads. do you know harris bornstein? or devra bornstein? come on. you have to let it grow my friend!

love,

dave

I'm still at LHS, and I never heard of any of those people. Anyway, you're not notable. Case closed lol...If you do become notable, then an article will be created, but not just yet. And by notability, I mean on an international, regional or national scale. Nishkid64 23:34, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Sorry to bother you. Could you please take a look at this and give your honest opinions. Thanks --BostonMA ^talk 23:49, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I think Mattisse quite enjoyed the situation. He (i'm assuming here) started to talk to other people, just trying to attract attention to the whole situation when he himself said he reverted the edits because he had some private information on his user page. You basically summed up my motive behind protecting the user page. You can see by the protection comment I made, that I had only good intentions, and that I did not want someone to see Cyde's comments and immediately act upon it. Also, Cyde is probably one of the higher up admins, and I would assume he has a good deal of experience and seniority here. Nishkid64 00:04, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Yes I know you were acting with good intentions. I guess what I was hoping for was for you to say to Mattisse that things might have turned out very badly, for example, if you had not intervened in a positive way. Of course, say that only if you believe it is true. Thanks again. Sincerely --BostonMA ^talk 00:11, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well it is true. Things could have been much worse had I not intervened. I wasn't exactly sure what you meant by "honest opinion" on your response, so I just told you what I thought of your comment. Nishkid64 00:16, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --BostonMA ^talk 00:18, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Was my fault. My edit linked to the deletion log (which is no longer existant) - however the link still had the phone number. If I had just removed it would still be in the history. Hope thats ok Glen 04:15, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ta, Nish, I'll adjust my !vote accordingly. :) riana_dzasta 04:46, 20 October 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Well, the project is slowly growing. But the category for too much trivia usually grows at an alarming rate, then goes back down. Upon investigation, people have been vandalising (some of the time at least) and removing the tag with no reason at all, even though the trivia is clearly still too long. I'm getting pretty sick of having to make an extra long edit summary to try to explain too much trivia to people. I don't think it's the same user everytime, so there doesn't seem to be a simple solution to the trivia tag removers. RobJ1981 23:13, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm...if you have the usernames or IP addresses of some of these vandals, I can deal with the situation. Also, I'm sorry I haven't gotten around to actually doing any trivia stuff. I'm busy in real life, and all I do on Wikipedia is repetitive tasks that don't require too much attention. Nishkid64 23:18, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Trivia Clean Up is now the official place for it. A userbox for user pages for members should be made. I don't know how to make one though. I need help on the main page as well, I'm not sure what else to put there. RobJ1981 18:50, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your support on my RfA, kind comments, and offer for help. Hopefully, I'll be able to figure stuff out. — TKD::Talk 09:38, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it officially closed, and at a flattering 38/0/0 at that. Thanks again for your support. I appreciate your trust, and will do my best to uphold it. Don't hesitate to let me know if you ever need anything. — TKD::Talk 05:33, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi this is Sushant. Wish you and your family a very happy, prosperous and safe Deepawali Sushant gupta 06:02, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nish. I've noticed that you've been working with portals. So I thought that maybe you would like to know that I've just created Portal:Iceland. I know that most people aren't very interested in that particular country, but anyway I would like to invite you to have a look. Feel free to contribute whenever you (if you ever) wish. :-) Best regards.--Húsönd 00:31, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your collaboration. :-) By the way, I think that you deserve this:

