User talk:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington/Archive/Archive10
|
 |
Thanks for your support in my not-so-recent RfA, which succeeded with a final tally of (97/4/4)! I've never been able to accept compliments gracefully, and the heavy support from this outstanding community left me at a complete loss for words -- so, a very belated thank you for all of your kind words.
I have done and will continue to do the utmost to serve the community in this new capacity, wherever it may take me, and to set an example others might wish to follow in. With a little luck and a lot of advice, this may be enough. Maybe someday the enwiki admins of the future will look back and say, "Yeah, that guy was an admin." Hopefully then they don't start talking about the explosive ArbComm case I got tied into and oh what a drama that was, but we'll see, won't we? Surely some of you have seen me in action by now; with that in mind, I openly invite and welcome any feedback here or here -- help me become the best editor and sysop I can be.
|
- I never did give you an appropriate thanks for nominating me -- and especially, for nagging me into this, in the first place. ;) Gaining adminship was a very important step, for me, as much as we're usually supposed to downplay that. I like to think my impact on the community has been a net positive (heard through back channels that I'm among the top ten blockers by count, ever, which is good and bad, depending on whom you ask) -- so take heart in having nommed one of the particularly active peoples, so that he'd stick around and be enthralled for a lot longer than he might have, otherwise. And in particular, thank you, more than I can put into words. The extended pause here has more to do with my general awkwardness in expressing deep gratitude, and generally being more occupied with the wiki itself, but this feeling is something that I still feel, even delayed as its expression may be. Thanks again. Luna Santin 12:39, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
- It was an honour nominating you. Cheers! — Nearly Headless Nick 12:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Earth-Two
Received your message and understand your statement and have read the contribution page
Why are you continually change back INACCURATE statements which I have stated with referrals? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.203.66.87 (talk) 13:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC).
- I apologise for the inconvenience caused, but I found this weird – [4]. — Nearly Headless Nick 13:37, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
You know, I have edit
And I worked on an article with you once upon a time :p However, I have my reasons for being anon. Just scratching my late night wiki-itch with the use of a free ip. The wife would kill me if she caught me actively editing Wikipedia. It does suck up a bit of time. 205.157.110.11
- Neither does my mum like me working on Wikipedia, heh. Although, you cannot support or oppose any candidate for adminship while you are not logged in. Regards, — Nearly Headless Nick 10:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
- I know, which is why I poked my head in the neutral bin. I suppose I just like to hear myself talk. :p 205.157.110.11 13:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
- What's your wikihandle, by the way? — Nearly Headless Nick 13:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
- Eh, my wikihandle has been dormat since Feb 06. It's of little use. If I do resume my wiki-ways full time, I'll probably get a new handle. 205.157.110.11 23:21, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
- What's your wikihandle, by the way? — Nearly Headless Nick 13:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
- I know, which is why I poked my head in the neutral bin. I suppose I just like to hear myself talk. :p 205.157.110.11 13:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
YouTube link removal
If you're going to use the edit summary Removing links to "Sites which fail to provide licensing information for video clips per WP:EL. using AWB (which appears in 79 edits today so far by my count), it'd be nice if the phrase in quotation marks actually appeared in the page being linked to. --DeLarge 13:44, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
- Read the WP:EL page, YouTube is a site which does not provide licensing information and is not a reliable source. So, before reverting my edit with that edit-summary, you could have dropped me a note here. — Nearly Headless Nick 13:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
- I did read WP:EL. I read the big banner at the top which says "There is no ban on linking to [YouTube or Google Video] as long as the links abide by these guidelines."
- Not providing licensing info is not a demonstration of copyright violation, which is why, as per Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking_to_copyrighted_works, "Wikipedia is not restricted to linking only to GFDL-free or open-source content" and the onus is on knowing that copyright is being violated, not merely suspecting it.
- What does WP:RS have to do with anything? What is being claimed in those video clips which you'd contest is inaccurate or unreliable? --DeLarge 15:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
- There is currently a debate going on WT:EL over the matter whether linking to YouTube and other such websites is appropriate on Wikipedia? The banner is put there by users who do not think that linking to YouTube and Google Videos is inappropriate.
- I looked at the videos, and I feel that they are not copyrighted by any other person than the uploader himself/herself. However, the uploaded video does not say anything other than – 4x4 bus getting dirty. Wonder if your people mover could do that!!! (video 1) – flying (video 2). I does not assert that video is the work of author who uploaded it, or did it with the author's permission.
- It is accepted that false claims of copyright ownership are frequently made on Wikipedia in relation to images and video footage both uploaded to the site and elsewhere. It is therefore proper to ask an editor not to upload media or link to media until such a time as irrefutable proof of ownership is produced is reasonable and proper.
