((ConfirmationOTRS|source=URL|otrs=Long Number))

	The Admin's Barnstar
	For your prompt and sensible actions to try to end the dispute....Keep it up! TheStrikeΣagle 13:16, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Nick. You have new messages at Antiochus the Great's talk page.
Message added 13:20, 22 April 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.[reply]

Antiochus the Great (talk) 13:20, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nick. For the sake of peace now that you've dug out some references for them, I'm going to ignore his battleground mentality and his refactoring of my comment. De728631 (talk) 16:22, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be generous and just put it down to the inadvertent edit of an inexperienced editor. It's for the best, I hope. Nick (talk) 17:04, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Nick, I trust you on this subject. By the way, you demanded an apology from both sides, and I made an apology for unhelpful language. However the other party is still trying to give lessons, and made no apology. Please tell him to drop this arrogant and unhelpful language, and please force him apologize as I did to him.--Hakan Erbaslar (talk) 20:13, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize from unhelpful language and I hope the other side apologizes to me for unhelpful language as well. I Trust you on the update of the article as your proposals.--Hakan Erbaslar (talk) 22:53, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not obliged to offer any apologies towards Hakan.Antiochus the Great (talk) 00:36, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Nick, he wrote this to my talk page.--Hakan Erbaslar (talk) 17:00, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I cannot force any editor to offer their apologies. I'm disappointed there isn't a more collegial attitude, all I can suggest is you put this whole episode behind you and move on. It'll be a talk page archive soon enough and it's really not worth caring about, to be honest. Nick (talk) 17:06, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He continues to attack me on admin board. Please tell him to drop this attitude otherwise I will start to be aggressive against him and drop my positive attitude.--Hakan Erbaslar (talk) 17:11, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please check admin board topic and write your comments there thanks.--Hakan Erbaslar (talk) 17:11, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am thinking to deactivate my wikipedia account. It seems some people feel they have any right to be aggressive against everyone.--Hakan Erbaslar (talk) 17:27, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Check admin board. There is a 3rd person with aggressive language and he feels free to say anything he wants.--Hakan Erbaslar (talk) 17:38, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He started calling buddies to admin board. I think you should give a warning to him, because it's forbidden to lobby on wikipedia talk page. Thank you.--Hakan Erbaslar (talk) 17:56, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you there? I think GB_fan is also his buddy. He is calling people from the UK come to this discussion and defend him :)--Hakan Erbaslar (talk) 18:00, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not his buddy. I am not from the UK. I am a fan of the Green Bay Packers football team from Green Bay Wisconsin, USA. And to be clear I didn't defend him, just pointed out that the questions that you asked multiple times had already been answered.GB fan 18:06, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hakan has once again deleted the second table from List of countries by military expenditure now claiming it is your decision to remove the second table (obviously not true). I don't know why he feels the various discussion pages are a place to do battle rather than communicate in a productive manner and to be honest I am not too keen to engage in any sort of discussion with him. He has a very contentious attitude and myself and other editors have already tried to reason with him. As other editors also feel the same as I, it cannot be all my fault can it? At the moment I am currently active on various other articles and article talk pages and I don't really have time to update the second table as per the updated SIPRI citation you provided, but I will get around to it soon. Thus far, Hakan has clearly shown he has no interest in updating the second table but rather he just wants it deleted without consensus.Antiochus the Great (talk) 19:48, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hakan has also resumed his personal attacks towards me; here "You're a hopeless case, kid." He also purposely (slightly) refactored my comment before that. Additionally I did not call him silly as he claims, I said; "This is silly now" in reference to him again deleting the second table.Antiochus the Great (talk) 20:05, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, you know what I recently saw some very helpful and positive comments made by Hakan on another AN. This has significantly changed my opinion of him as I can now see he does have good intentions and a genuine desire to be good. Therefore I would like you to ignore the above two posts of mine. I have also made an apology toward Hakan at his talk page and praised him for his recent constructive comments - I think things between us are good now. Cheers.Antiochus the Great (talk) 22:00, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Super, that's really good to hear. Good luck editing the article, all those numbers to change look like a pretty unenviable task. Cheers. Nick (talk) 22:11, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nick. A useful update at the Pan Am Flight 103 article. But are we now in effect saying that the Daily Mail story was false? Or is it just that the acrapyard storage is no longer considered notable? Both of those possibilities seem a little unlikely to me. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:21, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When I read the Daily Mail report, I just assumed the AAIB had kept the bits of the fuselage that exhibited bomb damage and which were vital to the investigation, and that the remainder that wasn't regarded as being essential to the investigation going to Roger Windley's scrapyard. Nick (talk) 11:59, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think I had too. Do we no longer need to make any mention of the scrapyard, then? What has changed? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:08, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think as the scrapyard story is well referenced and has photographic evidence, it definitely provides good further reading for the reader. I believe all that has changed is the location where the part of the fuselage damaged by the bomb is stored, but it's important to discuss this in the article too, especially in the context of the ongoing police investigation by Dumfries & Galloway Police (now Police Scotland). Nick (talk) 15:50, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Belated agreement). Thanks Martinevans123 (talk) 19:18, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did find a supporting reference for our thoughts - bulk of the material at Roger Windley's and the bomb site still with the CAA/Police, but I'm not comfortable using it as it suggests Roger Windley's son was involved selling parts of the aircraft from the scrap yard. Its from the Daily Star, so a reliable source, but it doesn't appear anywhere else hence why I've not done anything with it. Nick (talk) 20:14, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I'd say he Daily Star was about as reliable as those used aircraft parts. Never mind. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:16, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not "boasting" or "gloating" about blocking or banning users. I saw someone else do it, I figured I would, too. I do not brag about it, though. Alex2564 (talk) 01:01, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Who else does it ? Nick (talk) 01:21, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tayside House, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Refurbishment (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:33, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But I changed the bullet into a numerical for your neutral comment at Legoktm's RfA. It seems clear to me that you had intended as such to begin with, and I went ahead and fixed it for you. If this was in error, feel free to revert my edit. =) Kurtis ^(talk) 04:20, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The new notification system made it impossible to properly communicate with the IP.—Ryulong (琉竜) 10:39, 3 May 2013 (UTC) Thanks for deleting survivalcraft, the page I made. I couldn't find a way to do so and it was bugging me since it was a useless page Techbrewson (talk) 19:04, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just stopping by to say thanks for your kind words on the talkpage :). It's a rather rough atmosphere, and commentators like you are one of the things keeping me sane. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 14:20, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Thanks for dishing out those two blocks - I've put a block notice on the IP's talk pages for you. Thank you again!! Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 16:11, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

hi you have speed deleted the page i have created on "SCAD College of Engineering and Technology" due to some copy rights problem, so now i am unable to recreate that page. how can i create that page now and i assure you that i will follow the rules will creating that page....GentalMan (talk) 03:13, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will not make any copyrights issue, for that you can see this page (simple:SCAD College of Engineering and Technology) which is also created by me, so now can you allow me to create that page, RegardsGentalMan (talk) 05:56, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please go through the normal articles for creation process, where your submission will be reviewed prior to going live. Nick (talk) 09:10, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Nick Can u please grand me the permission to create that page, i want to create that and the page created in Simple wiki is also not visible in google while searching, so can u grand me permission..GentalMan (talk) 06:28, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid as I'm not able to tell whether the page, regardless of copyright violation, meets our guidelines, I'm unable to approve it. That's why I suggest going through the normal article creation process, see Wikipedia:Articles for creation. Nick (talk) 09:50, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. You've been in discussions on my talk page regarding Qworty, so might wish to contribute ideas, etc., to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:NaymanNoland (section: "Project Qworty"). If you haven't read today's Salon article addressing this disaster, it's here: http://www.salon.com/2013/05/17/revenge_ego_and_the_corruption_of_wikipedia/ NaymanNoland (talk) 22:06, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was in the throws of reading it when you left this message. Just off to read the remainder. I'll leave you some thoughts once I've had a chance to reflect on what I'm thinking right now and see if that changes in the morning (I'm in the UK, so it's approaching midnight as I write this). Nick (talk) 22:14, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote the following on Rak-Tai's talk page a few days ago after he had reposted his rant against me for the umpteenth time:

"Please lodge a complaint at WP:ANI if you think you have a real problem with me instead of posting your rants against me on your user page. You seem to be very vindictive towards me due to me reverting your censorship on the Pattaya and Mission (Christianity) articles, and reverting other instances of your manipulation of Wikipedia for your own goals, as well me putting your wholly unreferenced article on Worldwide Faith Missions up for deletion. Please stop your vindictive attacks. These unproven, vindictive attacks are seen as harassment per WP:AOHA. As I have written to you many times before in the past few years, if you think that I am truly harassing you, please begin a case against me on WP:ANI and have me banned from editing here on Wikipedia instead of posting your vitriol on your user page. - Takeaway (talk) 17:51, 16 May 2013 (UTC)"[reply]

Rak-Tai also accuses me of "enlisting fellow cronies" to harass him. I assume he is referring to the people who were involved in the AfD discussion concerning the Worldwide Faith Missions. I can't prove this but I have never met or contacted these people prior to the AfD discussion other than to inform them (because they were involved in another AfD discussion on an article that Rak-Tai had written) of this new AfD. I contacted all parties involved, also those who voted "keep" for the Johannes Maas article. Strangely enough though, in the AfD's concerning Rak-Tai's articles, new users and IP-users, who have never edited before or thereafter, suddenly crop up in support of Rak-Tai's articles....
In all the discussions that I've had with Rak-Tai, I have always openly admitted to (loosely) follow his edits after I first discovered his censorship on the Pattaya article (see his comments on Talk:Pattaya#Sexual_and_prurient_references), especially after his repeated reverts of well-referenced content on that same article (see Talk:Pattaya#.22Nightlife.22_is_what_for_a_large_part_defines_Pattaya). I view actions like this as verging on vandalism and that is when I started researching his edits, not to annoy him out of revenge for something he had done to me personally because he hasn't, even though he did post a few annoying things on my talk page (such as this nonsensical warning and this remark), but to see what other damage he had done on Wikipedia. I came across more instances of his special style of censorship such as in the aforementioned "Mission (Christianity)" article (see the following edits by Rak-Tai: 1 and 2), on the article Prostitution in Thailand (see for instance this act of censorship by Rak-Tai where he uses a false argument to remove "unwanted" content from the article), in the article Rice Christian (see this act of censorship where he completely twists the truth in his edit summary) and also here in the A.A. Allen article.
He also spuriously put articles, that are actually referenced, up for deletion with the strangest of arguments (see for instance Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deeper Christian Life Ministry, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skyline Church and [[1]].) One can only assume that user Rak-Tai personally dislikes these organisations and/or people because, seeing that the articles are all based on reliable third party sources, there couldn't be any other reason to have these articles deleted.
I have tried to curb Rak-Tai's edits where needed, as have other editors. But it would seem that in his mind, I am his one main enemy here on Wikipedia, probably because I was the one to have nominated his "prize article" for deletion as well as having cleared most of Wikipedia from Rak-Tai's numerous insertions of the name of a non-notable missionary, something for which he was warned repeatedly by several people to stop doing a few years earlier (see 1 and 2). - Takeaway (talk) 19:33, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think this needs to go to ANI, I'm not sure it's something I can help with on my own. It's too far beyond what I know about and am happy/comfortable dealing with, really, I'm afraid. Nick (talk) 19:48, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't understand why Rak-Tai has chosen to voice his concerns directly on your talk page while he actually had the chance to respond on the ANI procedure that I had started about his constant attacks against me. Well, if he wishes to, he can start an ANI procedure to complain about my behaviour towards him. I could of course also begin an ANI procedure against Rak-Tai for his tendentious editing but as far as I know, there isn't a rule that states that I have to, though there is a rule that states that Rak-Tai has to do so if he persists in voicing his accusations against me. - Takeaway (talk) 20:16, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is to inform you that an article that you wrote, Mathew Knowles, has been recently tagged with a notability notice. This means that it may not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Please note that articles which do not meet these criteria may be merged, redirected, or deleted. Please consider adding reliable, secondary sources to the article in order to establish the topic's notability. You may find the following links useful when searching for sources: Find sources: "Mathew Knowles" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images. Thank you for editing Wikipedia! VoxelBot 19:45, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I left you a message on my talk page.

Matty.007 16:23, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help with my edit count! Matty.007 11:30, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am editor on the duchess of Cornwall's page and recently got into the edit war with another editor, you also posted on the articles talk page on the incident, anyways the other editor just recently deleted half of the article's contribution which I and others editors made, basically the editor is saying all those information was copyrighted, I thinks its best if a third party intervenes, and I am wondering if you could so to solve this out [2] this is what the editor deleted (Monkelese (talk) 21:13, 8 June 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Hi Nick, can you please add protection template on that page? -sarvajna (talk) 19:09, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Nick (talk) 19:20, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please block User:Daredevil7 with an expiry set of indefinite, because its user was vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.171.176.131 (talk) 01:33, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That looks like a content dispute or disagreement, and not vandalism. I'm unable to block on that basis, I'm afraid. Please discuss the changes you've both made. Knowing album sales information, it's probably that you're both looking at different sources and you'll need to decide how to present the different information you both hold. There are other examples of how different album sales information is presented with the bigger selling artists, perhaps that can assist in your dispute. Nick (talk) 09:58, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Test Nick (talk) 19:17, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Nick. You have new messages at Kingpin13's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

- Kingpin¹³ (talk) 00:09, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

clarification
Thank you for quality articles on chemistry such as Whisky destilleries in Scotland, for images, for offering a place where "crying is ok", for closing the unclear (less "apparent" than the title suggests) and seeking clarification, for edit summaries to the point, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:30, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move Like This
by 28bytes

I translated, duck attack on the German Main page ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:39, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A year ago, you were the 531st recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:41, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm referring to the the Montagu article. Talk pages go away when articles are deleted/redirected. See no reason for an exception in this case, particularly given how the talk page is being used at the moment.Dan Murphy (talk) 20:32, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The talk page re-appeared, created by a bot after I deleted it, I just assumed this was a new clause hidden in the depths of some obscure bit of policy. It's actually down to how I created the redirect and how pages were moved around by myself and Scott Martin before, during and after the deletion.

I've deleted the page, the thread drift there isn't helpful and is certainly close to crossing the line with regards to BLP, and was getting to the stage where it was recreating some of the article on the talk page, which defeats the purpose of the AfD closure in the first place. Hope that helps. Nick (talk) 20:52, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly what was "close to crossing the line with regards to BLP"? Every comment on the talk: page of a newly-created redirect was no more than is already at the AfD discussion (or are you going to blank that next?), the links to support each comment are plentiful, and none of the comments at that talk: page were ever seriously challenged in the AfD.

This sort of censorship-on-demand is very poor behaviour by an admin. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:59, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The page was turning into another biography of Alexander Montagu, it was effectively circumventing the closure of the AfD by providing a venue to present some of what was in the article. Alexander was judged to not be notable and the project shouldn't really have any need to be discussing newspaper reports about him at any venue, although if it absolutely is essential, could it be done at Talk:Duke of Manchester, in order that there are more pairs of eyes to deal with any really problematic links to very dubious material.