		The Business and Economics Barnstar
		I award you The Business and Economics Barnstar for your excellent work on Portal:Business and Economics. Best regards. Húsönd 02:01, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. :-)
BTW Nish, I just reverted your formatting edit to Portal:Iceland, as it causes some disruption when displayed on smaller screens (especially the Biography section, for its picture is quite large and squeezing it into a smaller space results in an undesirable compression/split of the text next to it). If you are using a large screen, please inform about eventual disruptions/odd visualization the current format may cause. Ideally, the portal should be built while viewing through different sized screens at the same time, in order to prevent undesirable effects.--Húsönd 17:49, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. :-) The picture looks fine on my screen after your change.--Húsönd 18:08, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Nishkid, thanks a lot for supporting me in my recent RfA. It succeeded, and I am very grateful to all of you. If you ever need help with anything, please don't hesitate to ask. Also, feel free point out any mistakes I make! Thanks again, —Khoikhoi 04:01, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I actually do have some. :-) Could you briefly look over my admin actions so far and please let me know if any of them could possibly be out-of-line? Bonaparte is a banned user, along with Mywayyy. Is this a possible "abuse of admin powers"? I'd just like to know these things so I don't get into any trouble Thanks! —Khoikhoi 23:23, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're doing a great job so far! I noticed that you're big on the 24-hour block, hehe. Anyway, I didn't check all the block logs of those guys, but I just wanted to tell you that I usually do 31-hour block for 1st offense, 48-hr or 72-hour for second offense, and so on. If it is an unshared repeatedly blocked IP vandal, then I'd block him/her for multiple weeks or months. Also, the Lake Iznik thing is perfectly fine. I would have done it just by manually fixing it, but it doesn't matter. You only get in trouble if you did something really bad, or really stupid lol. Also, try to be civil to other users that you may block or get into conflicts with. That's usually where other admins have faltered over time, and in some occasions, serious consequences have resulted. Just keep up what you have been doing, and you'll be just fine. And remember...I'm always willing to lend a hand to a friend. =) Nishkid64 23:37, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'll do 31 hours from now on. I figured I didn't need to warn him since he was banned anyways (see WP:LOBU). As for Lake İznik, I was referring to the fact that I had to delete the redirect to make way for the move (you knew that, right?). I couldn't manually fix it because the redirect had categories in it. Also, I'll take your advice and make sure to be careful. :-)

One more question: when should I hand out indef. blocks? When an account is only used for vandalism & trolling is it ok? BTW, when I see the "block user" page, there are two boxes to check - "Block anonymous users only" and "Prevent account creation". Can you provide some more info into what they mean exactly? Thanks again, —Khoikhoi 23:50, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't myself done any page moves like yours so I might be getting this mixed up...but... I meant that you did not have to do a page move there. You could have just moved the content from Lake Ascansus to Lake Iznik, and then created redirect on Ascansus. If there were categories, you could also manually move those too. Well, if you're lazy then you can delete =).

Also, if you want to, you can go harder on the bans for sockpuppetry. You can make them somewhere between 2 days and one week.

Okay, for indef blocks, you can hand those out to sockpuppets, vandalism-only accounts, trolling, etc. When banning indef, put the indefblock tag on the user page. If the user has not had any edits made to the user talk, then add indefblock there too. If the user has, you can either remove all convos and add indefblock, or add vandalblock to the bottom of the page.

Regarding those two options. "Block anonymous users only" is used when blocking IP users. I recently dealt with a case in which I blocked a school IP for a period of 48 hours, but there was one user who wanted to go on his Wikipedia account at school. The problem was that I didn't check off "block anonymous users only", so as a result, anyone operating from that IP, registered or not, could not edit. So, I had to unblock, and then reblock with that box checked off, and then the registered user was allowed to edit again at school. "Prevent account creation" is the default checked box, and it means that a person from that IP address can not make a new account from that address. It just basically prevents an abusive IP user from making a vandalism-only account. Nishkid64 00:07, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I did that then it would destroy the edit history of the page. :-) Thanks again for the above advice, however. I recently blocked (indef.) Fuck! at the Wikipedia, WoW! at the Wheels, and Vandal! at the Blocked. I didn't check the 1st box but I checked the 2nd (maybe that was default). Was this the right thing to do? Also, is it necessary to put {{indefblockeduser}} on their userpages? —Khoikhoi 00:56, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2nd button is default, first is optional. So you did the right thing with the indefblocks. I suggest you add indefblock tags to userpages just so it is easier to actually know. Avoid indefblock tags for pages that are advertising. (There was a user with the an admin's phone number yesterday, so I added the tag, but another admin deleted the page to avoid attracting attention).

