User talk:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington/Archive/Archive09

Messages

This is an archive of old discussions. Please do not modify this page.

List_of_big-bust_models_and_performers on deletion review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of List_of_big-bust_models_and_performers. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Charlam 00 18:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I disagreed with your deletion of article List_of_big-bust_models_and_performers for the following reasons: Consensus appeared in favor of Keep Article is contains verifiable data Consistently in the top 50 viewed pages on Wikipedia [Link removed]

CSD

Please take a look at this. Regards, - Aksi_great (talk) 19:04, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BITE

This is strange. The {{recreated}} template must have changed since I started using it, because last time I remember checking it, it simply stated "Your re-created article was deleted per WP policy, do not re-create it, use WP:DRV." The "you might be blocked without warning" bit was added since then. I guess I'll use test2article, although it doesn't specifically address the re-creation issue, but can you tell me why the recreated template was made so much harsher? Danny Lilithborne 20:19, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strange page

Thanks for letting me know about it, Nick. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Restore talk page please?

Hi, you recently deleted: Talk:List of proven conspiracies because of an AfD, could you please restore the talk page? thank you. have a merry christmas. Best wishes, Travb (talk) 02:59, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where do you want me to restore it? — Nearly Headless Nick 08:43, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of your concerns - let's talk here

Hi, I appreciate the discretion you used when you posted the first admin noticeboard discussion on my talk page. I just wanted to get a summary from you on your concerns. I would appreciate it if you could post them here as I would prefer to get your independent thoughts without the others chiming in. Thanks. Alan.ca 04:23, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alan. I know you have been acting in good-faith; but others don't think so. I saw that some of the articles you prod'ed were clearly notable; or atleast deserved an AfD. You have been propounding the beauty of {{prod}} and saying that if the articles are notable then someone will remove the tags, and when Chacor and Tixotd decide to remove some of the tags from the page, you accuse them of contrib crawling. Please see that you tag the articles properly, otherwise it will only cause misunderstandings between users. You can take help from Aaron, who, in my opinion, is an exemplary administrator. Cheers! — Nearly Headless Nick 08:43, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for recognizing my good-faith intentions. I think I'm going to have some WT:V discussion with other editors as it seems that the policy may not represent consensus. It seems that things change here as far as policy and maybe someone taking a fresh look at a newer version of a policy reaches a different conclusion than someone who has been around through the evolution of it. Aaron's advice was prophetic and I hope to grow from the experience. I hope we can meet up again under better circumstances. Alan.ca 10:03, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. That would be a more appreciable way. Hope to hear soon from you! — Nearly Headless Nick 10:04, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion please

Nick, would it be possible for you to review the article Hamilton, Ontario and make some suggestions from a quality perspective. I have near 60 edits into the article and could use an outside perspective. Alan.ca 10:05, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a look in sometime. But as you can see from above, I have been keeping rather busy. Cheers! — Nearly Headless Nick 10:09, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good, just post the review on my talk page so I don't have to keep watching yours. Thanks. Alan.ca 10:17, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll post it on the talk page of the article. However, there are d00ds who are much better at writing articles than me – User:Nichalp, User:Pepsidrinka, User:Rama's Arrow, User:Idleguy – you could ask them to chip in too, just don't tell them I sent you ;) — Nearly Headless Nick 10:19, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the life of me...

I cannot understand your deleting a link from the Derek Sherinian page for a YouTube video interview link. The intereview in question was SHOT for YouTube and identified as such at the head of the interview in front of all of the participants. Yet you deleted the link because of a COPYRIGHT question? We already went through this once, and you have repeated the same mistake. Furthermore, as even Jimmy Wales has publicly stated, the DMCA is the means to resolve YouTube type questions, not Wikipedia as an arbiter. And this is NOT even one of those issues, and it couldn't be more clear. The other link you deleted is covered under the DMCA, and the language you refer to I cannot find on WP:EL, although it may have been there at one point. Mr. Sherinian is very familiar his Wikipedia page, as is indicated on the Talk page, and has approved all of the outside links included. Reverted again. Tvccs 01:59, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to remove content from pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Argyriou (talk) 02:19, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my talkpage, beginning with "Nearly Headless Nick," and feel free to join in the user conduct RFC/Arbcom case which will be filed against him to desysop him and prevent him from engaging in the long course of unacceptable conduct regarding this issue. Cindery 09:36, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

