Near native english ? Thanks but I don't think so: every time I turn on a US channel on my TV I get the same impression as when I see a Thai movie with spanish subtitles. TwoHorned22:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
When I try to nominate this page for deletion using the MFD tag { {subst:md1}} the MFD box created then points to the earlier miscelleanous for deletion discussion page. Thus I am not able to complete a second nomination for deletion as I would then be overwritting the earlier discussion page. I looks like the MFD process may not have been designed to accomodate a second nomination for deletion. Any ideas?--CltFn00:38, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Andy! I just wanted to drop you a line, as I hope I didn't offend you in my rather firm opposition of Michael Billington's current RfA. It wasn't my intention to insinuate that everyone who has visited that channel has engaged in shady activities. In fact, I certainly agree with you that the channel seemed to be a joke at first and a lot of the people in the channel treated it as such. However, it certainly evolved into something more serious at a point, and I feel quite strongly that integrities have been compromised. Having said that, you have my complete trust, respect, and confidence. I know that you would never engage in that sort of silliness; you're a great asset to the project and again, I hope my comments weren't viewed contradictory to that. Cheers mate! hoopydinkConas tá tú?13:01, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Go away, I hate you! No, ofcourse not. I was never offended; but the thing is that you might have just opined in such a way that might trigger a knee-jerk oppose voting for the user. — Nearly Headless Nick{L}16:09, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, thanks for your advice about the (perhaps) early test4 warning, but it appears that a couple of admins have agreed with my actions and the vandal in question has been banned until Feb. Just thought you'd like to know. Cheers! Budgiekiller18:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Re: my english level
I thank you for that. I really appreciate it. You treat me much better than did a whole sleeping amphitheatre of students in an english university recently... Well , it was in North England anyway: 20 year old young people brainwashed by Morphine-Coke (a local drink) and speaking like Harry Potter. Gothic has its word of english there...TwoHorned19:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you...
...for the kind words and support on my AfD. If you ever need any help or just a person to review an article from a fresh perspective, let me know. Also, inform me when your Indian cuisine wikiproject gets started, as I will be more than happy to help out (although I might end up eating everything, as I could eat my weight in curries daily. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 15:17, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've stopped editing for the forseeable future... just can't get myself into the vibe, and I'm afraid of making bad edits. I still prowl occasionally but I've stopped significantly editing. Thanks for caring though, it lightens the darkness that is life without Wikipedia! :P Cheers! Master of PuppetsThe Walrus!06:43, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why was this edit to the GNU General Public License article considered "unconstructive" and "vandalism"? It simply adds some references to the "Criticism" section with valid cites! Maybe the heading "The GPL as a restrictive license" ? 83.37.6.160
Why do you feel the Locksport article was justified for deletion? The term has been used by more that one major news outlet, and the article had a quite large support base Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Locksport. None of the terms for deletion seem to fit the reasonings applied to the article, it saddens me that the article was deleted because people failed to realize that the term isn't exclusively used by people in the hobby but also by major news outlets(ABC and the Wall Street Journal). I am wondering why you felt it deserved deletion, most other articles with that amount of support and evidence would not have been deleted.What_aka_Kevin21:43, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Pingus. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, your reasons on how or why you did so will be greatly appreciated in the above review. --Stevefarrell18:06, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your statement was placed on the talk page as you weren't in the list of involved parties. You can add yourself to the list and move your statement back if you wish. Thatcher13112:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On trolls and respecting your fellow encyclopedia-writing comrades
Oh, rubbish. I'm in no way whatsoever supporting trolling in any way, shape, or form. I simply feel that you shouldn't behave as they do by attacking them on large or small levels. I completely empathise with the anger that you feel towards them, but feel that there are more appropriate venues than treating anybody, troll or dedicated contributor, poorly or incivily. Anyhow, I too will drop this, not having really wanted to take it this far anyway, but don't drop this complete nonsense about me "patronising trolls". Honestly, treat your fellow contributors with more respect. Hmph. Snoutwood(talk)00:09, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I dont know how the image rules work so I need someone to find me an image of Sukhbir (musician) kind of quick for WP:DYK article I wrote. If this helps, here is the google search. Sukhbir (the musician) usually wears dark glasses at concerts and what not. I figured I'd ask a couple of the Indian users who listen to Sukhbir.BakamanBakatalk02:24, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I want to delete an article, The Raising of Lazarus - Messina (Caravaggio). It's a double - there's already an article called The Raising of Lazarus (Caravaggio), which is about the same painting. I've copied and pasted the text from the first to the second (will tidy up later), but would like to complete the clean-up by getting rid of one of the two. But I don't know how. Can you help?