Done! —Khoikhoi 01:05, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Diwai

This is just Seadog.M.S wishing you a very happy Diwali. Have a great day.

Happy Diwali from BostonMA ^talk 12:51, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My very best to you and your family! Happy and prosperous New Year! Rama's arrow 22:05, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wish you All The Best on the ocasion of the Indian festival of light, Diwali. I am sure that the light of hope, confidence, and all positive attributes shall always remain inside you – lighting your path and guiding you to attain higher and higher levels of excellence in all your endevours! All the best! --Bhadani 16:47, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the comment on my user page. YOU are completely and utterly out of order!!! Before firing off stupid warnings I suggest you take time to look at the facts. I don't know where you are from, but if you're from the UK you might know that Middlesbrough did indeed feature in the well-known publication mentioned. Crap Towns has its own article and lists many UK towns. A number of these have references back to the article. So did Middlesbrough - briefly - and it will again. Think First! I would have expected more from an Admin. Arcturus 21:06, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK - no problem - put a line through the above if you like (I don't know how to do that foramtting), or delete it. Cheers, Arcturus 21:12, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I Seadog.M.S am inviting you to edit my quote page. I do understand that you are very busy in the Wiki but I would greatly appreciate you editing the quote page. If you decide to edit the page please follow the rules you see inside.
Sinceraly yours,

Seadog.M.S 21:11, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for editing my quote page, that was very kind.--Seadog.M.S 01:56, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From the note the user left, it looked like they really just wanted recognition for being a vandal, I guess I took a bit of DENY into play there to see how it would work -- Tawker 23:33, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion log indicates that this user account recently (in fact within a few seconds of the posting) deleted an article called Freepository about freepository.com, a free & open source hosting site. If in fact you [[ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Nishkid64 |Nishkid64 ]] deleted the article, would you please explain the reasoning behind this action?

It a) was encylopeadic in writing style, b) not an adverstisement (the site is used freely by thousands of university students every day, c) contained no copyright-infringing material, d) was not nonsensical, and e) all content was verifiable (the article included links to existing Wikipedia articles and two external links.

In the parenthetical citation for the deletion, CSD A7: Unremarkable people/groups was cited. As stated in the article (and verifiable), Freepository is today used by thousands of software developers around the globe daily. It is often compared to Sourceforge, and is a reference site in the [[ http://www.ibiblio.org/fosphost/versions/exhost0.03.htm | FOSHosting ]] page at ibiblio, and is referenced in other Wikipedia articles. How exactly is this unremarkable?

Under what published, objective criteria was the article deleted?

Thanks in advance,

John Minnihan

The last editor to the page tagged the article as db-web, citing its Alexa Web Traffic Ranking. If you go to Alexa.com and search Freepository, you get a web traffic ranking of 4,449,067. This definitely fails WP:WEB criteria. If you do a Google search, you get only 11,900 hits. If you look at "What links here", you see that the article was only linked to one other article. All this led to my decision to delete the article. I doubt that Freepository really handles that many accounts when it has that low of a Alexa ranking, and I also doubt that it really is compared to SourceForge at all. SourceForge is ranked #88 on Alexa, and Google generates nearly 80,000,000 hits for "SourceForge". How does 4,449,067 compare with 88? How does 80,000,000 compare with 11,900? Upon reviewing all these items, I still believe the article was correctly deleted. Nishkid64 13:07, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. There are two factual and/or logical errors in the approach you've outlined:

1. Freepository and Sourceforge are either compared, listed together or discussed on 1340 pages (Google 8:15am MST 22-Oct-2006).

2. Freepository's usage as a source control tool - on a daily basis - is via sserver & https traffic that isn't measured by Alexa, or any of the other traffic sites.

By our internal measures (not externally verifiable), there is approximately 8 times more direct traffic to the site via sserver connections than https (all traffic is either sserver or https, http is immediately redirected to https so that no tranmission of source code goes across the wire in clear-text). Freepository manages over 12,000 very active projects for engineers worldwide, the majority of whom access the service via a direct sserver connection.