YouTube links are not reliable. Please see WP:RS. — Nearly Headless Nick 12:45, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stephanie Pui-Mun Law

Hi - could you explain why this article was deleted please? Was there some confusion with the irrelevant Tuba article talk, or is this a precursor to eliminating all artists in the fantasy field from Wikipedia? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Inkgod (talk • contribs).

The article did not fulfill the requirements of WP:BIO. A person, in general, has to be notable to a certain extent to have an article on Wikipedia. The guideline provides the prerequisites. Regards, — Nearly Headless Nick 12:35, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you see the edit I made to the article the day before you deleted it? It fulfilled two of the requirements of the WP:BIO and I included many verifiable references to point out that fact; they proved not only is she notable but a.) she's one of the most prolific and desired watercolorists in contemporary fantasy art, and b.) she's just as or more notable than most similar articles (on contemporary fantasy artists) that remain on Wikipedia. Would you please review that edit I made and reconsider your decision? Inkgod 00:51, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a pixie

I am an IRC fairy, not an IRC pixie. There's a huge difference, and I don't appreciate you changing it on my userpage, especially not without talking to me. Please don't do this again. Kelly Martin (talk) 15:11, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch. — Nearly Headless Nick 11:25, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Userpage Subpage

You may be interested in User:Argyriou/SirNicholas in case you have not seen it before. -- tariqabjotu 06:42, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! — Nearly Headless Nick 11:31, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Meh.

Boo. Hiss. Can you honestly say there was consensus for a delete and re-direct here? -- weirdoactor ^t^|^c 14:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I was simply too WP:ROUGE. Take it to WP:DRV, if you have problems. Cheers! — Nearly Headless Nick 15:09, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly shall; soon after the "holiday". Shame about your head; you don't know what you're missing. Ta! -- weirdoactor ^t^|^c 17:21, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here you are, oh noggin free warrior for truth, and all that rot -

W00t on deletion review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of W00t. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. -- weirdoactor ^t^|^c 01:47, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. You're funny. :D — Nearly Headless Nick 07:48, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your block of User:Malber

Hi, Sir Nicholas. Since I was one of the people who disagreed with your block of User:Malber, I also wanted you to know that I don't agree either with some of the more vociferous criticism that followed the block. The policy against an admin's blocking someone whom he or she is personally in a dispute with (whether it's a content dispute or, as here, more of a policy dispute) is a good one. The other problem I had with it was that you went pretty quickly from what seemed like partly joking around ("/me desyops myself ... /me desysops badlydrawnjeff") straight to a pretty long block, which I think surprised a lot of people, and 48 hours was a longish block just for disrupting a noticeboard. But at the same time I definitely hope this user will take into account some of the comments that have been made about his questioning style. We shall see what happens; hoping for the best. Regards, Newyorkbrad 17:15, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We can only *hope* for the best. As it is quite evident, Malber has not yet quit his disruptive editing – [1], nor has he waited for consensus – [2], [3], [4]. Such long history of systematic disruption is not to be dealt in the way it is currently dealt in. — Nearly Headless Nick 17:22, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are quite unclear on what constitutes "disruption" (hint: diagreeing with you is NOT it) and this makes your apology regarding the block, your "plea" to the community to forgive to appear rather, er, insincere and contrived... Cindery 09:41, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tell you what, I'll drop the whole matter and just get back to editing if you'd drop your pompousness and sanctimony just apologize for the inappropriate and out-of-process block. Here's your chance to be civil. —Malber (talk • contribs) 17:10, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your block of User:Kuntan

... stated: "Inappropriate username" and "Your username is an offensive slang in Malayalam".

You offered no citation to support this claim.

In fact, Kuntan is the name of a town in Malaysia (here's a citation).

