Archives: The Basement · My desk · My Barnstars
No thanks. ThuranX 15:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As you haven't removed me from the RfA, I have don so myself. leave me out of this, and far away from Phil Welch. ThuranX 19:12, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Nick, I am displeased. You made me a part of the PhilWelch RfA, and now he's coming after me with attacks. Please see the RfA, I have added to my statement.ThuranX 21:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ignore him. Let the administrators do their jobs. — Nearly Headless Nick 14:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First, what I don't understand is that, no matter how many times this comes up, and how many times it's pointed out that there is no policy – not even a guidline – that limits the use of rollback, people still make this sort of challenge. When even anons can use popups, and editors are reverting using "undo", it's especially difficult to see why anyone should even think that there might be a problem in the first place.
Secondly, an editor suddenly reverted a lot of work copy-editing, wikifying, and MoSing, with a pointless and unrelated edit summary; I'm supposed to spend even more time than he's already wasted just because you and others are unaccountably squeamish about using rollback? I mean, you did look at what was involved, didn't you? I also explained to him, both at his Talk page and at the article page, why I'd done what I'd done.
Is there a reason for your getting involved on the side of those who want to return the poor English, the incorrect wikilinks, and the lead that goes against the MoS? --Mel Etitis (Talk) 14:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- First, I said "near-vandals", and I stick by that (it is, in fact, a mild term in the circumstances). One of the people involved referred to my edits that merely introduced better English, correct wikilinks, etc., as vandalism; I do hope that you wagged your finger there too.
- Secondly, if you want to change the guidelines or policy on rollback, go ahead and try (such changes have always been rejected in the past); until then, please stop pretending that your finger-wagging is backed up by anything but your own preferences.
- Thirdly, this dispute has been over for some time; why do you want to stir it up again? --Mel Etitis (Talk) 16:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, yes, you do that. Now could you leave me to do things that are actually useful for Wikipedia? There must be lots of other people who are in desperate need of your finger wagging. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 15:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you want me to leave Wikipedia? Philwelch 23:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeaaaaa....nnooo. — Nearly Headless Nick 14:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is it important to use the {{MOSLOW}} tag on filmographies that are not written in chronological order for example a tag that was added on Aishwariya Rai page and by reading the WP:LOW its hard to tell--Cometstyles 15:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have never been much of an editor. Perhaps the YellowMonkey might be able to help you out. Best, — Nearly Headless Nick 15:29, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I wish to submit a complaint regarding one of the Admins' bullish behaviour, and abuse of his administrative rights (User:Mel Etitis); and, since I was unable to find the relevant page/form, therefore I am taking your time. I would be grateful if you kindly advice me by return. Regards Surena 20:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As far as I know, Mel has not abused his core administrative tools, such as the block, protect and delete buttons. Please assume good faith while dealing with other editors, and try to resolve disputes peacefully by using the talk pages of the articles for discussion. In case you are not satisfied by my answer, feel free to file an informal complaint on WP:AN or go to WP:RFC or WP:RFAR as you deem appropriate. Best, — Nearly Headless Nick 14:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that, I just saw that he'd been given an "only warning", and so reported him when he vandalised again. Otherwise, what's the point of the "only warning" at all? In general, I don't even like the "only warning" (although I have used it once), and am always fair with vandals. But since it was clearly vandalism (diff), and not an honest mistake in any way, I don't really think it's biting the newbie. ConDemTalk 16:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You said that you "have seen systematic reverts of other users' edits, without trying to engage them on the talk pages. The WP:CREEP incident would be a good example." Please take a look at the talk page of WP:CREEP and you will see that yes, I am engaging people and discussing the issue. I've been on the talk page since december 7th; the dispute with Jeff started several weeks later. >Radiant< 15:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for removing the autoblock! What is an autoblock though? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It is a tool that blocks the IP address of the blockee. So, even if your account gets unblocked, you will not be able to edit until your IP address gets unblocked. The IP addresses are not available, even to administrators. They are identified with this tool – [1]. View my blocking log – [2]. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 13:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the info. WP is more complex and sophisticated than I had thought. I learned something! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I was very surprised when I learned that you got blocked. I always took you for a smart-one. ;) — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 13:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, some people think I am smart. My girl friend thinks I am stupid and she got a kick out of my block. My cat did too, I think, he was giving me superior looks. :) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Um, I thought in my 3RR reoort I indicated why a block would not be that necessary. May I ask why you choose to block her? JoshuaZ 15:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess I did not read your message very carefully. However, the version to which you were reverting was no WP:BLP violation, and the words were done fairly. In case you feel that it would be appropriate to unblock, please go ahead. I have no objections. Best, — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 17:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I dont know who you are but please leave me alone. If you actually knew what you were talking about you would see that he personally attacked me first. Again, please leave me alone. I have work to do. WikiTony 17:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PS:I know you proably meant well but it certainly seems like certain parties who will remain nameless are ganging up on me. Again, i do not mean any hostility but i