As for why I'm chosing to bother you, rather than some other hapless Wikipedidian, I just like your nick, Sir Nick).
Hi Nick, once again thanks much for your unexpected nomination... Gonna take me a while to start acting bold like you though... -- Lost(talk)09:35, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
बेटा हसना बंद करो और पढाई शुरू करो नही तो फ़िर फ़ेल हो जाओगे... Gaaaah, no more hindi please. its taking me an hour to write a sentence! -- Lost(talk)10:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Barrington Hall
Hi,
Thank you for not deleting content from Wikipedia. Thanks also for remembering that "Wikipedia is not a Bureaucracy"--that means if there is a disagreement, you should discuss on talkpage, not assume or insist that your interpretation of WP:EL doesn't need to be discussed with the editors of an article. While one obvious solution is to send Mahlen an email asking him to post that when he uploaded the film onto the internet for free more than 10 years ago, he meant for it to be free/freely used by everyone (and yes we know him, and no that film is not under copyright), there's nothing wrong with formatting uncopywritten content in youtube for easier access than a cache provides.
Cindery10:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The link is staying. I sent Mahlen an email asking him to state the obvious, and you can wait. "We" do know who the artist is, and that there is no copyright. Mahlen, for your information, is an old school "information wants to be free" guy. You don't know what you're doing, and you're degrading the quality of the article by making assumptions; deleting without discussion. This is a very clear case of "Wikipedia is not a bureacracy."
Cindery10:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I did not make a controversial edit and I regard your comment as libel and intimidation. You appear to be attempting to mislead anyone else who might see my talk page. Please make a full retraction and apology for the baseless slur. Your own edit on the other hand can only have been politically motivated or vandalism. Which was it? 82.18.125.11012:01, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't see how you can think you are in a position to tell people to assume good faith as you absolutely did not do so yourself. You immediately accused me of vandalism. 82.18.125.11012:21, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No sir. I never called it outright vandalism. The claims you have made on this page seem controversial to me, and for that I requested you to discuss them on the talk page of the article. — Nearly Headless Nick{L}12:23, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Again you are trying to imply that I made multiple changes. All I did was change "European-dominated" to "Apartheid". It is indisputably accurate and it actually looks worse for Smith. I don't think you have a leg to stand on in your allegations that I have acted improperly on any article. You have caused me much distress for no reason at all. 82.18.125.11012:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My twopenn'orth is that it is probably better to say Apartheid in terms of South Africa, but in Rhodesia one should prefer the term 'European' and 'African'. This doesn't imply that the governments were directed by Europe, merely that they were composed of people who were descended from European settlers. This was the accepted term used at the time. Rhodesia did not have an Apartheid system; it was at times suggested, but ruled out as impractical. Fys. “Tafysaym”. 12:37, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just came across User talk:82.18.125.110 where it appears as though several users, who should know better, have been harassing an editor whose only interest is improving Wikipedia. Am I missing something? The last few edits I have seen by this editor have been productive and uncontroversial. I see on the talkpage what looks like a false accusation of failing to assume good faith, made by you, User:Glen S threatening to block this user for vandalism that never takes place, and general harassment. If I am mistaken then I apologize. I doubt that I am. KazakhPol20:46, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted someone to review a block, but I'm all set up, thanks. (You have some knowledge of the user: the blockery is here, if you want a read.) Bishonen | talk 07:57, 13 November 2006 (UTC). P.S. And now I've e-mailed you as well. Bishonen | talk08:12, 13 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Signature
I see you've been involved recently in user signature issues. I came across a particularly distracting one recent, belonging to User:Tom mayfair. It has three images, one of them animated. I've posted polite requests that he change it, as has another user. Perhaps more feedback would be persuasive. -Will Beback21:24, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProject India Newsletter: Volume 1, Issue 2 - November 2006
Project News
The Performing Community: Thanks to many contributors like you, we're proud to share that our community is the third most performing community. It has more than 50 FAs related to India, to its credit, lagging only behing Wikiproject Biography and WikiProject Military History.