As to "sockpuppet" allegations based on checkuser results: are you aware how few IPs there are in many third-world regions, and how much IP-sharing occurs as a result? – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 18:08, 24 Dec 2006 (UTC).

Dave Gilbert (game designer) on deletion review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Dave Gilbert (game designer). Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Andre (talk) 22:34, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism warning

Hi Nick. You posted a final warning about vandalism on my page. I'm mystified by this - I'm a completely responsible contributor, and have never fooled around with article content; nor will I ever do so. Comments / explanation welcome. Regards, Notreallydavid 06:28, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't Nick. It was User:Xmaspresent, who has been blocked. Check the history on your talk page. Argyriou (talk) 06:34, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Arg - pardon my newbie ignorance. MC & HNY, Notreallydavid 06:39, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another Vandalism warning

You also posted a final warning about vandalism on my page and I don't know what it's about. Is this a mistake? It must be, but it's a little disconcerting. Do you have any idea what this is about? I can't help but be curious. Thanks for responding.---Storyliner 06:40, 25 December 2006 (UTC) Hey, and Merry Christmas.---Storyliner 06:42, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Same issue as above. Faked. – Ch acor 06:49, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nick My talk has been vandled

Can you take a look at my talk page please?? And this link as well http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Santa06 I believe him to be the culprit you can reply on my talk page so I se it or just dump it off my talk page or mark it as fake either way it will work for me thanks - Katie 05:51, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Same issue as above. – Ch acor 06:50, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

George Nozuka AFD

Ignoring that the article topic passed the criteria of WP:MUSIC, I don't believe that 4:3 qualifies as consensus. I think the delete should be reconsidered. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 06:45, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh well, I tried. Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 20:02, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

George Nozuka on deletion review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of George Nozuka. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by KeithTyler (talk • contribs).

Acknowledged. --Nearly Headless Nick 12:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've got Your warning

I've got Your warning about vandalizm. What's matter? --Arachn0 07:10, 25 December 2006 (UTC)--Arachn0 06:12, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Same issue as above. – Ch acor 07:12, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently some vandal has been imposting Sir Nicholas with sockpuppets and posting {{test4}}s with his signature. They are being dealt with as far as I know. - Mailer Diablo 08:55, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Turned out to be dear ol' Kuntan. ^_^ — Nearly Headless Nick 08:56, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I got one, too. He seems to have hit 14 editors so far, from his "contribs" log here. Another editor has already reverted the warning on my page. Thanks for the quick work. Casey Abell 09:40, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

His IP range has been blocked for a week. — Nearly Headless Nick 09:46, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should be obvious, he signed "Nearly Headless Dick", not "Nick"... – Ch acor 10:16, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Andyevit, created in the honour of two brave warriors of the wiki – Dmcdevit and yours truly. — Nearly Headless Nick 10:28, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agathoclea's RfA

Hello, and thank you for the support on my recent RfA. The final tally was 63/3/2, and I have now been entrusted with the mop. I hope I can live up to your trust, and certainly welcome any and all feedback. All the best, and thanks again! — Agathoclea 13:22, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

W00t on deletion review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of W00t. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by GRBerry (talk • contribs).

Thank you for the notification. — Nearly Headless Nick 07:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My Request for Adminship

Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington/Archive/Archive09

Thanks for your support on my successful Request for Adminship (final result 78 Support /0 Oppose / 1 Neutral) I have now been entrusted with the mop, bucket and keys. I will be slowly acclimating myself to my new tools over the next months. I am humbled by your kind support and would certainly welcome any feedback on my actions. Please do not hesitate to contact me. Once again, many thanks and happy new year! All the best, Asterion^talk 13:29, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, but my name is not {{PAGENAME}}. :) --Nearly Headless Nick 13:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Confused

Hi. Thank you for your comments on my RfA. I was a bit confused by one of your comments. You state that "Also WP:BIO candidates are not speedy candidates." I'm not sure what you mean. Perhaps I misunderstand the A7 category. I would appreciate any clarification. Thanks --BostonMA ^talk 15:55, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um, it meant that AfD candidates are not speedy candidates. Regards, — Nearly Headless Nick 10:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