believe there is hostility being directed at me from various people. I just dont think you know the full story of what happened when you wrote what you did on my talk page. i have already left that guy a note to explain to him (politely) how i feel about the incident. WikiTony 17:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Responded on your talk page. I have watchlisted your talk page, you can respond there and I will notice any messages you address to me. Best, — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 17:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You recently closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people who became famous only in death with delete. I count 9 delete votes, 7 keep votes excluding a keep comment by a newly registered user: 56.25%. Wikipedia:Deletion_guidelines_for_administrators#Rough_consensus is relevant but I note the relevant article, Consensus_decision-making#If consensus is not unanimous, who must agree?, states Rough Consensus is the process used by the IETF working group, where there is no specific rule for "how much is enough". Rather, the question of consensus is left to the judgment of the working group chair. While this makes it more difficult for a small number of disruptors to block a decision, it puts increased responsibility on the chair, and has frequently led to divisive debates about whether rough consensus has in fact been correctly identified. Wikipedia:Consensus states the numbers mentioned as being sufficient to reach supermajority vary from about 60% to over 80% depending upon the decision. Wikipedia:Supermajority - a rejected policy but perhaps the content is useful because it reflects past decisions, states consensus is two-thirds or larger majority support for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:AFD).
Any comment?--Golden Wattle talk 22:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No comment. See WP:DRV. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 08:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I too find the deletion to be premature & inappropriate. The call had been made to edit/modify it until it was clearer, but instead it was deleted without that effort. --Duemellon 13:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hehe... Special:Recentchanges rocks. I haven't looked into CAT:CSD for a day or two... because I'm thinking how to defeat those stupid spambots and stop them from polluting our wiki with nonsense/w/index.php pages. :-) Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 09:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I hearby request the noob be re-created in my userspace. Timmccloud 12:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Here you are – User:Timmccloud/The noob. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 14:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
RE: [3] May want to have a look at this article. http://www.halfpixel.com/2007/02/15/delete-wikipedia . There is a discussion started more webcomics stuff. :( --Hu12 14:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll look into it. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 14:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- thought you'd be interested since your mentioned in the article.--Hu12 14:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I made the decision by looking into the discussions and arguments, rather than counting fake WP:SPA account votes. The article did not pass the threshold of notability in any case. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 14:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ditto. I'm also putting a note on the Wikipedia:Deletion_review page. --zandperl 15:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Roger, roger. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 15:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"I think I made the decision by looking into the discussions and arguments" - You think? You're not even sure? And what arguments persuaded you, anyway? The arguments were designed to be flawed. Boxjam 16:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The arguments were designed to be flawed. The sockpuppets seem to have a better grasp of policies then you do. Only the Alexa ranking bit was wrongly put. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 16:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You cannot be serious. Have you even read the article linked? If so what is your opinion?(reply here not on my userpage). Please also note that the WCCA comments in the delete were also by sockpuppets --Energman 17:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The nomination having been admittedly in bad faith and the deletion debate infected beyond redemption by gross misconduct, the deletion nomination and result are void ab initio and I have reinstated the article per WP:IAR. This is not to be considered an overturning of your close result, but a determination that there was never a valid deletion nomination and debate in the first place. No criticism of you is intended, who closed properly based on the views that had been presented. This is all, of course, without prejudice to a nomination from a contributor in good standing. Newyorkbrad 02:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ever the diplomant, Brad. :) Would you not agree when I say that a lot of SPA trolling and socking is going around on AfDs? Each and everyone of them is organised, and this one got published on some blog. Should we even pay attention to them? I closed it within my reasoning, and if we are going to consider "votes" (as they all call it) that say keep on baseless grounds, it would be such a shame. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 10:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will stay away from the "Indian mathematics" article for the remaining period of the block. Best Regards, Freedom skies| talk 15:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Hillcrest Christian School. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review.. Meanwhile will you userfy to me, please? Bridgeplayer 16:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure. I have recreated the text here – User:Bridgeplayer/Hillcrest Christian School. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 16:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. Bridgeplayer 17:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for dealing with this situation; it was getting out of hand. Just dropping a note to let you know s/he is demanding an explanation. Usually I'd just keep moving if the person hasn't added {{unblock}}, but s/he has added a legal threat to the demand as well [4]. On a related note: great work on the 3RR violations. Some won't touch a malformed report; good to see some initiative. auburnpilot talk 17:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Content of Look What I Brought Home! has been simply blanked and replaced with a redirect, and not merged with Keenspot per your closing comments... would you mind finishing that if that's what you really think should be done? FYI on that...