I'll be heading off for the night soon, could you and Dan perhaps get together and compromise if there are still issues needing discussed (stemming from the AfD) such as redirects etc and if it requires any administrative action, give me a shout. Cheers all, Nick (talk) 21:28, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Alexander Montagu.2C 13th Duke of Manchester and canvassing at Wikipediocracy. Thank you. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:35, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Before the ANI discussion becomes overheated, I'm going to suggest that you reverse your deletion of the article. You made a clear and critical error in your close. As one of the news articles cited in the discussion [3] pointed out. the subject was a member of the House of Lords as a result of the title he held prior to his (supposed) accession to the dukedom. This article is an AP piece (out of Canada) (see [4]) and clearly qualifies as a reliable source. As both DGG and I pointed out, this demonstrates notability as a member of a national legislature, and your close recognizes that standard (but erroneously presumed that his membership hinged on the dukeship rather than his prior title). Since no one disputed either the fact of his prior title nor his membership thereby in the House of Lords, the article should have been kept. All the huggermugger over his status as Duke of Manchester was irrelevant, and obscured what should have been the determining issue. Any content issues could have been resolved by routine editing processes. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:57, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The newspaper report appears to be incorrect and refers to an (incorrect) courtesy title. Alexander Montagu, 13th Duke of Manchester (or whatever his actual title is or isn't) has never been (as far as I can tell, and I did a lot of research into this, his titles, the Roll of the Peerage etc before closing the AfD) a member of the House of Lords, his father, the 12th Duke was until 1999, Alexander succeeded to the title in 2002 on the death of his father, 2 and a bit years after hereditary peers had been disqualified from sitting in the House of Lords. Nick (talk) 22:20, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you supply any sort of sourcing or referencing to indicate the AP was wrong? And I'll also point out that your comments about "doing a lot of research" etc make your close seem like a supervote, since you weren't evaluating the arguments of editors, but doing an independent analysis. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:28, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My closure was based on whether or not Montagu was notable based on heritable titles and involvement in the UK legislative process (which would stem from his inherited titles), if he had served in the House of Lords, I would have closed the discussion as Keep with the subject being regarded as a notable person, as it with any other peer who has sat in the House of Lords and any past or present MP.

It has been claimed that he is not entitled to the title Duke of Manchester (resulting in the page being moved to Alexander Montagu during the AfD - not by me, I hasten to add). The AfD has a link to the Role of the Peerage, an official UK legislative document that records all peers who have sat in the House of Lords or otherwise registered to appear on the Role. That was a little too convenient for my liking, so I double checked it and found a minor issue.

There are a couple of loopholes I needed to check out first, it's possible for a hereditary peer to sit in the House of Lords in broadly two ways, they can be elected or they can be awarded a life peerage, so I had to make sure Montagu hadn't entered the House of Lords by one of these routes, and he hasn't. He has never sat in the House of Lords and has never had any involvement in the UK legislative process, as I stated in my closure of the AfD and the principal reason I concluded the arguments stating Montagu weren't notable more persuasive. If you visit http://www.college-of-arms.gov.uk/peers-roll-contents, his absence from the role confirms he has never sat in the House of Lords (if he had, he would be included under the clause "Hereditary Peers who up to 1999 received a Writ of Summons".)

Hope that explains it all, it's really horribly complicated and has probably got worse now that the AP seem to think he has sat in the House of Lords. A quick search I've just undertaken of Hansard turns up no evidence of Montagu having sat in the House of Lords under any subsidiary titles http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/people/mr-angus-montagu/ (his father) and he http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/people/mr-alexander-montagu/.

Cheers, Nick (talk) 22:56, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems utterly implausible that the AP claim is correct. 2002 is too late for this, without it being recorded through the Roll. Yet no-one at the AfD was ever claiming this, as a reason for notability, so it just doesn't matter anyway.

There is still a serious problem in that no-one has reconciled the discrepancy between Burke's and Debrett's describing him as a duke without him having been listed on the Roll. Just what is his status? Andy Dingley (talk) 23:15, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick note - it's midnight here. I'm more than happy to continue this discussion tomorrow, but if any administrator wishes to reverse the deletion because the feel notability has been established (especially if it becomes clear Alexander Montagu has sat in the House of Lords or has had some sort of legislative role in the UK), please feel free, just let me know and let me have a source, this whole thing has rather piqued my interest somewhat. Nick (talk) 23:01, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed that shortly before you closed this Afd, the page in question was moved to Alexander Montagu. So that page was deleted and a new page Alexander Montagu, 13th Duke of Manchester was created as a redirect. This had the effect of deleting the page history. It seems entirely possible that this person may become notable in the future, especially considering his involvement in financial services and his jail time for fraud. As you said in the Afd, the keep/delete debate was fairly evenly balanced. So can you restore the old page history to Alexander Montagu, 13th Duke of Manchester in accordance with WP:PRESERVE ? Thanks, Dingo1729 (talk) 23:16, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you asking me to undelete the article as deleted at Alexander Montagu and move it to Alexander Montagu, 13th Duke of Manchester before deleting it again, so that the page history is in the correct place should it ever be undeleted, or are you asking for undeletion ?

WP:PRESERVE has no relevance in deletion discussions, after a deletion, the page history is deleted from the public archive, if it wasn't, you would have a courtesy blanking. In line with our BLP policies, Wikipedia absolutely will not tolerate re-creating an article if it's to be populated with even more content concerning his personal life, business relationships etc or legal problems, unless it's exceptionally egregious and would be unambiguously notable regardless of any title Alexander may or may not hold, i.e Bernard Madoff etc. Nick (talk) 23:46, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm asking you to "undelete the article as deleted at Alexander Montagu and move it to Alexander Montagu, 13th Duke of Manchester before deleting it again, so that the page history is in the correct place should it ever be undeleted" rather than undelete it. Or you can just overwrite it with a redirect. You said that "after a deletion, the page history is deleted from the public archive"; can you point me to those instructions? I couldn't see them at WP:AFD/AI. It seems quite common at AFD to leave the article history intact when making the article into a redirect. What you seem to have intended is more like a simple Redirect. But by hiding the history what happened was more like a WP:REVDEL. Dingo1729 (talk) 02:32, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'll need to speak to User:Scott_Martin then and see what his thoughts are on the matter. He was the one who moved the article to Alexander Montagu so it's probably his call. I'm quite happy with Scott doing whatever he wants, for the record. The deletion is in accordance with Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Deletion_of_biographies_and_BLPs and the WP:BLP policy, retaining page history for a non notable person doesn't sit well with our policies regarding a presumption of privacy etc. Nick (talk) 12:16, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On the subject of the Duke of Manchester, here's His Grace setting forth his claim to the title: http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=49451#p49451 In the company, no less, of the same WP editor who nominated the article for AfD, on the grounds that Manchester didn't use the title. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:17, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I cited your statement about IRC canvassing at the current ArbCom case (request for arbitration).

Unfortunately, a clerk who already has participated in the case as a community member hid it.

I believe that your witnessing was important and should not be hidden, but I cannot cite it without it being hidden again.

Perhaps you can cite it? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:20, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will try and obtain logs, and get them to the Arbitration Committee. I only have logs for the most recent incident involving the same user (unfortunately it was in relation to an administrative action I had taken) and will get them to the relevant people, the incident was recorded on Wikipedia by another user. If I cannot get logs, I know that I wasn't the only person canvassed to delete one set of your comments and other administrators should be able to confirm they were also canvassed by a couple of people to delete comments and support an indefinite block against you. Nick (talk) 09:39, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They don't need logs now. Logs could be cited during the evidence phase.