I prefer to keep my welcome messages as non-subst templates so that I can see a list at Special:Whatlinkshere/User:Andrevan/welcome of all the users I've welcomed. Andre (talk) 19:18, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hinduism in India POV

Hi! According to me, this edit (specially Crypto-Christians) doesn't adhere to WP:NPOV. The editor had added similar stuff to Christianity in India, but was reverted. The data presented in the tables do not match with the official India census records. We can't even access data from the World Christian Encyclopedia (2001) by David B. Barrett, et al. as its not in public domain. Can you suggest stance in these controversial topics? --Victor 20:39, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully suggest dispute resolution. --Nearly Headless Nick 12:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll give it a try. --Victor 18:44, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My Talk Page

Hello. In the future, please don't remove other people's comments from my talk page -- i'll take care of it. However, it seems as though you had good intentions, and I thank you for your concern. Just H 22:31, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IIPM Article

Hi Sir Nick, You'd responded to a messae I'd left on User:Ganeshk talk page, regarding the IIPM article. I am quoting below:

IIPM Controversy Ganesh ji The IIPM Controversy section is clearly not in line with Wikipedia:Verfiability and Wikipedia: NPOV. Please can you suggest to me how we can improve this>? Iipmstudent9 05:33, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we need to talk on Gmail. — Nearly Headless Nick 08:42, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Do let me know what you'd like to talk about. I dont have an anonymous mail account, yet.:)

Best --Iipmstudent9 05:08, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That message was meant for Ganesh. I am sorry I had to put it in your thread. :) — Nearly Headless Nick 10:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your congrats

Hi Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington :-) Thanks for your congrats! --FloNight 11:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is an RfC about you

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington. I happened to come across it, surprised that no one informed you of its existence as of yet. -- Samir धर्म 11:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

धर्म ki baat hai. --Nearly Headless Nick 12:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you

		The Original Barnstar
		For being a helpful administrator, offering his services to those who need them, I award you the Original Barnstar. ST47Talk 15:07, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pseudo-AFD question for RfA

You have a pseudo AFD at User:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington/Desk/AfD, that you used for posing a question in BostonMA's RfA. Another user there commented [5] that this AFD page triggered a content filter on his computer. If you intend to repeat use of the question, could you create/find some similar AFD that wouldn't trigger a content filter? There ought to be one around that is equally challenging, but doesn't trigger content filters. GRBerry 15:59, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll keep that in mind for the future. --Nearly Headless Nick 09:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Dmcdevit

Er I think you misread my meaning and also what side in this dispute I'm on. :-) --Spartaz 16:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC) Just to be clear this is your edit that I'm referring to[reply]

One revert is not equal to "edit-warring". Edit-warriors get blocked. Dmcdevit, certainly did not edit-war over the page. Your frequent assumptions of bad faith are waaay out of line. --Nearly Headless Nick 15:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Um, I'm getting stick for referring to some of those bringing the RFC as being vindictive, showing poor judgement amnd just being plain nasty. Are you sure you have the right editor? --Spartaz 16:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That message was not directed at you. --Nearly Headless Nick 09:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stupid question

I can't believe you would have created an AfD in your userspace, and then asked a prospective RfA candidate to close it properly. I admit, I'm in a quandary, trying to decide who to be more disgusted with, you for having done so, on both counts, or him for having spouted such a lot of mealymouthism in order to not inadvertently piss off anyone reading it. This, as you know, is completely inappropriate, as it deliberately bypasses WP:AFD, aka, "the proper channels". Almost worse, is your asking someone whose WikiLife, as it were, hangs in the balance, to go and "catastrophically" edit your own WikiSpace. Far worse than that, of course, is the pandering response your request elicited, but still... What on earth were you thinking?! Op'n eck fæ Påstals, Tom e r ^talk 07:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The word "stupid" is veeery subjective. In case you apply the appropriate policies and guidelines over the issue; you'll arrive at an answer which is above the so-called "consensus" thing. Feel free to remove this ridiculous thread from my talk page, in case you are more disgusted. Chao. --Nearly Headless Nick 09:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Working on "completely headless"? Tom e r ^talk 09:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Go away. --Nearly Headless Nick 09:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Going back to work...at the post office... Tom e r ^talk 09:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