As someone who commented but did not vote on that AFD, it is, upon examining the Keenspot article, not a good idea to set the precedent of sticking sections on every Keenspot comic worth talking about within the Keenspot article. Perhaps you should have just closed with a simple keep per the 7 rather than merge per the 2? Balancer 21:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Opinions of WP:SPA accounts are generally ignored. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 07:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, the 5 votes to keep rather than the 2 to merge, then, but the rest of those two questions still stands unanswered. Answer them. Please. Balancer 08:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- AfDs are not votes, they are discussions. It lies on the discretion of the administrator to make a suitable judgment in the interest of the encyclopedia. Administrators may be wrong, but there is the WP:DRV process for that. My reasoning: The participating users did say that they found the subject of the article to be notable, but they did not indicate it in anyway. Have a look at this version of the article – [5]. It explicitly lacks the reliable sources that would jutify it's inclusion. The keep arguments also explained that Keenspot presence is sufficient for notability, I considered the arguments and observed that there was no multiple, non-trivial and independent sources on the subject of the article. However, the article could be redirected to the Keenspot article and the content be merged by the interested editors by substantiating it with appropriate links (probably from the keenspot website). Did I make myself more clear? Best, — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 09:15, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I had no objection in principle (based on the AFD) of merging, but the above explanation should have been included in the original closure. What is now clear to me in particular is the reasoning behind your AFD closures in general; it is apparent that you do not believe in the consensus principle of Wikipedia, and will continue to undermine it at every turn if you remain an administrator. Balancer 09:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- An army of numbskulls does not imply consensus. Arguments should be within the scope of policies and guidelines and only then they are to be considered. Hope you understand. Best, — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 09:49, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If by "numbskull" you mean "experienced Wikipedia editor," or simply "anybody who disagrees with me on my interpretation of Wikipedia policy," then you will persistently violate Wikipedia:Deletion Policy. If you apply as a test It lies on the discretion of the administrator to make a suitable judgment in the interest of the encyclopedia to your decisions rather than At the end of the discussion, if a rough consensus for deletion has been reached, the page will be removed per Wikipedia:Deletion process; otherwise the page remains, then you will frequently violate (though, IMO, the decision to close as merge was not a violation of policy in this case; it was an appropriate closure even if the closure could have used a little more explanation in the AFD itself) the deletion policy of Wikipedia. Which I just quoted, and the incompatibility between your idea of policy ("I know what's best for Wikipedia and can freely ignore as many other editors as I like") and policy ("Wikipedia operates by consensus, i.e., agreement between editors.") is going to crop up in numerous closures you make in the future. This must change if Wikipedia is to have integrity as an online encyclopedia. Balancer 10:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please don't assume anything on my part. Administrators are administrators for a reason. I do not chose to ignore comments by any editor. I have to reject them when they do not conform with policies. That is how we derieve consensus. Wikipedia is not a Democracy. Do you think I was involved in the webcomics saga before closing the few AfDs? In no way did I impose my will on other users. I interpreted the reasoning and the logic given by what you call "voters" (i.e. participants) and weighed the arguments and then came to a conclusion. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 10:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not assuming anything on your part. I've asked for clarifications, and you have provided explanations of your reasoning, which in turn show that you are not following Wikipedia policy in your closures. This is, as I noted in The noob DRV, not about webcomics, but about consensus. It has come to my attention as a result of webcomics related AFDs, but I find that your disregard for consensus is not limited to webcomics related AFDs. Deletion policy is explicit as to the role of consensus in AFDs, and also explicit on the very few exceptions to a specific rough consensus of the editors on the AFD (copyvio, NPOV, and articles that cannot meet WP:V). Your role, per policy, is not to create a decision from scratch; your role is to interpret the consensus of the editors.
- I could attack your motivations if you really want, however, taking as a basis your recent votes in webcomic AFDs following the overturn in DRV of your closure of the Starslip Crisis AFD, but I'm not interested in picking a fight with you. You're starting to act tempermental and defensive about this; don't be. What I'm interested in is simple: Your current and future support for consensus on Wikipedia, including at a minimum compliance with Wikipedia's existing policies' support of consensus within process. Balancer 11:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have clarified my stand, please stop making personal remarks. Another time, we will let users like yourself to close AfDs by counting votes and let consensus reign. I am sorry to say, but your actions depict that you are not much knowledgeable with respect to the notability guidelines. Please leave my talk page, I do not wish to continue conversation with you and end up following your circular arguments. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 11:21, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An editor has asked for a deletion review of The noob. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Balancer 21:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Where did you find no consensus in the Latino Muslims thread? It was 7-6 in favor of deletion, per the rules the thread needs to go.--- Skyhawk 22:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- AfDs are not votes. Latino Muslims page probably needs to be moved to a moar appropriate title. It needs work and sources, but it is a perfectly encyclopedic subject. Give it some time to develop, sources would be available over the internet. Try using relevant keywords. Best, — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 10:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Graduation (The Suite Life of Zack and Cody episode) as delete, can you delete the other 2 eps that were listed with it? --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 22:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 09:49, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanx :) --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 15:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An editor has asked for a deletion review of List of people who became famous only in death. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review.