Just a statement that IRC canvassing has occured in my or another ANI discussion. I gave the diff and quoted a fragment of your statement from my ANI discussion.

It may be that the Arbs hatted my discussion because it was between other things that should have been arguably hatted. I would find it surprising if they all agree that this is not a concern. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:36, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. A short description of the problem and an invitation for the community to propose a solution was exactly what I'd hoped for. I think that my edits are watched enough that a notice of this conversation is superfluous. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:52, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Nick. You have new messages at Jetstreamer's talk page.
Message added 21:58, 10 July 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.[reply]

Jetstreamer ^Talk 21:58, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Nick: the biographical article on Narendra Modi has been locked since 23 May 2013. I would like to request that the page protection be removed to facilitate changes to the page that are not under dispute. It is likely that the old disputes might flare up once again once the page is unprotected, therefore I would like to propose a one revert restriction (1RR) for all users be enforced for an indefinite period of time.

Additionally, we have consensus on replacing the present infobox image with a free licensed image available on the subject's Flickr account. Would you be so kind as to make the change?

— Nearly Headless Nick {c} 05:24, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Nick. It is possible that the page may require semi-protection, in the event of which, I will seek your counsel. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 07:48, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nick, We see that you've deleted the page for one of our artists, PJ Norman citing:

(A7: No explanation of significance (real person/animal/organization/web content/organized event))

We have to dispute this, Norman is a real person with documented proofs of his contributions in the fields of music, photography and literature.

If you feel the page did not fully explain the significance of Norman's work we would be happy to add to it along with any suggestions you might have.

Please kindly reinstate the page.

Many thanks.

100mrecords (talk) 20:12, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Um, you were blocked from editing. See User_talk:100m#Account_blocked. I've no doubt PJ Norman is a real person, but unfortunately there's no evidence presented in the article (or online, for that matter) to suggest he's sufficiently well known to be suitable for Wikipedia inclusion. You've been informed that your previous 100m account was blocked, and I explained why this was, I'll be blocking your new account and asking that you read the block notice I placed on your old user page (and linked to above). Nick (talk) 21:13, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[5]. Your interpretation of the blocking policy, especially for an admin with your tenure, needs work. Cheers. Doc talk 10:52, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I should have blocked you. Your behaviour is, again, entirely unacceptable. Please consider doing something more productive than trundling around Wikipedia trying to bait various users. Nick (talk) 11:04, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Baiting", widely construed, is not any sort of policy violation. It can be construed to be tantamount to harassment, which needs strong evidence. Your block of me would have been overturned. Read up on baiting before threatening good-faith editors with punitive blocks. Doc talk 11:08, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If I had blocked you, it would have been to prevent you from causing further disruption to the project, it should be quite clear to you, thanks to the comments left on your talk page that many people (including Eric himself) considered your edits on Eric's page to be disruptive and your behaviour at that time to be unacceptable. The fact you failed (and I suspect still fail to understand what was wrong with your editing) makes any block to prevent disruption perfectly in accordance with policy.

Blocks for disruption can be placed against any account, there is no requirement to prove harassment, to demonstrate bad faith or malice, all that needs to be demonstrated is that edits are being found to be disruptive. Please refer to Wikipedia:BLOCK#Disruption for details on this section of the blocking policy and please consider what it was about your edits that I and other editors (some who are also administrators) considered to be inconsistent with a civil, collegial atmosphere.

I'm not sure why, when you commented on the issue of being blocked on your talk page on the 5th July, you've suddenly decided to roll up to my talk page and start all over again. The less charitable amongst us would consider it to be a repeat of the behaviour you demonstrated on Eric's talk page.

I would therefore ask that as you were not blocked, and that the incident occurred over a week ago, you move on from this and consider modifying your behaviour so as to mitigate against any risk of blocking in the future. Nick (talk) 11:31, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You need the lesson on blocking policy, not me. After all: you're an admin and I am not. If you think my block log vs. my time here is due to me being "lucky" as a disruptive editor: that's pretty damned lucky. I am quite allowed to bring things up here, and elsewhere, in regards to this issue (or any other). But I suppose I'm being told to "go away" now. Duly noted. Doc talk 11:39, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Please participate in the current discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Disruptive editing by Darkness Shines. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 19:47, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I saw you made the page locked down totally and reverted edits that had Mickelson winning the BO already. Fine, except you also inadvertently undid this edit of mine[6]. As I noted on this person's talk page[7], Mickelson was eliminated with birdie not par at the 2000 Byron Nelson. Also by locking down the article, you're keeping a legit golf editor(me) from doing the necessary edits when the Mickelson win is official....William 16:36, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia policy is to wait until the official results have been announced or confirmed, which is why there was a nice little edit war underway with content concerning the 2013 Open being added and then removed.

I'm sitting watching the golf at the moment and although the engraver is hard at work, he hasn't won anything yet. I know it was unlikely (and now impossible) for anybody to overtake Phil with a lower score but it's never beyond the realms of possibility in golf that a disqualification or penalty could be imposed, given the myriad of rules we have to adhere to. That's why we always wait, we're not a news site, so it doesn't matter if we're not providing breaking news.

I'll be unprotecting just as soon as his win is confirmed. Nick (talk) 16:49, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Total lockdown from IPS is over the top reaction wise. Your explanation was to protect from page moves. What page moves? Mickelson has won now....William 16:52, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Page protection was due to the edit warring, as my log shows. (del/undel) 2013-07-21T17:26:53 (diff | hist) . . (0)‎ . . m Phil Mickelson ‎ (Changed protection level of Phil Mickelson: Edit warring/Content dispute ([Edit=Block all non-admin users] (expires 19:26, 21 July 2013 (UTC)) [Move=Block all non-admin users] (indefinite))) The move protection was a pre-existing protection that will remain after the edit protection is removed. Nick (talk) 16:56, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why you haven't taken the page protection off is beyond me? I'm going to make a case at ANI. Your page protection was unnecessary, you botched the last edit by you to the page, then you stall taking the page protection off. It calls into dispute your competence as an administrator IMHO....William 17:01, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(del/undel) 2013-07-21T17:58:24 (diff | hist) . . (0)‎ . . m Phil Mickelson ‎ (Changed protection level of Phil Mickelson ([Move=Block all non-admin users] (indefinite))).Nick (talk) 17:06, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article Jaguar XJ220 you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by GA bot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:26, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated, thanks. Nick (talk) 22:29, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you don't feel I'm trying to take over your GA review Nick, it's just that I'd hate to see this article on a beautiful car fail for the lack of a little comma shuffling. Eric Corbett 16:23, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, not at all, as you can see from the references and some of my writings, I've not kept up to date with what GA reviewers now expect with regards to references, paragraphs and other MOS stuff. I'd really struggle to do what you've been doing to the article and it looks much better for it. Cheers, Nick (talk) 16:27, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The hardest criticism to address in any review I always think is the generic "This article needs a thorough copyedit". I'm not blaming Sturmvogel for that in any way as I think he was right, but relying on the GOCE was going to get us nowhere. Eric Corbett 17:44, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Nick. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((You've got mail)) or ((ygm)) template.