Trusting Alexa's ratings is widely disputed in general, so citing Alexa rankings as a factor in making a speedy delete decision is unsound. See [[ http://cyber-knowledge.net/blog/2006/10/19/alexa-amazons-most-flawed-idea/ | Alexa - Amazon's Most Flawed Idea ]] for one example of the analysis of Alexa, and conclusions about its usefulness. From Alexa itself:

"The Alexa Toolbar turns itself off on secure pages (https:). Sites with secure page views will be under-represented in the Alexa traffic data." - source [[ http://www.alexa.com/site/help/traffic_learn_more | Alexa- Traffic Learn More ]]

May I suggest you take a look at the paper that was cited in the original article - [[ http://www.ibiblio.org/fosphost/eval_fosphost090.pdf | Construction of an Evaluation Model for

Free/Open Source Project Hosting Sites, Haggen Hau Heng So, RMIT Univeristy ]] to learn more about the FOSHosting. Becoming more well-inforemd on this topic will allow you to make better editing decisions. "Doubt" as you express above, especially when it can be easily and immediately muted, should at a minimum place the article as a Candidate for Deletion, subject to the 5 day review.

I am challenging the Speedy Delete Decision.

John Minnihan

Touché. Okay, I changed my mind. You can recreate the article. If it does get tagged for speedy deletion again, you can remove the tag and make an AfD for the page, and that way we can get a community consensus on the issue. Good arguments; you won me over. =) Nishkid64 16:55, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I appreciate the review and revert. I will resubmit the article later today, and will include a bit more factual background about its usage.

John Minnihan --Jbminn 17:32, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Diwali to you too. Hope you had a bright and colourful diwali. Thank you for your wishes. Jisha C J 02:25, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message. It is great to meet a new Wikipedian on Diwali (or the day after). Gizza^{Chat ©} 04:02, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HAPPY DIWALI !!! to you and your family.

By the way, if you are interested, you can join this project.

--NRS | ^T/_M\^B 05:10, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wish you a very happy Diwali! utcursch | talk 07:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Nishkid! Thank you for comments and wishes related to my recently concluded Indian RfA. I hope I live up to the confidence you have shown. I'm still exploring the new tools, so feel free to point out of any mistakes on my part. I certainly will ping you in case I need advice. Belated Diwali greetings to you and your loved onces. Thanks again! --thunderboltz(Deepu) 07:47, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please help me in preventing the vandalism on the Template:Castes and Tribes of the Punjab. There has been non-stop vandalism of that template for the last 2 months with the Jat clans being deleted by anon 82.37.198.177 he kept on vandalising. I do not have the expertise you have (as I am very inexperienced) can you please do me 2 favours (I would be really greatful) can you pratrol this template and get this anon blocked. As you are expert on wikipedia it would take you minutes to do due to his consistent vandalism he has been warned many times, you can see on his anon talk page. Please help!--Indian50 08:58, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked the user for one week, and I hope that will prevent them from coming back and vandalising. I'm not totally familiar with the subject area, but I have seen that many of the contributing edits to the page were done by established editors. So, I have decided to semi-protect the page from vandalism by anons and new users. Nishkid64 13:20, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You really are an excellent Wikipedia administrator. The block and the semi protection is a very wise move, I thank you. You have solved a problem in minutes that has been going on for the last two months. Please keep an eye on this troublesome anon 82.37.198.177. I thank you once again.--Indian50 17:38, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you and a happy Diwali to you too! --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 13:36, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nish! Thanks and a belated happy Diwali to you also! -- Samir धर्म 22:48, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the Diwali greetings!--§hanel 23:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning!

I noticed when I logged on that two articles I created, Bonnie Shimko and Stacey D'Erasmo, have been speedy deleted. I'd like to ask you to reconsider. I've been trying to create pages or stubs for the authors who have won the Lambda Literary Award, since some of them are noted on the award page but don't have biographies.

I could be wrong, but I think they may possibly have been tagged for speedy deletion by someone I annoyed while on newchanges patrol.