I have raised the issue also at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Consensus standards for deletion--Golden Wattle talk 22:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- An editor has asked for a deletion review of Blood Red Sandman. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Blood Red Sandman Open Up Your Heart - Receive My EviLove 07:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An editor has asked for a deletion review of 30LL. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Kartrab 01:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't mind, I'd like to add Category:Golden State Warriors players to Šarūnas Jasikevičius, or you can do it yourself. I seriously doubt that adding the category for a player's current team could be controversial, but I do want to run it by you. :) — Dale Arnett 16:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have unprotected the page, you should have approached an administrator to do so earlier. You can add the category yourself. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 06:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
G'day. I noted you blocked User:Luxor99 (good job), with the comment "possible roiter vandal". What exactly is a roiter vandal? I can't find the term on WP, nor in my (albeit cursory) Google search, and I'm over 40 and an art student so my leet-speak (if that's what it is) is way below zero.
2nd - Should there not be a block tag on his talk page? I was about to reply to him that he wasn't blocked -- I had left a sweetly-worded warning) -- but on a hunch I checked block logs. Since the templates are "Admin Only", could I trouble you to add one on his page? Tks.
3rd - Do you have a shorter nickusername one can employ when addressing you, like "Sir Nick", "Heady", "SNiMP", or do I keep Ctrl-C'ing the page title and Ctrl-V'ing it here, Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington? :)
- Greetings. Roiter vandals are those who leave subtle vandalism on Wikipedia articlespace which is hard to detect. I am not still sure if I am spelling it correctly (Reuter vandal doesn't exist :P).
Please do not confuse this page with Wikipedia:Dispute resolution
Hi Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington,
I hope everything is going well with you. I was wondering if you can help with the Islam and slavery article. As you can see User:Arrow740 is removing a lot of sourced material without discussing them and reaching consensus on the talk page. [6]. Just to point to one among many examples is removal of the quote from Seyyed Hossein Nasr. The user is further edit-warring rather than discussing the points one by one as it is expected from the one who initiates such a removal. IF you are not busy, I would be greatly appreciate if you could help us there. Thanks --Aminz 08:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know anything about the subject. If it escalates into an edit-war, please let me know. But please, don't revert more than once in a day. And you can call me Nick. Regards, — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 08:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmmm. Thanks anyways Nick! Cheers, --Aminz 08:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Aminz is being deceptive. Many of the issues have been discussed at length there and at other articles prior to today and yesterday. Moreover, another user began the removal, and was quite clear in his edit summaries. I largely put his edits back after Aminz's many reverts. In fact I have explained on the talk (for the second and third time in many cases) why I removed what I did. Arrow740 08:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- See Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and assume good faith with everyone. Best, — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 08:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, another user began. It is user KittyHawker and Arrow supported him. Please see User:KittyHawker's contribution[7]. He usually starts editing an article for the first time and removes lots of stuff. Another example when this user edited Jihad article:[8]. Here is when he touches Criticism of the Qur'an for the first time [9]. Please note the mass removal of sourced material. The reaons he provides are vague, sometimes strange, edit summaries. --Aminz 09:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I would ask that you look again at the most recent WP:3RR violation by User:BabyDweezil. It is a separate instance, in an unrelated article, that does not involve WP:BLP. Smee 09:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Nevermind. Thanks for your time. Smee 09:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
-
- No worries. Smee 09:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Nothing much... Busy with RL these days so editing is greatly reduced... — Lost(talk) 10:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why have you protected the deleted page so that no-one can find where the essay is now? Worldtraveller 11:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I did not delete it. But I did protect it to prevent recreation. That seems to have consenus on WP:AN. Best, — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 11:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure I see consensus there at all. Several people are arguing for it to be kept. Worldtraveller 11:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no consensus. (MichaelJLowe 13:26, 17 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]
I have initiated a Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Nearly Headless Nick disregarding consensus and consensus-related policies, a matter in which I believe you to have been involved in the case history of. Your commentary may be appreciated. Balancer 13:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for notifying me. But it does not interest me at the moment. Thank you. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 17:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]