The Wikipedia 1.0 Assessment statistics for India related articles show there are 51 Featured Articles, 5 Class-A articles, 16 Good Articles, 101 Class-B articles, 167 Start-Class articles and more than 4000 Stubs. There were more than 10000 unassessed articles related to India.
Welcome. It has been weeks and months since the idea of newsletter was mooted among the WikiProject India Community. This would be our first full-fledged edition of our Newsletter, and we'd like to start by saying we are very happy to have you among us.
This is your newsletter, and we want you to be part of it as well. Provide us with news tips here. It can be anything related to the project, from discussions to calls for help, and other interesting stuff within our community. If you have received or given any barnstars recently, do let us know.
Advertisements for recruitments within your WikiProject sub-groups are also welcome. We'll run special sections, and recurring columns in the coming issues.
This edition special
Cartography Department (Shortcut:WP:INMAP): The Department of Cartography within the WikiProject India is a group of wikipedians who work on providing quality maps related to India. Their contributions gain more significance as we try to provide more information on places, districts and states of India. As a thumb rule, maps serve better if they are in SVG format. The location maps by the cartography department has helped us include location information based on latitudes and longitudes for a give place within India. The Indian Roadways map is a featured image, one amongst the few best road maps in the world. Still, there is more work to be done. There are 604 districts in India (see List of districts of India), and each district page needs a map of that district. You can help too. Contact the Cartography Department to learn how you can help in making the best maps in Wikipedia to be India-related!
Although having the newsletter appear on everyone's userpage is desired, this may not be ideal for everyone. If, in the future, you wish to receive a link to the newsletter, rather than the newsletter itself, you may mention it at WikiProject India Outreach Department.
I saw you not only took out links at DTV, but took out information along with the links. I fixed the mess you made. Judging from the discussions here, this isn't the first time you've done this, so in light of that, please, next time do it right or don't bother. -- taegdv
I'd like to express my huge thanks to you, NHN, for your support in my recent RfA, which closed with 100% support at 71/0/1. Needless to say, I am very suprised at the huge levels of support I've seen on my RfA, and at the fact that I only had give three answers, unlike many other nominees who have had many, many more questions! I'll be careful with my use of the tools, and invite you to tell me off if I do something wrong! Thanks, Martinp2314:26, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies if you felt offended (or annoyed!) with my thankyou message - I'm sure you know that it was not my intention, and if you wish, feel free to remove it. Martinp2315:04, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
lol
[23:36] <Jungleking> americunts are dumb.
