User talk:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington/Archive/Archive14

Messages This is an archive of old discussions. Please do not modify this page. Archives: The Basement Majorly's RfB Hi Nick, thanks for your kind support in my RfB. Sadly, it didn't pass, but I appreciate the support, and I do intend to run again eventually. Thanks again for switching, it means a lot to me. See you around! Majorly (o rly?) 03:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC) Stop abusing your powers In future, use common sense before you use buttons. And when you do misuse your buttons, atleast have the courtesy to leave messages on the blockees' pages explaining your actions. Thanks. Sarvagnya 17:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC) My RfA Hi, my RfA has been successful. Thanks a lot for your support. :) --soum (0_o) 10:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC) Congratulations, brother. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 15:24, 8 April 2007 (UTC) Question. There's a note from an anon on my talkpage. Is it of any importance? I don't see any conversation either on your talkpage, or in the archives, or in the appropriate page's archives, to indicate what on earth is going on. Could you also explain your protection of the Narendra Modi article. Hornplease 20:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC) The only edit I made to this page – [1]. As per WP:BLP we will have to be careful while writing for living personalities. There has been no solid proof provided in the article (by a competent authority, i.e.) that points directly that Narendra Modi or his administration were directly responsible for the act. Also, it was a "fake encounter" and the header Fake encounters is far from justifying. Provide the references carefully and write carefully. Words like allegations and imputations should be used. As for the protection of the page, a range of IPs has been used disruptively on this article, I suggest that you ask your friend to get himself an article and then edit legitimately to absolve himself from sockpuppetry accussations. This article has a history of disruptive editing, hence the semi-protection. Best wishes, — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 11:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC) Firstly, assuming that a random IP is 'my friend' is deeply disturbing. On AN/I Nirav has just blown up at another admin for something similar. Second, I am well aware of the restrictions on livin person's biographies, thank you. I regularly work on BLP patrol. In this case, the matter itself is not irrelevant to a Modi article, as the issue was an apparent assassination attempt on him, and it has led to direct attacks on Modi's personal leadership on the floor of the State legislature. That the section was inaccurately titled does not lead to the statement "it does not belong in the article", which is your edit comment. Note also that this article is not particularly vandalised, a few days of very anaemic warring - in which I have not participated - is at best shaky support for semi-protection, not full protection. Hornplease 21:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC) The encounter is a criticism of members of the police force which are a small part of the modi government. If you had taken even a minimal read of BLP, you would see criticism: “ should be about the subject of the article specifically. Beware of positive or negative claims that rely on guilt by association. ” taken from WP:BLP. Bakaman 22:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC) So criticism of the Iraq War as illegitimate doesnt belong in the Bush article? It's there, and good luck removing it. I cant see any other option to accepting that notable criticism of a government is relevant to the biography of the head of that government, especially when the criticism in question leads for demands for that head's resignation. However, I congratulate you on actually reading BLP for a change. Hornplease 22:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC) Bush is commander-in-chief. More or less, he ordered the troops to attack Iraq, and as the head of the army that he led to war (leadership is relative but the best term here), he is held responsible for the results of the war. Modi OTOH did not order fake encounters, nor is he the chief of police (the people accused in the wrongful deaths). Neither is he the head of a nation at war. People have always demanded modi's resignation, and if you had read the source would have seen that it was a couple of disaffected BJP members and retired men without a hobby making a ruckus.Bakaman 23:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC) The fact that it is being used by disaffected members of the state party against Modi's leadership is precisely why it is arguably relevant. We cannot exclude things as irrelevant per BLP if reliable sources say that they are being considered to be relevant by notable individuals; the fact that it led to suspension of the Gujarat assembly might lead to it being considered notable. In addition, the assassination attempt itself was considered relevant to the Modi article, so the fact that it appears to have been invented might be considered relevant as well. Hornplease 19:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC) I'm still waiting for a response to my queries on semi-protection vs full protection, and a clarification of the 'friend' statement. Hornplease 19:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC) I was under the impression that we would be continuing this conversation on Talk:Narendra Modi. In any case, it is not Times of India or any other press publisher that can paste guilt on Narendra Modi, for that matter. The NHRC, the National Human Rights Commission is the sole authority with that right. As of now, it seems that it has absolved Narendra Modi of taking an active part in organisation of any kind of pogrom/genocide/murder. George Bush? That's a strawman, m'dear. Bush is the commander-in-chief of the army and there is clear evidence that he lead the American army into Afghanistan and Iraq. Suggest you stick to what's relevant here. Article semi-protection? Narendra Modi is an article prone to defamatory vandalism/libel and I have chosen to protect it in the wake of such incidents happening regularly. There are some other articles permanently semi-protected for such reasons. Friend statement? Aren't we all friends? And please, avoid sarcastic statements towards other respectable members of our community, like you taunted Bakaman, up there. Chao. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 12:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC) I also happened to come across one of your comments left on Daniel Bryant's talk page, it appears to be incendiary. I suggest that you keep a tab on such... er... paroxyms... that may cause you further embarrasments. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 12:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC) Thanks Thanks for the edits to my user page. :) --soum (0_o) 14:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC) Oh, that! That was your official instigation in the cabal. Cheers! — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 14:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC) I was wondering for a few days why your replies dont show up on my watchlist. I had forgot to add you :P. Anyways, got my mail? --soum (0_o) 14:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC) Intuition? Resolved How comes that the instant I read your comment here, I knew who that popular user was, without looking first? I've been actively participating in Wikipedia for only 4 months now. Must be intuition. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 14:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC) Cheers! — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 14:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC) Yeah. Oh, and I also correctly guessed who had directly followed that user's footsteps to oppose. Am I psychic? —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 14:28, 9 April 2007 (UTC) STOP RIGHT THERE! Or I'll just die laughing! — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 14:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC) But, wait. Ain't I already dead?. But stop that cynicism. They're innocent and uninvolved parties. :D — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 14:30, 9 April 2007 (UTC) WP:AN/I See [2]. I am not sure if I am reading your comment correctly, but if I am, it was in extraordinarily bad taste, apart from being completely unhelpful and beside the point. This is about a contested AfD closure. Not about GFDL, and certainly not about your ideas of "civility". dab (𒁳) 14:57, 9 April 2007 (UTC) also, can you explain what on earth your deletion of User:Fowler&fowler/HP References is supposed to have to do with GFDL concerns? The article deleted was fully GFDL compliant. License issues never entered into it. It was deleted because Daniel.Bryant apparently thought, in the face of AfD debate, that there were unsalvageable pov concerns. There is nothing more natural, then, to move the article to userspace and try to work out a more acceptable version. dab (𒁳) 15:21, 9 April 2007 (UTC) GFDL-licensed text without appropriate attribution is a GNU-nightmare, and you ought to know that as an administrator of long. And apparently, you have not dropped your overwrought and uncivil tones with comments like "trolls taking over" and such. Please be warned, I am not going to hesitate if you leave comments like this and threaten respectable members of the encyclopedia in this manner – [3], [4]. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 12:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC) RfA reform As you're no doubt aware, there is a subpage Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Reform, where different proposals have been posted as to how the RfA process may be improved. Everything is very beta status and more input is not only appreciated, but essential. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 15:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC) Nah. Too much to read, so less time. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 12:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC) disturbing Dbachmann (talk · contribs) threatened Bhadani. Documentation is at User:Bhadani/All_in_a_day's_work#One edit account. He has threatened many users, its time to Tango if you get my drift. Bakaman 00:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC) Oh noes. The "trolls are taking over!" — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 12:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC) Usernameblock Hi, I have a link above to a user you blocked for having an inappropriete username. I think, unless this user is a sockpuppet, has made repeated inappropriete edits(except in extreme or unusual circumstances), or has a history of repeated malicious account creation, I think the account creation block should be lifted, only blocking the user, not the ability a to create a new account from the IP that the account originated from.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. (talk • contribs) 16:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC) Also, I was just curious what about "Cool cat" that other people find inappropriete?--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. (talk • contribs) 17:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC) It's been cleared up WJBscribe and Alison. Too familer to existing user and no need to create new account. Sorry for the confustion.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. (talk • contribs) 06:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC) I'd rather die than betray Harry Potter's trust. *is reading HBP :P* Will (I hope they cannot see, I AM THE GREAT DESTROYER!) 13:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC) Read Nick's gonna get a good character development in HPDH. :D --soum (0_o) 13:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC) Question Please feel free to remove this question if you find it impertinent, but I would like to know what it was I did that made you believe that you can not trust me. Thanks, Mackensen (talk) 14:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC) I have clarified my stance. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 08:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC) So... ... are we back? — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 09:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC) I was assured by the local authorities that I shall be fully protected. --Bhadani (talk) 09:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC) ... oh yes. We have already contacted the Mumbai Cyber Cell. They have assured us action would be taken, and they are working on it. Meanwhile, me and Mr. Joseph are working on getting all the stray IP addresses that might be related. Regards, — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 09:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC) That is a fine idea. No one should be allowed to misuse the trust of donors to Wikimedia Foundation, and editors should be allowed to work peacefully to realize the dream of Jimmy to present to the world a real encyclopedia, and not an encyclopedia reflecting stale history and stale ideologies researched a century or two before, and gathering dust in haunted libraries of the world - haunted by ???. It is the pious duty of every true wikipedia volunteer to rise to the occasion to clean wikipedia of un-encyclopedic contents. I am happy that the threats to me could be removed at an early date - and thanks go to the wide publicity :) [5] which I got (unnecessarily) recently. --Bhadani (talk) 10:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC) I have been asked to unprotect all my user pages to understand the IPs, if any, doing the mischief :) --Bhadani (talk) 10:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC) Who asked me? The e-mail is being forwarded to you. --Bhadani (talk) 10:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC) Category:Complex systems Thank you for your contribution to the complex system article in the past. Currently there is a Call for Deletion for the associated Category:Complex systems covering this interdisplinary scientific field. If you would like to contribute to the discussion, you would be very welcome. Please do this soon if possible since the discussion period is very short. Thank you for your interest if you can contribute. Regards, Jonathan Bowen 14:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC) O glorified one I request your excellency's presence on Gtalk. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 13:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC) I've just sent you an email. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up ® 13:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC) Awww Thanks Nick! Best present I got for new year's :) – Riana ऋ 14:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC) Indian collaboration of the week news As mentioned in Wikiproject India newsletter of March 2007, the weekly collaboration of the Indian wikiproject has fallen from its once high feats. This message is to request the users to visit the collaboration page and help rejuvenate it. The present collaboration of the week is Religion in India. Please go through the talk page of the article to see the proposed changes in the article. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC) Deletion Review An editor has asked for a deletion review of G._V._Loganathan. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Pablosecca 21:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC) Hi Nick. Despite WP:N, WP:NPOV, WP:RS, and all the other processes that state articles should not be based on the personal opinions of Wikipedians, there are those who think that Wikipedia notability means using their personal opinion of whether someone is important or famous enough to include in Wikipedia. Although they are wrong, it's not fair to prevent them from posting their opinion or allowing their opinions to be considered by others by speedy closing the AfD. I think it would be a decent act to withdraw the AfD speedy close and open up the AfD to let it run four more days. Also, I'm itching to add my strong keep to the AfD. -- Jreferee 20:34, 20 April 2007 (UTC) Would have agreed with you any other time. This page is probably one of the most visited pages on the encyclopedia, as it is cleanly related to the Virginia Tech massacre. Imagine what it looks like to hordes of newbie users and visitors who view the webpage and see huge and ugly notices of deletion and deletion review esp. when a large number of good quality and reliable sources are available on the subject. Common sense generally supercedes the process. Have a nice day. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 12:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC) Hey Long time no hear. Hope all is well. Samir 04:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC) Only! Only a visual treat - real waiting on Nichalp's page. --Bhadani (talk) 08:05, 21 April 2007 (UTC) For Sir Oh. Don't be angry. The shop was closed. I bought something French for you from a heritage shop at Pondicherry. While coming here, I gulped all but one, and brought the last one left for you :) --Bhadani (talk) 13:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC) Be happy and Sir maat khana, biscuit khana. --Bhadani (talk) 13:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC) ANI notification You really should visit the Hkelkar thread on ANI, I believe you'll want to comment there. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC) RfAR A request for arbitration has been filed involving you. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 21:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC) Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar 2 Hello, An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar 2. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar 2/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar 2/Workshop. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad 02:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC) Please also note the arbitrators' comments here regarding scheduling matters. Newyorkbrad 02:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC) Image:1915 Dance by Rodchenko.jpg Hello, Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington. An automated process has found and removed a fair use image used in your userspace. The image (Image:1915 Dance by Rodchenko.jpg) was found at the following location: User talk:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington/Archive/Archive02. This image was removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image was replaced with Image:Example.jpg, so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image to replace it with. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 23:04, 6 May 2007 (UTC) Image:1915 Dance by Rodchenko.jpg Hello, Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:1915 Dance by Rodchenko.jpg) was found at the following location: User talk:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington/Archive/Archive02. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 01:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC) It's boring... Without you around. Hurry up and finish your exams already! – Rianaऋ 05:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)  :) – Rianaऋ 13:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC) Deletion Review An editor has asked for a deletion review of List of male performers in gay porn films. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. DRV notice An editor has asked for a deletion review of Starslip Crisis. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. thank you, brother Thanks for your kind note. As you may know, the e-mails are with the arbs now and I will let them see if there is anything that needs to be done. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 03:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC) All i have to say is: GOD DAMN! that was beautiful what you wrote.--D-Boy 08:10, 24 May 2007 (UTC) *blushes* — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 08:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC) Hi Check your mail (sent though wikimail) - Aksi_great (talk) 16:31, 27 May 2007 (UTC) NO U! — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 16:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC) Re: I believe it was your rather ridiculous cheap-shot accusing my "admin coaching" sessions wiumth Doc tropics as being "meatpuppetry." Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 03:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC) I am sorry but that was not an accusation, I said I could have made an accusation of that kind, as against the kind of arguments that you produced. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 03:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC) Amusing that you think you "could have," when in fact your entire "evidence" is fake and distorted. Anyway - despite all of this, I would like to sincerely apologize for incivility and rudeness to you (and anyone else), as per my solemn pledge. Even the generals, soldiers of rival armies offer each other a basic respect. I owe a lot better of myself to my fellow Wikipedians - it has happened several times in the past, when emotional issues provoke raw nerves in moi. While my anger has a solid foundation, I can't allow it to disrupt Wikipedia. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 04:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC) I am now confident that your kind don't deserve to receive apologies for any offense whatsoever. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 01:44, 2 June 2007 (UTC) This is a battleground for you, isn't it? My evidence is on-wiki, unlike yours. I'll accept your apologies, anyway. Best, — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 15:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC) Uh..you already have. It's all over the rfa and user talk pages...guess the rfa was too sexy for you, sexy boy.--D-Boy 07:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC) Dboy please be more subtle with your use of sarcasm. Rama's anger, Islamophobia, self-righteousness, and Anti-Pakistani prejudices have no bearing on his spotless admin actions ok (backed by a majority of concerned wikipedians, like philo-semite BhaiSaab and secular TerryJ-Ho)? What part of that can you not understand?Bakaman 02:33, 2 June 2007 (UTC) Help desk ? Thanks for the reply, but we kind of disconnected about what I am asking. I posted follow-up there. Much appreciated if you can help. I maybe should just upload the file again to wikimedia commons, under a different title, but that seems wasteful. —Gaff ταλκ 04:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC) Oh right. Sorry about that. Don't worry about the resources, just make the image you uploaded on Commons for deletion, and upload it once again, under a different title. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 04:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC) Why was "Ice Cold Solitaire" deleted??????????????????????? Bobthesock2 23:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC) Sir, a closer look if you please. I'd like to make a couple clarifications. It isn't the same article. Smee follows me and edit wars no matter where I'm editing. I am not edit warring. I am 2RR on that article. Smee was at 6RR and went to 7RR. Smee followed me over to Who Is Guru Maharaj Ji? (book) and started edit warring with me there (please check the edit history). I'm really not sure I understand the 3RR policy. Smee goes 3RR regularly. After getting reported for 3RR in 1 article and 2RR in another and not getting blocked, goes to 4RR/3RR within an hour and again doesnt get blocked. Now after getting reported for edit warring with 3 editors and reverting 6 times, and then going to 7 after being reported, again no block? I'd appreciate if you'd look into this a bit closer. Thank you. Lsi john 05:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC) Smee has been a productive editor in the past, just like yourself. :) I think this shall serve as a warning to the user, and we can hope that they will not continue revert-warring. As it is, Wikipedia is not a battleground and if one user continues to follow your edits and you wish to make a complaint, you can approach the Administrator noticeboard or use the dispute resolution process by initiating an WP:RFC. Best regards, — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 05:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC) Actually, it cannot be said that I "followed" this user anywhere, if anything the reverse could be said instead, and WP:HARASS has been brought up by another user as well. I created the article Who Is Guru Maharaj Ji? (book), so it was already on my watchlist, so it is incorrect that I "followed" anyone anywhere. Smee 05:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC). I do understand, Smee. If the complaint is faulty or inappropriate the community itself will not give a lee-way to the arguments of the opposite side. Best regards, — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 05:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC) Followed = Hasn't edited the article for hours? but edits within minutes and seconds after I do. I don't suppose I can consider this permission to 7RR from my side, right? No disrespect intended, but this serves as permission for Smee to continue edit warring. Smee isnt 7RR against me. Smee is fighting 2 other editors besides myself on that article. Anyway, I've said my peace. I'm sorry you don't see this for what it is. Best regards. Peace in God. Lsi john 05:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC) That might be because she has the article on her watchlist. Wikipedia has a guideline on assuming good faith. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 05:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC) Yes it does, and that has a clause which says in the face of bad-faith, good-faith need no longer be assumed. Look at the time stamps and edit comments. I asked him to wait until I finished, and he still had to jab in another edit, to create edit conflict. You can either take time to look through the edit logs, or not. But in almost every article I edit, Smee either reverts or starts editing instantly after I do. Per the guideline you cite, I no longer have to assume Good Faith with Smee. His edit history is well established and it's pretty clear that he gets 4RR or 7RR or whatever is necessary to revert me until I stop editing. (again, noting that I was 2RR versus his 7RR) Lsi john 05:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC) Thank you for understanding, Nick, and in line with my good faith intentions, I have set up a RFC on the article to discuss this issue. Hopefully, other previously un-involved neutral editors will provide some helpful comments there. Yours, Smee 05:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC). With your permission, I'm posting a followup, for your reading. You stated: I think this shall serve as a warning to the user, and we can hope that they will not continue revert-warring Here are two responses from Smee, which clearly indicate that no warning was received, but rather that Smee finds the 3RR report to be faulty and cites you as backing him up on that conclusion: diff1 and diff2. This is exactly the message that I said would be received. I'm not asking you to change your mind, I just wanted to let you see how Smee interpreted the results. Best regards. Peace in God. Lsi john 06:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC) I most certainly do not think that no warning was received, and in fact I have filed an RFC on this issue in a good faith attempt at soliciting comment from outside uninvolved editors. Smee 06:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC). Smee, citing the report as faulty and citing Anynobody's posting to back you up, does not indicate to me that you received any warning at all. You got 7RR to my 2RR and you claim a faulty report. Bah. You're a professional edit warrior and you're so confident you don't even pretend to act warned. This is at least the 3rd article you've run me off of, due to your warring. Lsi john 06:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC) I of course take User:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington actions seriously, as I have stated above. The rest of my comments have already been stated by myself and others, at the noticeboard. Smee 06:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC). Lsi john, what you are seeing here is not WP:STALK; we are seeing WP:OWN. User:Smee (User:Smeelgova) "owns" Who Is Guru Maharaj Ji? (book) and since you disagree with her POV (the "cult-fighter") you are not allowed to edit there and she has proven time and again that 3RR has no meaning to her. Mr. Nick, my further comments are on WP:AN3. --Justanother 10:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC) And we're back! Smee is edit warring again, this time in Holiday Magic AND Children of God. Lsi john 20:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC) Good Faith Editor When you have a bit of spare time, please review this sequential flow and ask yourself how far Good Faith goes: I know its a lot to go through, but it lays it out in sequence and shows the history of this good faith editor quite well. 2:20 May 18 Reported Smee for 4RR in PSI Seminars 48-hour block with 4 Previous blocks for 3RR warring as Smeelgova blocklog1 Note: Blocking admin went out of his way to justify the block and to notify any admins who might consider unblocking. diff Smee attempted to argue with admin and justify the reverts, showing no sign of remorse or regret. 