- YouTube is not a reliable source as any person with internet access can upload media on that website, whether it belongs to him, or is copyrighted, and uploading it without the permission of the copyright holder violates the copyright law. When the copyright status is unclear, the community does not endorse the inclusion of the content. This is a free encyclopedia. In case a user wishes to upload content, which he knows is in public domain, or licensed under creative commons or GFDL, he can choose to do so by uploading the same on the Commons server.
- Best regards, — Nearly Headless Nick 12:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Your username block of Hruodlandus
A quick and easy Google search shows that "Hruodlandus Brittannici limitis praefectus", or "Hruodland, Prefect of the Marches of Brittany", was a historical person, among the men killed in a battle in AD 778 -- and apparently the original inspiration for the legendary hero Roland.
Meanwhile, "Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington", or "Nearly Headless Nick", is a fictional ghost in J. K. Rowling's wildly popular (and copyrighted) "Harry Potter" novels, and is played by John Cleese in the movies.
How is it that someone using the second character's name can block someone using the first character's name, as "inappropriate username, please get another account"?
- With no discussion on the user's talk page or an RFC?
- With no explanation of what's "inappropriate"?
- And with nothing at the linked page WP:U that clearly refers to a name like this? (For instance, it isn't the name of someone "recently deceased".)
This block itself did not follow the process in WP:U. Please unblock and then follow that process, starting with telling the user more clearly what's wrong with this name and discussing what "fix" would be acceptable. -- Ben 09:32, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
- He was blocked while I was on recent-changes patrol and the username seems inappropriately wrong and difficult to spell. However, I have lifted the block now, and I apologise for the inconvenience caused. Regards, — Nearly Headless Nick 12:27, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
My user page
Thanks for doing that. That's the first time my userpage has been attacked and the second time i have been attacked. Thanks for reverting it. Simply south 14:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks
For dealing with that problem. I have to deal with that vandal on a daily basis, full details here. My adopter hasn't got back to me with any solution yet, any ideas? One Night In Hackney 14:17, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi, did you see the talk page? How can you resolve anything, if the users 'worried about NPOV' refuse to recognise neither WP:NPOV, WP:Citing sources nor WP:OR? Advocatus diaboli 14:37, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
- Please use dispute resolution. It lists various methods of resolving disputes including WP:RFCs, the mediation cabal and finally the arbitration committee (See WP:RFAr). Warm regards, — Nearly Headless Nick 14:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
FisherQueen's User Page
That comment had no bad intent at all, its just a joke. JFBurton 14:44, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, I see what you mean. JFBurton 15:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi there. This article, which you deleted after an {tl|AfD}} debate, appears to be back, but now it's a redirect to MapleStory. I do not know, and of course cannot tell, if the text is the same/similar. But you can. I leave it with you.--Anthony.bradbury 22:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Kendrick and discussion on WP:AN3
Nick, can you say why you unblocked Kendrick7 before the 24 hours was up? He reverted five times in 50 minutes, calling the other editors vandals. He's a consummate revert warrior, and in fact does little else at Wikipedia. I personally can't see any justification for unblocking. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
- It seems clear to me that Kendrick7 violated 3RR, so I'm reblocking him. FeloniousMonk 02:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
- I know that I should reserve the rollback for what is clear-cut vandalism, but per Jayjg's comments at the same thread of AN3:
[To Mackan79]—If anything POV forks are "vandalism", and please don't try to unilaterally re-write policy to punish people with whom you have been in considerable conflict, while excusing people with whom you have allied. Jayjg (talk) 02:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
3RR is about 3RR, which Kendick7 knowingly and willingly violated. The fact that he used the pretext that re-directing his POV fork article to the main article was "vandalism" is neither here nor there. Nor, for that matter, is the piling on of various other editors with a grudge, discussing unrelated matters. 5RR violators should be blocked, and those blocks should not be undone, period. Jayjg (talk) 02:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
- (Yes, I know that one was posted after the other, but this is how he put them in).
- I know that I should reserve the rollback for what is clear-cut vandalism, but per Jayjg's comments at the same thread of AN3:
- Kendrick7's POV forking was reverted by three other administrators prior to Slim Virgin's and my reversions to the page, and Kendrick7 explicitly created the POV fork, which is described at Talk:Antisemitism#Merge of Anti-Judaism and in his edit summary. And I know that m:Wrong version applies here, but is it in any way appropriate to allow for the POV fork to remain? Especially when he has been additionally disrupting the article it should redirect to?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Reply to all
- To SlimVirgin: I unblocked, because the block was unilateral. If he was revert-warring, so were you – on two articles. You call him a trouble-maker and a revert-warrior. What does that make you? – [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]. In one of those edits, Kendrick terms your edits as vandalism and you respond with a stop your disruption.