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:06, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article Jaguar XJ220 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Jaguar XJ220 for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by GA bot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:48, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, User:Sturmvogel 66 for the review and congratulations also to User:Eric Corbett for the myriad changes he needed to make to allow it pass through the GA process. Nick (talk) 09:53, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

• The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
• The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
• The Teahouse new editor help space
• Wikipedia Help pages

If you have any questions, you can ask me personally. I'm Ocaasi. I'm glad you're with us :) -- Ocaasi ^{leave me a message}

@Nick: Did you notice the list of participants?

Participants

• User:Ocaasi
• User:Dcoetzee
• User:Demiurge1000
• User:Pine
• User:Guerillero
• User:Rcsprinter123
• User:Sonia
• User:Worm That Turned
• User:Ebe123
• User:Jojalozzo
• User:RexRowan

It's heartwarming to see such a list of IRC regulars looking after the 7 years old who want to edit Wikipedia. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:49, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[6=1&templates_yes=Vector+version+available&templates_no=protected+generic+image+name%0D%0Aprotected+image%0D%0App-protected%0D%0App-template%0D%0ACopy+to+Wikimedia+Commons%0D%0ADeleted+on+Commons%0D%0ADo+not+move+to+Commons%0D%0AKeep+local%0D%0ANow+Commons%0D%0Adb-nowcommons%0D%0AShadowsCommons%0D%0AConvert+to+SVG+and+copy+to+Wikimedia+Commons%0D%0Am-cropped%0D%0Ac-uploaded%0D%0Affd%0D%0Apuf%0D%0Absr%0D%0Afile+at+CCI%0D%0Adi-no+license%0D%0Adi-no+permission%0D%0Adi-no+source%0D%0Awrong-license%0D%0AFree+in+US+media+%0D%0ANon-free+in+US%0D%0Aout+of+copyright+in%0D%0AOTRS+pending%0D%0AOTRS+received%0D%0AWikipedia+screenshot&sortby=uploaddate&ext_image_data=1&file_usage_data=1|This query]

Most of these should ideally be at commons, your assistance greatly appreciated. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:30, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Nick. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 20:32, 14 August 2013 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((You've got mail)) or ((ygm)) template.

AGK [•] 20:32, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, much appreciated. Nick (talk) 21:06, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nick, please do not overwrite another editor's comment as you did in this revision, even if you disagree with how often that editor is editing the page. CaseyPenk (talk) 16:01, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your rude post. Your text was not there when I submitted my edit, but that is the side effect of continually posting on a page, please cease and allow other editors to express their opinion, when the page cools down a little, then you can start to discuss some of the points raised further. Nick (talk) 16:07, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My intention was not be rude. I respectfully reserve my right to contribute to the discussion. CaseyPenk (talk) 16:11, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As you have every right to do, it just shouldn't be at the expense of others who have that exact same right. Think of it as sharing the platform, switching places at the lectern. It is worth remembering a quick two line reply takes seconds to type and save, a longer response takes many minutes, so logicaly you're less likely to be edit conflicted yourself, but you're more likely to have created edit conflicts for others, which is why it's nice to step back, leave the page for an hour or two and let others say their piece, then come back to it later on when it quietens down.

You never know, someone might well say something which supports your argument (or makes it stronger) and you no longer need to make any response at all. That's the good thing about WP being a community, you're never a lone voice - in discussions like this, there are people who support you and people who oppose you, but you're never, ever on your own. Nick (talk) 16:31, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the thoughtful response. To be clear, I wasn't trying to drown out the voices of opposing voices -- in fact, I countered the arguments of several supporters because I found their reasoning to be prejudicial / offensive. Looking over the discussion I see the discussion has settled into a fairly reasonable, civil tone and I don't see a need to make so many changes anymore.

I appreciate your desire to make sure all voices are heard. CaseyPenk (talk) 16:34, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Nick. I'm contacting you because you're involved in the Article Feedback Tool in some way, either as a previous newsletter recipient or as an active user of the system. As you might have heard, a user recently anonymously disabled the feedback tool on 2,000 pages. We were unable to track or prevent this due to the lack of logging feature in AFT5. We're deeply sorry for this, as we know that quite a few users found the software very useful, and were using it on their articles.

We've now re-released the software, with the addition of a logging feature and restrictions on the ability to disable. Obviously, we're not going to automatically re-enable it on each article—we don't want to create a situation where it was enabled by users who have now moved on, and feedback would sit there unattended—but if you're interested in enabling it for your articles, it's pretty simple to do. Just go to the article you want to enable it on, click the "request feedback" link in the toolbox in the sidebar, and AFT5 will be enabled for that article.

Again, we're very sorry about this issue; hopefully it'll be smooth sailing after this :). If you have any questions, just drop them at the talkpage. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) 21:34, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Thanks for the help in cleaning up the Blizzard shooting article, without your assistance the article may have lingered for years to come. Rankersbo (talk) 12:59, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Nick.

This is just a quick courtesy notice. You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute/Evidence. Please add your evidence by September 19, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Seddon ^talk 23:29, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Nick. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 September 19.
Message added 13:51, 19 September 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

Notifying all users that were involved in the same discussion a few weeks ago which involved deletion of this category. Technical 13 (talk) 13:51, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In case you don't have the page watchlisted User_talk:Yatrides#Yatrides_strong_references -- I'm not really following what he's sayin. NE Ent 23:11, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm as confused now as I was before. I'll ask if he's been in touch with OTRS and see what they've said to him. Nick (talk) 23:20, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

_____________________________

Hello Nick,

My page about my life of June 06th, 2013 was the result of one labor of 2 years of not professional discussions.

I simply claims that can be handed online my biography of 6 June 2013 supplemented irrefutable strong references, scanned, easily visible to the moderators no longer intervene on my life. Their behavior is detrimental to small Collectors whose heritage is made of pictorial elements of my work, but also important Private Collections which can not be undervalued[8].

On 20 September 2013, I have provided all the information, including numerous strong references[9][10][11], more than eighty which prove that my biography of June 6, 2013 was strictly just and unjust it was to change at 14:30 pm.

For it is not attempted again to blur the main subject, I demanded that I be formally confirmed that the content of my message of September 20 has been read. This message emphasized the correctness of my formal request to return my biography online from 06 June 2013 (37.594 bytes) before its amendment at 14:30 pm, but comforted by the references scanned. Among these numerous references are several dictionaries,[12][13][14] [15][16] very concise style of which is however more informed about my long life of 82 years, more informed than my Wiki bibliographic page of June 06th, 2013.

Although I am not litigious and do not want to be, after 110 days of misunderstanding (June 6 to September 24), this situation really calls for a quick goal.