[23:36] <@Sheneequa> then get off the internet
[23:36] <Jungleking> gotta go
[23:36] * Jungleking (and@DFA277B3.43878B1F.C8702E2D.IP) Quit ( Quit: )
Please re-read the policy, and in good faith please consider what you've said in IRC. The way you see 3RR is detrimental to Wikipedia, and we cannot have that in admins. You are advocating more than three reverts to a page as long as it's not to the same version, when it's clear that four reverts with the same intent is a 3RR vio. As pointed out on WP:3RR, "The policy states that an editor must not perform more than three reversions, in whole or in part, on a single Wikipedia page within a 24 hour period." In good faith, please reconsider your stand. We cannot afford to have admins allowing 3RR violations. – Chacor11:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care for your opinion; you're obviously not suited to be an admin. I'd suggest you please re-familiarise yourself with the policy before making blanket accusations, tyvm. – Chacor12:08, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello William. I read the report on the WP:AN/3RR page and saw that you blocked this user for 24 hours for WP:3RR on the Michael Shields page. From the look of it, the user in question made three edits and reverted to his version three times and not four which is a prerequisite warranting a block. I understand that WP:3RR does not give any user authority to take the system for a ride and blocks are warranted when they have been repeatedly disruptive, but this user was new and it would be preposterous to assume that he was aware of the policies and guidelines on Wikipedia. Prima facie it appears that User:Chacor did not care to discuss the issues properly, but only left edit summaries such as rv, stop reverting to POV version and failed to explain why he thinks that this revert is POV. I, in good faith believe that you should have warned the user against a 3RR breach instead of blocking him, and asked Chacor to discuss the matter with him. In my opinion this constitutes newbie biting. Take care. — Nearly Headless Nick{L}10:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'd endorse the block in such a case, but to speak for the defendant – reversion essentially means reverting to the same version, and three revert rule generally applies to reversion of the article to the same version more than three times. Here, this edit is slightly different from theotherthree edits. Now, I wouldn't really stand up for this, but if you carefully look at the history of the page, Chacor conveniently goaded the other user to revert him by "edit-warring" and this user probably did not know anything about WP:3RR. He did not care to warn him on his talk page whatsoever, I see this as nothing but disruption and gaming the system. He went to the discussion page and then tells the user that he has breached 3RR and then posts the breach on the WP:AN/3RR page. That is the reason, I thought this block was ridiculous. It is disparaging how established users like Chacor resort to such tactics. Best regards, — Nearly Headless Nick{L}05:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:Yanagupta.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:
Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject or by taking a picture of it yourself.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --Chowbok☠03:10, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding your most recent post to my ArbComm, if you are expressing doubt as to the genuine nature of my references to the RSS criticism section then understand that I cited it per the rules of WP:CITE and I do so again below:
Smith, David James, Hinduism and Modernity P188, Blackwell Publishing ISBN:0-631-20862-3
This is the most grotesque example yet of a YouTube removal I've found. You removed a link for a video that was shot specifically for YouTube and was announced as such at the head of the video in front of the interviewees. Permission was granted by the interviewees for the interview to appear on YouTube, and yet you removed the link. As I have indicated on the discussion page, this policy on YouTube is ridiculous, and allows editors such as yourself to run amok. Tvccs01:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Flattery will get you nowhere. As it was evident from my edit summary, that I was using AWB to remove external links that failed to qualify under WP:EL; you were free to revert me, in case you felt it was not justified, backed up by a suitable rationale. I am — Nearly Headless Nick{L} and I endorse your reversion. Best wishes. 07:47, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Nick, hope you're doing well! I removed the EA link because... it just seemed wrong to be doing RCP with a link like that in my signature. It didn't seem to be what EA is all about, you know? Do you think it was wrong? riana_dzasta10:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Helkar and I are having a mostly friendly (I can hardly believe it!), relatively minor disagreement about the the Wikipedia verifiability policy. I'm probably in the wrong here, but I was hoping you could weigh in. For the first time there seems to be real hope of moving this article forward, and I don't want to break the momentum Indian Buddhist Revival.
Thanks in advance!
NinaEliza07:03, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry - the title of the article changed, and maybe it's not redirected. This might work Indian Buddhist Movement. I'm sorry, but I can't figure out how to link to the talk page - I'm not very good with links yet, so what I meant was go to the talk page - or maybe that's obvious.
However, it looks like things got worked out - at least I think so. I'm not absolutely sure to be honest with you. I'd appreciated it if you still had a look. Thanks!NinaEliza07:17, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I will have a look, but responding might take some time. Please bear with me; and you don't have to be sorry. Perhaps you could use the preview button to take a look at what you're typing before pressing the save button? Cheers. — Nearly Headless Nick{L}07:31, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Were you still planning on getting back to me? Perhaps you're very busy. Could you recommend another admin I could contact? Thanks in advance! NinaEliza10:59, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