South Asian Games

What's the logic behind your latest revert?Shashankgupta 12:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You need to leave edit-summaries, dear; and/or discuss on the talk page of the article before removing large contents of an article. Cheers! — Nearly Headless Nick 12:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your consideration

Thank you for the consideration you gave to my RfA. To be chosen as an administrator requires a high level of confidence by a broad section of the community. Although I received a great deal of support, at this time I do not hold the level of confidence required, and the RfA did not pass. You were one of the oppose votes, and raised concerns. I am more than willing to discuss those concerns with you if you are interested. Please let me know. Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 03:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, it appears to be the custom for individuals to send out thank-you's after an RfA, whether it succeeds or not. I am nearly through. Do you have an objection to me completing the list. Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 12:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re : Don't Cry for Me Esperanza

Thanks for the compliment! :) - Mailer Diablo 18:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spammer

Just being bold. I know the procedure wasn't perfect, but IMHO these accounts are clearly only there for spamming. I seriosuly doubt this is someone who could be coaxed into making useful edits, so I didn't see the point of wasting more dev-t playing the cat and mouse game with him, waiting for him to spam before putting another warning, then waiting a bit more etc... Feel free to unblock if you think this is biting. Cheers. yandman 10:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst I'm here

Whilst I'm here, could you have a look at Liveandyetdie4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? This editor seems to have decided that all content she adds must bear her signature. All the filenames bear her name, and then she started inserting captions saying "photo by Alina Rucai", and now she's watermarking the bloody things! I've tried to contact her, but there have been no replies. The fact that she re-uploaded images, adding the watermark, makes me sure this person is just trying to promote herself in this way. I think the images should be deleted (I'm removing them from the articles). Thanks yandman 11:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you take this to WP:ANI, please. I believe it would be dealt fairly there. — Nearly Headless Nick 11:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

Certainly didn't mean to insult anybody; it was supposed to be a backwards compliment. ^_^;; Oh well. --Masamage 17:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Rainbowangie (talk · contribs)

I would ask you to reconsider this block. IMHO, it is far too harsh for a new user who may be unaware of how Speedy Deletion works. Asterion^talk 10:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it was a new user. He was stalking another user – [6], with a possible intent to disrupt. In case you don't feel so, feel free to unblock. — Nearly Headless Nick 10:57, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see. I'm trying to reason with him. If I see any signs of good will, I would unblock and reblock for 24 h with your permission. Regards, Asterion^talk 11:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I happened across this exchange just before rainbowangie started to post. I think you should take into account the other user's experience with wikipedia as well. He was using the incorrect tags and marking articles for speedy deletion when he really just meant to mark them as unreferenced or with a prod. His account is also only a few days old as well. Very strange situation. I was amazed at how quickly rainbowangie was blocked tho. Paul^C/_T+ 11:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He was reported on WP:AIV. Try reasoning with him, and if he sounds OK, unblock him. — Nearly Headless Nick 11:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is funny because I was thinking of reporting LibearyGay there for his edits as well, but I didn't think anyone would understand the issue. It is ironic that another user who saw the same problem got posted there for taking matters into their own hands... I'd unblock rainbowangie, but I'm not an administrator. Paul^C/_T+ 11:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of being told off for not assuming good faith, I would say that both accounts look pretty much like single purpose. I have left messages on both and I am awaiting answers. Asterion^talk 11:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you do not mind, I will unblock and watch. Asterion^talk 11:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, no. The instructions request that you put it on your own talk page, which I did. Rebecca 11:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is an interesting set of circumstances, I've added these two users to my VF userlists as well. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 12:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]

barnstar for you

		The Original Barnstar
		है रास्कल, तॆरा बदमाशी कॆ लियॆ तु़झॆ लियॆ इस बाणस्टार Jyothi Mukund 09:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