Of course, if one major literature award isn't enough to make an author notable, then I understand the deletion, but I hope you'll take a second look at the articles. Thanks! FisherQueen 17:06, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, after taking a look at WP:BIO, I am not totally sure whether or not these two authors are notable in their own right. One of the guidelines states "Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work". I would appreciate it if you could tell me if there are more awards that both of the authors received or if their books were reviewed independently. At the moment, I am still undecided, and if you could help me out with the above, that would probably change my mind, and I would restore the articles. Also, it does appear that the person did tag the articles out of bad faith. Thanks. Nishkid64 17:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for removing The Finger from my talk page for me. Bear in mind that gay and lesbian authors are sometimes overlooked for recognition- it's one of the reasons that the Lambda awards exist. Shimko was also recognized by the ForeWord Magazine Book of the Year Award, and was reviewed by Kirkus, Bookloons, and the School Library Journal. [[1]]. D'Erasmo writes regularly for New York Times Book Review, New York Times Magazine, and Ploughshares [[2]] D'Erasmo has been reviewed by Publishers Weekly, New York Times Book Review, The New Yorker, Booklist, Kirkus, and Newsday[[3]]. -FisherQueen 17:26, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I restored both articles based on your arguments (although they haven't written many books yet). Nishkid64 17:31, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! You rock. -FisherQueen 17:33, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Livingston. I was Millburn, and now I'm New York!  :)

You're right, Iceland didn't kill the whale. --VKokielov 21:11, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, we are supposed to have some bad blood between us lol...(Livingston-Millburn rivalry). Anyway, how do you like NYU? I'm planning to apply there regular decision. And yeah...I saw that Iceland thing and I was like wth? So, then I changed it lol. Nishkid64 21:14, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NYU will be less than you hear, but better than you could do, if you tried. I recommend exhausting better choices first, unless the nightly party tickles your fancy. --VKokielov 13:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nishkid64, thank you so much for your support for my RfA. I passed with a vote tally of 61/0/1. I am honored that the consensus was to allow me the added privilege of the admin mop. I appreciate your support and complimentary words on my RFA (and your comign to my defense on the one Neutral vote), as well as your note of congratulations! --plange 21:44, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there Nishkid64! I just wanted to let you know that some of your comments to users who have different opinions of RfA candidates than you are a bit unnecessary. Calling people's standards foolish and such is rather inappropriate. Each Wikipedian has a right to participate at RfA and for his/her opinion to be respected. Furthermore, each Wikipedian has different standards and while some do have stricter standards, it's certainly not your place to question them with the attempt to discount their opinions. I encourage you to participate in RfA however you wish, but please try to comment on the candidate's merits, not those of the participants, who are volunteering their time to help the community reach consensus. Cheers hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 21:56, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I was a bit out of line there, but it is just really frustrating to see how some users make such a big deal with time. It really isn't justified because time means nothing. Time is just a measurement, and it does not constitute experience or anything like that. I was lucky to not be voted against due to my relative inexperience on Wikipedia in my own RfA, but I have seen how those "Oppose per lack of experience" votes have brought down some potential admins-to-be. Now, I know I have voted that way, but I only did that for some people I believed were truly inexperienced (<1000 edit people). If you look now, there's a great potential admin (MER-C) who might not become admin all because of concerns regarding the time he has spent with the project. Although I have convinced a good deal of people to switch votes, I'll try to be a little more civil with my remarks to RfA's. Nishkid64 22:08, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Thanks a lot for the response! I agree that a lot of users have "editcountitis", but it's a valid standard as any. It seems as if the community is a bit split in terms of how to best judge a candidate. However, it seems as if welcoming everyone to input their opinions and standards is working, as we've had very few instances of admin abuse, so the right people are succeeding at RfA. I think your own input is quite valuable to the discussions when you comment on the candidate, so thanks again for the response and trying to be a bit more civil when further engaging in the discussions. Cheers! hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 22:14, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your update to this page, I appreciate it. I had let that page get a little out of date :). NoSeptember 21:30, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Volume 2, Issue 43	23 October 2006	About the Signpost