Kindest regards, Georges Yatrides, 24 September 2013 --Yatrides (talk) 15:51, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not able to assist you - you need to confirm your identity first by contacting the Wikimedia Foundation at info-en-q@wikimedia.org and they will be able to assist you via that route. We need to be very careful that you are who you say you are, then we can set about correcting errors and remedying issues with the article. Nick (talk) 16:20, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't visted the page recently, so I don't know if it turned into an "attack page" as you claimed, but surely it wasn't a week or so ago. Can you please fill me in on what happened?Two kinds of pork (talk) 19:46, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There was a lot of material present which I believe to be inappropriate (details about family members, poorly referenced accusations and arguably libellous content) going back to pretty much the start of the article. I've referred my deletion over to the Arbitration Committee (as the whole thing is under discretionary sanctions at the moment) and asked them to oversight material if they would prefer for it to be restored. Nick (talk) 19:52, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I suspect others will want a similar explanation and find it here. Thanks.Two kinds of pork (talk) 20:08, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. Because you participated in the August 2013 move request regarding this subject, you may be interested in participating in the current discussion. This notice is provided pursuant to Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate notification. Cheers! bd2412 T 21:40, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I've said my piece; I don't see any obstacles to entertaining an appeal, and I similarly don't see any reason to unblock from a personal perspective. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 13:04, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I, as a non-administrator, wouldn't have been allowed to get away with this. Why should you? Eric Corbett 22:43, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to see that irony isn't dead. You not only did it twice, you were named "Editor of the week" for it". Andy Dingley (talk) 22:48, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You wouldn't recognise irony if I hit you in the face with a ton of it. Eric Corbett 22:57, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're right – I meant of course that you're a hypocrite, but I was being polite. Nice to see that you and your new friends at Wikipediocracy are standing up for paid-editing again. You've had another embarrassing BLP article about one of your happy band deleted, now you're trying to get his business back on line. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:01, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then why don't you try saying what you mean, perhaps as an experiment at first? Eric Corbett 23:03, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CIVIL prevents me describing you as I would consider appropriate. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:05, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't prevent me though, as I hold you in little regard. Eric Corbett 23:08, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the nastygram email, Eric. I thought these were coming from Vigilant, but I guess I was wrong. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:04, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I know you're wrong. I don't even know what a "nastygram" email is. Eric Corbett 23:13, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like some clarification from you, Andy Dingley, about this article my "happy band" wrote that has just been deleted. Eric Corbett 23:16, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've had my fingers wrapped for being naughty and have apologised to the editor in question. I was going to ask you something - ah yes, has some developer or coder changed the referencing template things again. I notice there's some horrid red text and error messages in the references section of Jaguar XJ220 which I'll have to go and fix, but I don't remember it being there when we finished getting it through the GA process. Cheers, Nick (talk) 05:20, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't remember it being there either, but I've fixed it now. Eric Corbett 12:38, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't bother telling him anything. He'll cry to his butt buddy Bishonen, who happens to have admin powers. 24.153.216.129 (talk) 05:24, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Nick. You have new messages at Ryulong's talk page.
Message added 19:35, 20 October 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.[reply]

—Ryulong (琉竜) 19:35, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! When placing a Commons image on the main page, please remember to first upload it to the English Wikipedia and tag it with the ((uploaded from Commons)) template. Otherwise, it will not be protected until KrinkleBot detects the transclusion and updates Commons:Auto-protected files/wikipedia/en accordingly. (In this instance, File:Sebastian Vettel 2012 Bahrain GP.jpg remained unprotected for more than five hours, during which it was subject to replacement by a vandal.)
Currently, this notice appears when the ITN template is edited. I've attempted to make it sufficiently eye-catching, but it evidently continues to go unnoticed at times. Any improvements (or improvement suggestions) are welcome. Thanks! —David Levy 18:49, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the image was on en.wp, I used it as it had previously been on the Main Page and thought it would be OK for cascaded page protection. On a related note, why is KrinkleBot taking so lot to deal with page protection, and why after five years or more of cascading protection are we still having to manually upload images to en.wp for cascading protection to take effect ? Nick (talk) 19:22, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the image was on en.wp, I used it as it had previously been on the Main Page and thought it would be OK for cascaded page protection.

A page exists locally, but only for the purpose of displaying the ((DYKfile)) template (a tag indicating that the image appeared in the DYK section on 26 November 2012).

Regarding that usage, my understanding is that the bot responsible for updating DYK does so only after ensuring that the relevant image has been protected. (The queues are created far in advance, so there usually is plenty of time for KrinkleBot to act.)

On a related note, why is KrinkleBot taking so lot to deal with page protection,

I'm unfamiliar with the technical background (and assume that Krinkle could provide more enlightenment). I only know that the response time varies greatly (from mere minutes to several hours, with occasional outages that prevent the bot from working at all).

and why after five years or more of cascading protection are we still having to manually upload images to en.wp for cascading protection to take effect ?

I'm also unfamiliar with the technical reasons behind this unfortunate limitation.

An ideal solution, I suppose, would be a setup in which files transcluded on a cascade-protected page are automatically hosted locally. (Even if it's technically feasible, extending cascading protection from 800 Wikimedia wikis to Commons seems undesirable.) I don't know whether the MediaWiki developers have been asked about this, so I'll try to check. —David Levy 02:00, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've left Werdna (who created the cascading protection feature) a note. —David Levy 02:33, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll have to be more certain the image and not just a page concerning the image exists locally in future, sorry about that and thanks for the explanation. Nick (talk) 09:02, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it's easier to automatically protect images used on other wikis since Extension:GlobalUsage was installed in 2009 than it was in 2007 when I wrote cascading protection in the first place. I think you may need to poke somebody from the security team; say, Chris Steipp. Before it's implemented, though, there should be some consideration of what sort of solution you'd like — it's all very well for Commons to protect any images used on the en-wp main page (though I don't know if even that would fly), but imagine scaling that up to lots of other wikis. It seems like Commons wouldn't be too happy if they couldn't edit an image just because it's used on the main page of some tiny Wikipedia. Maybe there's a better way, for example, being able to specify a specific revision of an image to show? Lots of potential software solutions here, and I suspect you'd probably want to investigate options and find consensus before committing to one solution. — Andrew Garrett • talk 07:58, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The specific revision of an image to protect sounds like a perfect solution. I'd guess the easiest way (not knowing all that much about the MW codebase) would be for the software to automatically do this unless over-ridden, as I'm struggling to think of any instances where I've wanted to use a specific image revision but I'm sure it would be useful nonetheless. Thanks. Nick (talk) 09:49, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, it would be problematic if a Commons file were to be protected whenever it's transcluded on a cascade-protected page at any of 800 WMF wikis.

I don't know whether it's technically feasible, but I was thinking that a good solution would be for the Commons file's current revision (as of the edit through which it's transcluded on a cascade-protected page) to be automatically frozen as a temporary local file (functionally similar to a manual upload, apart from its ephemeral nature) until the file is no longer transcluded on a cascade-protected page or an administrator manually replaces it with a standard local upload (whichever occurs first).

This would operate very much like the current ((uploaded from Commons)) system, but without the need to manually upload (and later delete) local copies of files. It also would supersede KrinkleBot's fallback protection of several projects' main page images at Commons (as well as manual protection that occurs there), thereby eliminating a non-trivial amount of collateral damage (files protected at the Commons level because they're in use locally).

Such a setup would be elegant in the respect that it never would result in file protection not requested by a sysop at the affected wiki; transcluding a file on a cascade-protected page or cascade-protecting a page with preexisting transclusions inherently constitutes a request to cascade-protect the relevant files. (If they haven't been uploaded locally, the current system calls for the admin to do so or ensure that they've been protected at Commons.)

So from a policy standpoint, assuming that a proper log were maintained (to avoid creating a backdoor method of locally protecting files without leaving a clear record), I can't imagine why this would be controversial. Does it seem like a realistic possibility from a technical standpoint?