धन्यवाद प्यारे दोस्त. अब आप विकिपीडिया पर कुछ नहीं कर सकते क्युंकि मैंने आपको ब्लोक कर दिया है| — Nearly Headless Nick 09:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Karl Meier

Hi Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington, If you have time and if you could on that possibility of redirecting a page without going to AfD on the talk page of this page [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_of_Muhammad_in_the_West], that would be appreciated. Thanks --Aminz 11:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "article" is nothing more than a copy of the most biased version of a section in the Muhammad article. If you are interested, please see the discussion regarding this on the articles talk page. -- Karl Meier 11:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article is just created. It can not be removed and I don't think it is biased. --Aminz 11:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not able to comprehend what you want me to do, Aminz. Can you elaborate on what you said above? — Nearly Headless Nick 11:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I recently created an article Image of Muhammad in the West because this topic is encyclopedic (e.g. Britannica Encyclopedia has an article on the same topic). I started this article and a section for that on the Muhammad page. Karl Meier is however redirecting the page to Muhammad. I think any redirection of a page into another one should be done through AfD process and editors can not do it themselves. All I am asking is for Karl Meier to fill an AfD form rather than edit warring on redirecting the page. I would appreciate if you could comment on that. Thanks --Aminz 11:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely agree. This should be taken to AfD. Also, edit-warring is not helpful, so be careful. — Nearly Headless Nick 11:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington. --Aminz 11:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As it is actually not a new article, but just a POV fork of a section in the Muhammad (a highly biased section that Aminz wrote), I believe as I have mentioned on the talk page, that simply redirecting it to the Muhammad article is the right thing to do. -- Karl Meier 11:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please fill an AfD and let the community decide. Thanks --Aminz 11:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing to decide about. There is just an attempt be you to have your biased version of a section in the Muhammad article published elsewhere. -- Karl Meier 11:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not mediating any dispute. A proper course would be to take this to WP:AFD. — Nearly Headless Nick 11:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotect request for Y. S. Rajasekhara Reddy

Hello. I don't know if you have Y. S. Rajasekhara Reddy on your watchlist, but you protected it a while back during an edit war, and an IP is asking on the talk page for it to be scaled back to semi-protect. Probably unprotect would be more appropriate. NickelShoe (Talk) 16:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Funnypop12

I've stricken out part of my comment on that user[7]. Beit Or 20:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well done mate

The way you are handling that matter reminds me to the German Volksgerichtshof in the third reich--Ekkenekepen 12:54, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My RFA

Can you be a litle more specific perhaps? What is unsatisfactory? -- Jordi·✆ 13:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have not mentioned any conflicts that you have had in the past; and I find this – Primarily vandalism control, additionally assisting in page moves and other jobs only admins can do., unsatisfactory. — Nearly Headless Nick 13:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll try to find the old data (hard to do now that we finally got rid of Wik). -- Jordi·✆ 13:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Block

Usually I don't comment about blocks but I saw some good faith edits from 204.13.204.162 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Just FYI... —Wknight94 (talk) 14:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anon-access block. — Nearly Headless Nick 14:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's Me, Igor "the Otter"

OK, what was wrong there? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Igor "the Otter" (talk • contribs).

I believe there were only true facts and nothing more. Please, explain me, why did You deleted it? I see nothing questionable in my editing. Thanks. --Igor "the Otter" 11:36, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise for the inconvenience caused. However, Wikipedia does not permit original research to be used in articles. Could you provide reliable sources that conform with Wikipedia's policy of verifiability. You can alternatively discuss the changes on the talk page of the article. Regards, — Nearly Headless Nick 11:55, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's from Pressac's work. I'll add link there. Will it be OK?--Igor "the Otter" 12:07, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. — Nearly Headless Nick 12:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Again. Don't you know, who deleted my section again? I added there links. May be you know this, because it is silent in the talk page?--Igor "the Otter" 09:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed this – [8], you can try speaking to the user on their talk page. To check the history of an article, click on the history tab. Cheers. — Nearly Headless Nick 09:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.--Igor "the Otter" 10:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]