Report from the Finnish Wikipedia	News and notes: Donation currencies added, milestones
Wikipedia in the news	Features and admins
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line	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 06:29, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An admin posted a section called "My 15,000th edit on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics. Is this type of thing allowed? The user wants to celebrate an edit by doing it on a project page he likes...but, the section has nothing to do with comics whatsoever. It's just a post declaring that it's his 15,000th edit and he is glad he is part of the project. An admin certainly shouldn't be posting things like this on a talk page for a project. RobJ1981 23:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ehh...doesn't really matter, but I'll at least let Chris (he's a new admin; created less than 2 weeks ago) know about it. Nishkid64 00:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for trying to calm things down at the Rushton article. But I'm very concerned that Ramdrake and JereKrischel have removed all the encyclopedic content from the page and are trying to portray Rushton as a racist. You reverted my version back to Ramdrake's but all I was trying to do was simply explain his theory. Ramdrake's version provides scant information about his theory and is mostly just a list of people trashing him and unfairly implies he's a racist in a very libelous way. Please take a second look. Don't most people researching academics in encyclopedias want to know about the theories for which they're best known? 205.211.52.10 01:46, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, but the community decision was reached on the talk page. If you want to discuss the page, and try to make suggestions in how the page can be fixed up and brought up to par, be my guest. If you want to discuss and/or try to validate your point, then feel free to do so in a civilized and productive manner. Thanks. Nishkid64 01:50, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

yeah we have a lot of bots for CFD post at WP:CFD/W Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 03:18, 25 October 2006 (UTC) PS: Im clearing that list now. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 03:31, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Close enough :) Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 03:31, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You semi-protected J. Philippe Rushton because of an edit war. But semi-protection "should be considered if it is the only reasonable option left to deal with vandalism on a page or to stop a banned or blocked user from editing it." (from WP:SPP), which was not the case here. If you want to protect edit warring, even if one of the parties is an anon, you should use full protection and not revert anyone before protecting. In fact here an anon was removing material violating WP:BLP (although probably taking too much of other things with the removal also).--Konst.able^Talk 03:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure. It needs some clean-up, but the anon's removals were quite extreme. It might need full protection, but I'd just leave it on for a bit longer to see if they can work it out.--Konst.able^Talk 03:48, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your support in my RfA. Unfortunately consensus was not reached, and the nomination was not successful. I do however very much appreciate your comments, am still in support of the Wikipedia project, and will continue to contribute without interruption. Thanks again! --Elonka 08:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the talk page subsection Patchouli edits. I believe that User:Patchouli is systematically sabotaging articles related to Iran and the middle east and he's doing it in a relatively subtle manner. In any case, we are trying to start the process for bringing him before the arbitration comittee. However, having observed his behaviour in the last few months, I am certain that it will not be possible to reach a compromise with him, within the frameworks of wikipedia rules and plain logic, on Khatami's page, and he will continue to break wikipedia rules by inserting *blatant* NPOV-violating statements in the article (just take a look at the new article he has started, called Mohammad Khatami's reforms and you'll know what I'm talkin about, right after the first paragraph. Anyway, I request that if you should keep the page protected, you revert it to the last version before Patchouli's edit. If I'm not clear on my reasons for this request, please let me know and I will explain more. Barnetj 08:31, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thanks for the message. Glad to join the ranks of Indian admins. - Aksi_great (talk) 11:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thx - I'll let you know - see my thank you project here: User:Trödel/RFA --Trödel 13:58, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This was in an improper move. "Scottish regiments" are not necessarily regiments in Scotland. As a look at many of the regiments in the category will show, they are called "Scottish regiments" but are actually regiments of other countries, particularly the Canadian Armed Forces. See the following:

• The Lake Superior Scottish Regiment
• The Lorne Scots (Peel, Dufferin and Halton Regiment)
• The Canadian Scottish Regiment (Princess Mary's)
• The Toronto Scottish Regiment (Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother's Own)
• The Essex Scottish Regiment
• The Essex and Kent Scottish

_└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 14:04, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I only closed the CfD per the community discussion, which resulted from a WikiProject Military discussion. I did not personally delete and recategorize to the new category, so I suggest you talk to someone who has knowledge on the subject (perhaps the original proposer of the CfD). I do agree with you, but I would also like the opinion of someone who knows a good deal on the topic. Nishkid64 20:32, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's been a week now that I've been an administrator and I'd like to take this moment to once again thank everyone who supported my RfA, and to let you all know that I don't think I've screwed anything up yet so I hope I'm living up to everyone's expectations for me. But if I ever fall short of those expectations, I'd certainly welcome folks telling me about it!