- To Felonious Monk: Yes, it is clear to me, as well, that Kendrick violated WP:3RR and should be blocked for it; and what about the rest of them? Their actions will fall into the purview of gaming the system. Both are established users, one is an administrator. They should know better. Your action was unilateral, Jayjg and some others are involved parties in one way or other; Majorly and I were not and I unblocked after discussion. Please review WP:WHEEL.
- I don't agree with Jayjg's comments. They don't impress me a bit. Calling someone edits as POV implies that you have a POV as well, and you're pushing them with your position. Period(?).
- Have a good day. — Nearly Headless Nick 10:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Help please
- Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Please_boot_Mobile_01 Best wishes, Travb (talk) 22:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Tea
- Thank you for being kind to me, Malber. You made my day, especially when it was not going too well in real-life. Best wishes. — Nearly Headless Nick 12:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Wizardry Dragon RFA
Although I would love to be of help, you caught me just as I need to leave for five hours of university classes, followed by an inevitable lunch, a trip to the gym, another lecture, and then a pasta dinner. However, I should be back in about 11 hours. :) RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 12:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
- More intersted in the delicious Baroque behind the ladder, than boring old admin antics. Giano 12:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Matchroom Sport
Why have you deleted my links to websites on the Matchroom Sport page. Everyone of these events and websites that I put a link on for is produced by Matchroom Sport and a large part of their work. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Emonsmi (talk • contribs) 14:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC).
- Please read about Wikipedia's stance on spam links. — Nearly Headless Nick 14:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
- Well how am I meant to update and improve things if you just delete it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Emonsmi (talk • contribs) 15:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC).
- The links were inappropriate as per Wikipedia's guidelines WP:EL and WP:SPAM. You cannot insert such links into articles. Wikipedia is WP:NOT a directory of links. — Nearly Headless Nick 15:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
- On the Matchroom Sport page it says 'Matchroom Sport became the official sponsor of the WPA World 9-Ball Championships in 1999'. So I put a link to the official website of that competition. How can that be an inappropriate link? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Emonsmi (talk • contribs) 15:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC).
- From you contributions, I could see that you were adding the link to the site to every page which you thought was related to this event, which is completely inappropriate. Please review WP:NOT. — Nearly Headless Nick 15:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
- Take a look at www.worldpoolchampionship.com. After the top banner it says 'Official site of the 2006 World Pool Championship'. Then right at the bottom of the page it says this event is brought to you in association with ... and there is a link to Matchroom Sport. It's an official website of an event produced by Matchroom Sport so why not allow it on the page about Matchroom Sport? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Emonsmi (talk • contribs)
- I see, then add it to the relevant page, rather than adding the link to Billiards, Nick Halling or Cass Edwards page, where it is not relevant. Regards, — Nearly Headless Nick 15:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
- Take a look at www.worldpoolchampionship.com. After the top banner it says 'Official site of the 2006 World Pool Championship'. Then right at the bottom of the page it says this event is brought to you in association with ... and there is a link to Matchroom Sport. It's an official website of an event produced by Matchroom Sport so why not allow it on the page about Matchroom Sport? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Emonsmi (talk • contribs)
- From you contributions, I could see that you were adding the link to the site to every page which you thought was related to this event, which is completely inappropriate. Please review WP:NOT. — Nearly Headless Nick 15:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
- On the Matchroom Sport page it says 'Matchroom Sport became the official sponsor of the WPA World 9-Ball Championships in 1999'. So I put a link to the official website of that competition. How can that be an inappropriate link? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Emonsmi (talk • contribs) 15:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC).
- The links were inappropriate as per Wikipedia's guidelines WP:EL and WP:SPAM. You cannot insert such links into articles. Wikipedia is WP:NOT a directory of links. — Nearly Headless Nick 15:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
- Well how am I meant to update and improve things if you just delete it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Emonsmi (talk • contribs) 15:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC).