5 days after being blocked for the 5th time: 20:39 May 23, Reported Smee for 3RR in Mind Dynamics and 2RR in Lifespring diff Note: As 3RR blocks are to prevent warring, this report was filed at 3RR in that same spirit, as Smee knows that 3RR is not a priviledge but constantly pushes 3RR limits. 20:57 May 23, Smee acknowledged 3RR is not entitlement, justifies reverting, and promises to stop: diff Result - BrendelSignature ruled no violation. 5 hours later Smee goes 1RR additional in both articles: 01:50 May 24, Updated previous report for Smee 3RR in Lifespringdiff 01:52 May 24, Requested a review of 1st 3RR report from BrendelSignature diff 01:56 May 24, updated previous report for Smee 4RR in Mind Dynamics diff 10 minutes later 02:03 May 24, Smee claims these reverts are not related (and therefore dont count?) diff 02:03 May 24, Smee self-reverts 1st edit diff 02:04 May 24, Smee self-reverts 2nd edit diff 02:10 May 24, Filed 2nd 3RR report because I was not sure if UPDATING the 1st report was sufficient: diff 02:15 May 24, Smee blames me for his reverting diff 02:21 May 24, Smee mis-states facts (lies) by citing time of 2nd report and NOT the time of the actual 3RR UPDATE hoping nobody will check timestamps thoroughly: diff Result - Self-revert - Heimstern rules no vio. and gives stern warning. 03:06 May 30, Reported Smee for 6RR for Large Group Awareness Training diff 03:35 May 30, Smee justifies reverting, ignores 3 of the reverts and promises not to revert again diff 04:15 May 30, Updated report to Smee 7RR for Large Group Awareness Training diff 04:17 May 30, Smee claims revert wasn't really a revert and that I dont understand what reverts are diff 04:18 May 30, Smee promises not to revert me on this article diff 05:11 May 30, Nearly Headless Nick excuses 7RR and protects article, mistekanly citing long term edit war on this article. diff Note: that the above list, is NOT 1 article, but in fact is 4 separate articles. Also note: I was 2RR and was editing, not edit-warring. 05:27 May 30, Nearly Headless Nick says the experience will serve as a warning to Smee. diff 06:00 May 30, Smee justifies the 7RR by claiming faulty report, support from Anynobody and explanations from Nearly Headless Nick on his talkpage. 06:05 May 30, Smee claims my interpretation of 3RR were incorrect diff Right to the last. Smee is justifying the edit warring, blaming faulty reports, and citing support from others. This is NOT the behavior of a Good Faith editor who has just been warned about edit warring. This is the behavior of an edit warrior who just got away with edit warring again. Thank you for taking time to review this sequence. Lsi john 12:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC) Note This is, of course, a POV interpretation by an editor heavily involved in the situation who was edit warring himself in his own right. As I stated above, I started a good faith RFC on this article and I hope we will get some commentary from neutral previously uninvolved editors on it. Smee 20:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC). Aloha I'm well, thanks. Looking for new people to meatpuppet for... the old ones seem to get me into too much trouble ;) OMG Ban her, she's a self-admitted disruptive editor. Riana ⁂ 08:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC) Thanks Just saying thanks for the help against a vandal tonight...203.177.205.230 was going nuts spamming psychotic medicine and group articles, and it was getting nuts getting it all back up to shape... thanks again! Jmlk17 09:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC) Oh, by the way, I love the username. Jmlk17 09:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC) My pleasure. :) — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 09:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC) Huh...did not even know about that policy. I thank you for that heads up :). Jmlk17 09:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC) It's a guideline and thanks for your co-operation. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 09:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC) Oh of course. Jmlk17 09:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC) "Ice Cold Solitaire" Why was "Ice Cold Solitaire" deleted??????????????????????? (I just figured out how to post it standing alone) Bobthesock2 23:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC) See WP:NOT#HOWTO. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 04:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC) Tamilnet Appreciate your interest in this issue, for Wikipedians to take interest in an obscure issue from a Third world country does indicate a sence of dedication to Wikipedia process. As you indicated your research on this news site was incomplete, I urge you to take a look at these research papers on the news site by an American and Australian researchers respectively. [6] [7] Also see section violation of privacy and endangering my life see here Thanks Taprobanus 22:31, 2 June 2007 (UTC) Akita Shepherd article-Where the victim becomes the aggressor Dear Sir Obviously being a victim of persecution because of your dark skin, religion and language in the semi-racist society of Britain you seem to exercise your power in Wikipedia in a rather fascist mode eg deleting articles without informing the person who spent some of his life's time writing them. Obviously you gather so much hate every day that you must reflect it somewhere, otherwise you will burst. Apologies for the tone of my letter, I think you deserve it for your injust and unacceptable behaviour. Enjoy life in the UK Yours sincerely, user:Spyros Pantenas Ha ha. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 04:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC) Fair use rationale for Image:Ganginblue.jpg Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Ganginblue.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page. If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation 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.BetacommandBot 10:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC) Done. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 14:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC) Comment As I have an agreement not to post on Smee's talk page, I will reply here instead. I did feel Smee was edit warring with me last night, as you will see in my comments in discussion diff. Smee was insisting on including 'cult related' material which I objected to on several grounds. Smee inserted the material several times, without first discussing his version. I refused to edit war, and instead was attempting to document what I felt was POV and some OR. Smee continued to revert-out my attempts to document the article. Ultimately I was forced to simply stop editing the article and walk away due to the warring. Lsi john 15:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC) Non-free use disputed for Image:Nlsiulogo.gif This file may be deleted. Thanks for uploading Image:Nlsiulogo.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page. If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 15:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC) Done. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 02:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC) Thank you! Thank you for the birthday wishes. WaltonAssistance! 16:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC) Non-free use disputed for Image:Nujslogo.jpg This file may be deleted. Thanks for uploading Image:Nujslogo.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page. If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC) Request for Information Dear Sir Nicholas, on May 31, 2006 you blocked Rert2 because of sock puppetry and trolling WP (See: [8]). Thank you! It would be useful to me to have the name(s) of the other sock puppets so as to get an idea of who I had been dealing with in the past and to possibly recognize the user if he comes back to WP. Since I am doing anti-vandal work (See my userbox), I get trolls and annoying editors who are constantly harassing me . Your information will be appreciated. Thanks. Jrod2 06:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC) Perf Is this in response to my comment at the betacommandbot thread at AN? Then, did I say it would hit performance? Sorry, if I did, coz I meant to say it would waste resources, by which I meant human resources. Undoing the tagging would require serious effort from the editors. --soum talk 15:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC) No probs, bro! --soum talk 16:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC) Could you please review this? RUReady2Testify (talk · contribs · logs) is a new user from Estonia who has rather taken umbrage at some of my communications with them (and also those of User:DLX). I would be very grateful if you could review our interaction and tell me what you think of it. I am choosing you to ask as I don't think we know each other very well, and you were the first admin I could see who seemed to be online. If you cannot do this let me know and I will ask somebody else. Best wishes, --John 17:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC) I think WP:ANI is a better place to have these discussions. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 12:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC) John already posted this to WP:ANI: [9], but no replies so far. DLX 13:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC) Signature code Sir Nick, while editing my own talk page i noticed that the code used for your signature is a tad out-dated and could pose some accessibility/usability problems. I offer an updated, modern replacement which will achieve the same appearence. Your current sig code is: — Nearly Headless Nick {L} 16:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC) I offer an improved version (you'll have to view the source to see the changes): — Nearly Headless Nick {L} 16:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC) I've added your talk page to my watch-list. Lee Carré 07:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC) I have already made a little difference with one of the links there. What's wrong with using —? — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 12:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC) Suspected sock puppets of Kuntan Hi. I noticed that you marked vinay412 (talk · contribs) and Racky pt (talk · contribs) as suspected sock puppets of Kuntan (talk · contribs). Greg dn (talk · contribs) is already a confirmed sock of vinay412. I draw your attention to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Vinay412 As you'll note from the link above, 202.41.72.100 (talk · contribs) is also a suspected sock of Vinay412. As such, you might want to tag 202.41.72.100 and Greg dn as suspected socks of Kuntan. I note that 202.41.72.100 is claimed to be a shared IP, but the majority (if not all) of the contribs appear to be from the same user. --AliceJMarkham 15:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC) It's Kuntan, it's Kuntan, it's Kuntan. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 02:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC) Rfa Just dropping by to say "thank you" for supporting me in my recent my RfA. I passed the vote, and am now an admin. It will take me some getting used to with the new tools, but I thank you again for the trust. Have a good one, and, as always, happy editing! Jmlk17 05:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)