The concept of specifying a particular file revision is intriguing, but its implementation would require measures to prevent abuse (such as users uploading new file versions, quickly reverting, and using the largely unnoticed revisions for vandalism or POV-pushing) and its use would require a level of manual intervention not far removed from the local upload step that's proven problematic (because it's easy for an admin to be unaware of or forget the need to do something special when transcluding the image). —David Levy 06:18, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't Make Me Think. If an image is transcluded into a protected page, the MediaWiki software should automatically make a copy of the image, store it locally and protect that copy. Once the local image copy is no longer transcluded in any page, it gets deleted, automatically. How to implement this is left as a detail for the developers. There is no reason to ask admins or any editor to do scut work that can be done automatically, precisely and reliably by software. Jehochman ^Talk 17:35, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure. I'd actually say that making a copy of the image is less likely than referring to a specific version, if I'm honest. It wouldn't necessarily mean making work for administrators, though – the version of the image could be determined automatically on-save or by reading the revision time of the page. It could then be updated when the page is null-edited. — Andrew Garrett • talk 01:16, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds excellent, provided that file revision updates wouldn't occur accidentally (e.g. when editing a page for an unrelated reason). —David Levy 11:49, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[6=1&templates_no=protected+generic+image+name%0D%0Aprotected+image%0D%0App-protected%0D%0App-template%0D%0ACopy+to+Wikimedia+Commons%0D%0ADeleted+on+Commons%0D%0ADo+not+move+to+Commons%0D%0ANotMovedToCommons%0D%0AKeep+local%0D%0Aesoteric+file%0D%0ANow+Commons%0D%0Adb-nowcommons%0D%0AShadowsCommons%0D%0AConvert+to+SVG+and+copy+to+Wikimedia+Commons%0D%0Am-cropped%0D%0Ac-uploaded%0D%0Aduplicate%0D%0Affd%0D%0Apuf%0D%0Absr%0D%0AImagewatermark%0D%0Afile+at+CCI%0D%0Adi-no+license%0D%0Adi-no+permission%0D%0Adi-no+source%0D%0Awrong-license%0D%0AFree+in+US+media+%0D%0ANon-free+in+US%0D%0Aout+of+copyright+in%0D%0AOTRS+pending%0D%0AOTRS+received%0D%0AWikipedia+screenshot%0D%0AVector+version+available%0D%0ANFUR+not+needed&ext_image_data=1&file_usage_data=1 | This list] contains possible images for transfer to Commons, I've been trying to reduce the backlog so it's empty. Your assistance in getting the last few images on it tagged accordingly would be appreciated. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:24, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I DID NOT bait eric into a block. He was blocked PRIOR to my comment. He responded to the blocking admin by calling them an impotent sanctimonious arse, which resulted in an extended block. My comment while uncivil has ZERO to do with his block. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:50, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do apologise. The next time you make an uncivil comment, you'll be blocked. The message you need to be taking home is that any repeat of your behaviour today will result in you being blocked. Nick (talk) 19:55, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So your AN !vote was immediate unblock Between that and your comment just above, I can only surmise that you think calling people cunts, impotent assholes, and telling MANY people to fuck off, in a sequence of MANY WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA failures are acceptable and not worthy of any action, but telling someone that they asked for a block by doing that is a blockable offense. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:03, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with Nick. Gaijin42, your incivility was undoubtably a factor (though not the only one) as I stated on your talk page. Your incivility was still incivility, despite the fact it didn't include swearwords. It is not acceptable. Worm^TT(talk) 20:05, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have admitted and apologized for such. The point is that Nick has directly threatened me with a block for a single statement of incivility, while suggesting that Eric should be immediately unblocked for his much more sustained and mass-directed incivility, and I fail to see what logic would lead to such a conclusion. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:12, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you were blocked for 24 hours, I'd have suggested Eric remain blocked for 24 hours. I trust that clears up your concerns. Nick (talk) 20:14, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed (239 characters, no images) ~Frosty (Talk page) 00:04, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for handling that. I had to go offline. Much obliged. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:55, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Can you please check the connection betweeen User:Litricsor and User:Depleths? Per behavioral similarities, I am 99% sure that we have the same sock master 86.127.31.73 (talk) 16:06, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am thankful for your promptitude. Unfortunately it seems that a new account was just created by him: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Trukruk. Maybe a temporary page semi protection would be also appropriate. Sorry for disturbing you again 86.126.33.73 (talk) 07:47, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And 99% the account https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Tiristors is also his 79.117.185.7 (talk) 23:19, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How about to re do my user page without any Age Info and Stuff

Please reply  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tristan.andrade.136 (talk • contribs) 01:26, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply] 

Hi Tristan.andrade.136. There is good information at Wikipedia:Guidance for younger editors which you should follow. Your name isn't normally unique, but things like your address, your school or your date of birth is, and that could allow a determined editor to find you, which we do not want. You can include things like your age - there's a difference between saying I'm 15 and I was born on 29th February 1998 - and things like your general location, a large city, a general area, but not your full address, or your town if it's small, and don't add details about your school. Hope that helps. Nick (talk) 13:10, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be the first to support his inclusion, but there is an agreed process for this, as all sections on the main page, and admins should follow it. Espresso Addict (talk) 12:56, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'd noticed the process. It seems to have completely failed. There's 8 day old news on the Main Page, I'd be waiting days to get enough interest to warrant putting news about Frederick on the Main Page, and to top it all, there's an unprotected image on the Main Page (which my edit fixed, of course). Nick (talk) 13:02, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Items that get consensus tend to get posted fairly rapidly. (For example, the recent death of Doris Lessing was posted within hours.) I'm not even sure which day Sanger died, and when I checked, the article wasn't updated beyond the unreferenced fact of his death. Espresso Addict (talk) 13:19, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He died today. Referenced to BBC and all other major news sources, Reuters etc, take your pick. Nick (talk) 13:22, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whoever added the date to the article has stated 19th. BBC last I looked didn't give any date; sometimes deaths announcements are delayed by several days. This is why at least a few hours of work on the article are invariably needed to get the facts straight & the tenses amended. Espresso Addict (talk) 13:28, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The blurb I added didn't include the date of death, so was perfectly appropriate. I can't believe I've wasted close to an hour dealing with this ridiculous bureaucracy. Please just revert your edit and I can archive this nonsense. Nick (talk) 13:34, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Sachin image wasn't unprotected - it had been protected on Commons. --Bongwarrior (talk) 17:34, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was able to edit it when I checked earlier today, which is why I uploaded a local copy. Nick (talk) 17:36, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. We are talking about this image, aren't we? It has been cascade protected since this edit on the 16th - you can click "edit", but you shouldn't be able to actually modify anything. --Bongwarrior (talk) 17:47, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you posted here, chastising User:TheOldJacobite for reverting my changes to the article. As he did not respond to your post, I re-added my plot summary to the article, but he has reverted it again (for the fourth time). While he did reply on the talk page after reverting it, I do feel that he's grasping at straws to justify his reversions, and I'm concerned that he may continue to insist that I'm not adequately addressing his points and to completely undo my revision. I asked for advice in #wikipedia-en and was told to report him here for edit warring, but I'm not completely comfortable escalating the situation like that, being a new user and all. Expressing this, it was suggested that I ask you what should be done, and so here I am. How is this sort of situation generally handled? --Guest206125 (talk) 07:36, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's still a discussion on going, so you'll have to follow that through further first, but then it's that place next. I'd very much like to know why he considers 19 words to be dramatic expansion too, though. Nick (talk) 11:38, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On 29 November 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Carmyllie Railway, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that although the Carmyllie Railway was in operation for almost 130 years, it offered passenger services for less than 30 years? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Carmyllie Railway. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 16:03, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which of the sources are secondary (as opposed to primary news reports) and how do they demonstrate it meets WP:EVENT and does not fail WP:NOTNEWS ? LGA _talk^edits 02:55, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Very serious incident with live coverage for several hours across all the major national networks, and reporting from international sources clearly establishing the necessary diversity and depth of coverage. Every bit as notable as well established examples such as 2013_Vauxhall_helicopter_crash and the overwhelming consensus at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2013_Vauxhall_helicopter_crash --_nonsense ferret 03:02, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They're all carrying secondary coverage, reporting on information released by Police Scotland, the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service and the Scottish Ambulance Service. Nick (talk) 03:05, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kafziel. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kafziel/Evidence. Please add your evidence by December 29, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kafziel/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 22:33, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we were discussing about the page "Devyani Khobragade" not "Devyani Khobragade incident" for which discussion is going on. Also, there is absolutely enough content for creation of individual page for "Devyani Khobragade" and it should not depend on keeping/deleting of "Devyani Khobragade incident". --KakaDesi 17:04, 18 December 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kakadesi (talk • contribs)