- At no stage did I put a link to www.worldpoolchampionship.com on to the pages of Nick Halling or Cass Edwards. Every link I have added is relevant to that competition or person's page. I removed two weblinks on the Weber Cup page that do not actually take you anywhere. I replaced it with the correct address. But this has also been removed so the page now contains incorrect information and links that do not go to any page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Emonsmi (talk • contribs)
- Not so fast! Much of this is blatant spam, and it was generally right to revert it when it was. On the other hand, in Emonsmi's defense, many of the additions (though misformatting, phrased in a spammy way, inadequately described, or misplaced) were legit relevant content, and should have been fixed (despammed, described accurately, merged into article text, etc.) instead of just deleted.. See User talk:Emonsmi#Your 16 January 2007 advertising edits to numerous cue sports articles for details. I am in process of cleaning it up; have done a dozen or so articles so far. The material IS worth saving, and Emonsmi put a lot of effort into the edits, they were just malformed because he's a newbie. I'm willing to fix the mess over the next day or so, and have gone to some trouble (as you have) to bring him up to speed. Someone as tireless as he is at adding material to the cue sports articles would actually be welcomed if he does it right (though I've put him at a {{Spam2}} warning level just the same). — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 00:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
AIV
My explanation for this is this, this, this and this. {{template:repeatvandal}}, as I am sure you are aware, says This IP has been repeatedly blocked from editing Wikipedia in response to abuse of editing privileges. Further abuse from this IP may result in an immediate block without further warning. Just below it is written "notify an administrator" and this is a link to WP:AIV. So not only do I have an explanation, I did precisely what I am supposed to do. If you look at my history of reports to WP:AIV and check my activities as an RC patroller, you'll find that I use the full gamut of warnings. If I may, a nice cup of tea would do you much good. Pascal.Tesson 15:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Please unlock the page. As it is sometimes prone to happen, when a version favorable to one side is locked, discussion ceases. I was not involved in the edit warring, but I have proposed a solution to the current version and would like to see if it can be implemented. I hope to hear your answer soon. Regards, Guy Montag 18:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Speedy deletion of ActiveRain
Dear administrator,
You just speedy deleted the article ActiveRain, an CSD candidate I contested by placing the {{hangon}} tag on the page, and for which my reasoning was explained on the talk page of the article Talk:ActiveRain. I would like to request undeletion of the article, after which I will place it at AfD if you want, as I do not feel this article was a proper candidate for speedy deletion. Regards, --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 10:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
- Recreated for your convenience, take your time. :) — Nearly Headless Nick 10:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks, I listed the article at AfD. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 10:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Pwnd
Huh? :) --WoohookittyWoohoo! 11:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
- I've only been an admin for a year and a half. :) Doh. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 12:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Not yet
Haven't left yet. Leaving tomorrow from college. - Aksi_great (talk) 12:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Needing to warn users
He had already been warned at least 5 times and Had recieved a last warning. He had not been blocked since that last warning according to the block log and all the other warnings had been placed after the last warning. Correct me if I'm wrong but at that point don't you just go to WP:AIV? Since he has already recieved enough warning.--St.daniel 13:15, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
- Isn't it a legtimite reason to request someone who has recieved many warnings ,not by me but by other people, had gotten a last warning and is still vandalizing. Isn't that a valid reason for blocking or do I still have to leve a warning to his page like all the other editors. Can't I use the other users warnings and the fact that he continues to vandalize as reason to nominate for blocking. Isn't that a valid reason?--St.daniel 13:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
If you are referring to 217.xxx., yes. I read their talk and they have indeed been warned multiple times. If you mean that AIV was cleared soon after you posted your message there, I can assure you it wasn't me but the bot attending to the page. If you are talking about something else, please be more specific. - Mgm|(talk) 13:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
- Hmm, I see what you mean. But requiring people to be warned on the day they vandalize before getting them blocked simply allows them to do it once each day without the risk of getting blocked. Do what you like. - Mgm|(talk) 13:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Deletion of article: Tony Le Rhodes
Today you deleted my article Tony Le Rhodes without even notifying me (I'm a little miffed about that). I am new to this system, having only signed up today, but I'm trying to learn quickly. :-) In any case, when I discovered that my article was tagged for deletion I added the {hangon} tag to the top of the page while I proceeded to modify the page. I thought the modification (a total rewrite, by the way) was sufficient to satisfy the submission guidelines, only to discover several hours later that the article had in fact been deleted. Could you please explain what the problem was? If possible, I would appreciate it if you would undelete the article and give me time to correct the problem(s). Drbw 14:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Unprotection Request
Since the main editors have pledged to put their differenes aside to work productively on the Ebionites article, could you please remove the protection lock? --Loremaster 17:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
- That is not the whole truth. Of the 4 editors, 1 has said nothing, 1 has withdrawn (although wishes the lock to remain) and the 2 remaining (Loremaster and myself) have not worked out an MO yet. So please don't unlock the article: at the moment it would (I believe) revert to redit-warring. More time is required to work things out. --Michael C. Price talk 18:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
your law
[Trolling removed] — Nearly Headless Nick 11:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
- IP resolves to SOFTBANK BB Corp. so this was done from a work computer. I wonder what their corporate policy is on internet usage. Their abuse e-mail is abuse@bbtec.net. —Malber (talk • contribs) 18:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
- You could have just reverted him. :) — Nearly Headless Nick 11:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)