Atlant 14:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please help me out with an annonomous user: User talk:205.211.50.30 and User talk:205.211.52.10 has left a hate message on me and is going through articles editing out the word "Nazi" in reference to Germany during and before WWII. He's also making threats against another user: User talk:Ramdrake Ramdrake. Thanks for your help.--Asams10 14:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Nishkid64, You have marked result as Category:Indian National Congress leaders to be renamed as Category:Indian National Congress politicians and closed the debate. But still the process is hanging up. Category:Bharatiya Janata Party leaders has already renamed to Category:Bharatiya Janata Party politicians. Does the process take time or this process has been untouched by mistake? Shyam ^(T/C) 17:07, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was doing the renaming manually, and I didn't get a chance to do the second one yet. It will be completed in the next day or two. Thanks =) Nishkid64 21:02, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the fast response :) Shyam ^(T/C) 00:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My belated Diwali thanks; I hope your celebrations were exciting. Take care. Saravask 19:19, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck in all of your future endeavors, sir.

congratulations on making 250 blocks in 1 week, don't you have anything to do at all? do you ever consider how many people you upset with your rampant blocks? not like you care about it anyways consdering your page blinded me

Please accept my thanks for your support in my successful RfA, which I was gratified to learn passed without opposition on October 25, 2006. I am looking forward to serving as an administrator and hope that I prove worthy of your trust. With my best wishes, --MCB 01:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...and a special appreciation for nominating me. I might hit you up for some tips, tricks, and advice in the near future! --MCB 01:36, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good hello, I've just come across this article Dylan Michalcuk and need to change the spelling it should be Dylan Michalchuk, with an "H". The name is spelled correctly in the article but not in the title and I don't know how to fix that. Would you have some kind of admin wand that might help out. Cheers. L0b0t 02:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you kindly. L0b0t 02:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I made two edits to the tweeter page, which you quickly removed, citing vandalism, indicating a clear lack of knowledge and/or experiance on your part, or a simple misunderstanding as to the two methods detailed, which i will explain below:

1. Method 6: Remove the dome/voicecoil assembly from the magnet assembly, where this is possible, then push dome out from rear

Many hifi tweeter allow the dome and voicecoil assembly to be removed from the magnet, allowing clear access to the dome from the rear. Whilst this ability is designed to allow replacement of a damaged voice coil, it can also be used in order to push the dome out from the rear. I have used this method on tweeters from seas, peerless, peerless v-line (formerly vifa) and scan speak, and i believe that it is possible with many other hi-fi tweeters as well. Using the example of a seas 27tdfc:

http://www.seas.no/Product%20bilder/27TDC.jpg

The four torx screws in the center can be removed, allowing access. This is clearly a valid and useful method for repairing dome indentations.

1. Method 7: "Kiss" the tweeter, sealing around the dome with the lips, then sucking.

I suspect this is why you reverted the edit, however the method works extremely well for a large number of soft dome tweeters. It works on the same principle as the vacumme cleaner method, however the suction is controlled by your lungs, the lips seal around hte edge of the dome, and suck, and out they pop.

I will revert your revertion, if you have any further gripes please talk to me about them on my talk page, or on the talk page for tweeters, I will also post this comment on the user talk page.

---

As pointed out by Stardust8212, both the Planet Express Ship and Holophonor articles are currently marked for deletion. Your comments thereon would be really appreciated. DrWho42 06:18, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about my mistake. I reverted it myself to the latest proper version, but then I noticed that you reverted to an earlier version of the article, skipping what seemed to me at a cursory glance to be good edits. Any reason? --nkayesmith 00:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]