Kakadesi, please revert your last edit to the page - it is quite clear from the AfD discussion that the consensus at present is for the page to exist only at Devyani Khobragade incident. This will require significant discussion before any decision can be made to separate out the article as you have done and continue to do. It needs to be correctly attributed too, failure to do this and I will delete it and enforce the redirect, but I'd rather you did this yourself. Nick (talk) 17:10, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you should give your humble opinion only when asked, i agree it is a copy paste work. If she was arrested then whats wrong in taking the arrest paragraph from the incident page with references? Wikipedia is completely based on references, so according to you everything written in wikipedia is a work of copy paste ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kakadesi (talk • contribs) 17:17, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Здохніть Туски-виродки, мало вас бандерівці вирізали

ПО-ляхи курви, смерть ПО-ляхам СЛАВА УКРАЇНІ

--Лябловбивця — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.246.53.55 (talk) 17:18, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please rev del the edits, this guy's harassment is getting excessive. See User_talk:DeltaQuad#Troll_sock_series Werieth (talk) 17:29, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know enough about what's going on with all this to feel comfortable using revdel in this case, sorry. Nick (talk) 17:40, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you change 2 weeks block to infinite block for Ryulong? He's blocking repeatedly many times. I'm on here to me. (What? | Changes to you.) 16:07, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No. Nick (talk) 16:29, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding ((subst:Xmas2)) to their talk page with a friendly message.

Hey I noticed that you recently moved the WWE Championship article to WWE World Heavyweight Championship, with your reasoning being "per consensus on Talk page" when there was no discussion on the talk page. I do have the article tagged to be potentially moved back to WWE Championship, with a discussion on a possible move on the talk page, since I don't see WWE referring to their main title with the longer name long-term and the move was only done a week after the two titles were unified. If you want to chime in why you moved the page, go right ahead. Thanks! Jgera5 (talk) 06:46, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jgera5. Apologies, discussion can be found at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Professional_wrestling#Page_move:_WWE_Championship_.E2.86.92_WWE_World_Heavyweight_Championship, not the talk page as I indicated. I've added a link to the talk page, to that effect. Nick (talk) 12:55, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nick, the notice on Secret's talk page refers us to you and Wizardman for issues regarding his/her past administrative actions, so I intend to put an identical note on their talk page. There's also a relevant thread on HJ Mitchell's talk page where I intend to leave a note ...

Ryk72 was blocked indefinitely with reference to an Arbcom decision and on the strong suspicion of being a returning user. I've checked their talk page history and do not see their having been warned of the applicable Arbcom sanctions (the first post there was a series of questions that they reacted badly to; I wish there had at least been a welcome template first) and I consider it to be possible that they merely have an expert interest in the field of the discussion to which their edits were made, and/or that their expertise in Wikipedia comes from either being a quick study (they're right, some of us are) or an editor exercising the right to a Clean Start. They have been advised to e-mail Arbcom and that avenue is of course still open, but they might have privacy concerns ... and in any case I see that Secret himself/herself was inclined toward revisiting the situation, and I can see several possibilities even if we think of it as a WP:ROPE situation. I suspect what has happened is they've dropped through the cracks because of the holidays (and attendant angst) and the coincidence of Secret's retirement from adminship. I may be being sadly naïve, and I do appreciate the stress of these seemingly insoluble problems of duelling nationalist interests, but I don't see leaving this editor blocked as clearly benefitting the encyclopedia; there's a chance we're depriving ourselves of someone useful who just started out in a strife-torn area. Perhaps one could ask them where else they would like to edit, and go from there. However, their unblock request was declined, and Arbcom sanctions are in the picture - and I may indeed be being very naïve. So as one of Secret's two designated go-to fellow admins, could I ask you to have a look? Yngvadottir (talk) 21:59, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've spoken to someone via e-mail about this and will speak to Secret when I can about this. I would still recommend e-mailing the Arbitration Committee given there's AE sanctions involved. Nick (talk) 22:07, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking of repeating that advice on the user's talk page and will now do so, although as I say I can see a case for their having privacy problems with e-mail. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:16, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there. I saw that you edited Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jaro Institute of Technology, Management and Research here. As a FYI, That template is supposed to be substituted. When you substitute it it pulls in the revision timestamp and the revision user so that there id a definite submission date to when the submission was requested. If there is no submission date the submission will end up in Category:AfC pending submissions without an age which is intended to be the very last cateogry checked in a pending submissions sweep. The template really should look like this when properly substituted as it adds the ts and u parameters. The TS parameter is important as it allows us to "age" the pending submission. The U parameter is important because it determines who the acceptance or decline notice goes to. Thanks for your time.Hasteur (talk) 03:36, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Hasteur:, its not clearly stated anywhere that the template should be substituted, could you possibly remedy that please ? Nick (talk) 11:46, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:WikiProject Freedom of speech

There is a WikiProject about Freedom of speech, called WP:WikiProject Freedom of speech. If you're interested, here are some easy things you can do:

1. List yourself as a participant in the WikiProject, by adding your username here: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Freedom_of_speech#Participants.
2. Add userbox ((User Freedom of speech)) to your userpage, which lists you as a member of the WikiProject.
3. Tag relevant talk pages of articles and other relevant pages using ((WikiProject Freedom of speech)).
4. Join in discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Freedom of speech.
5. Notify others you think might be interested in Freedom of speech to join the WikiProject.

Thank you for your interest in Freedom of speech, — Cirt (talk) 02:54, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, idk if it acceptable to just message you, considering i'm currently blocked (really i should maybe continue to pursue my own unblocking through the appropriate channels only), but on the issue of my having no access to the User:Driftchambers account....just a couple of things....firstly to clarify if you don't know, I sent a change password request to an email address i knew i had access to, to find i then had no access to this gmail account, but i don't know why this is, which i understand isn't very reassuring, but just is the situation. I hadn't used the gmail account for a while, i just don't understand currently why i have no access. Which leads me to the question, do you know if it is possible to return the password to the original (prior to the requested change being sent, obviously)? because i think i know the original, (but hey i just found i didn't know the gmail password, so who knows if i won't just find frustration my answer somehow a second time, but hopefully i won't / wouldn't)..Lastly, i'm not sure about this question, but since i have no access currently to the account, is there any question to the legitimacy of this individual (being myself) being the actual same person who was using the Driftchambers account prior to blocking. If there is, then i remember putting into my homepage some desription of myself, as a security, should i ever have become seperated from the account, and this kind of doubt should arise. Currently i haven't checked to see if the description is enough to prove i'm the same person.But if you feel it's necessary i'll have to trawl through the old edits to find it/ them. Thanks 109.204.66.81 (talk) 01:04, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind at all, as I've said, you're technically blocked for a competence issue (probably because you didn't really understand what you were doing here at Wikipedia) so it's a less serious issue, you've managed to request an unblock, you found your way to the Unblock Ticket Request System (UTRS) and you've found your way to my talk page, so I'm more reassured at your increasing ability in using Wikipedia all ready.

In response to your questions - sending a change password request won't overwrite your existing password. If you know your old password, just login as you would normally do. If you do gain access to your account, remember to update your e-mail address and if using Google, I think you're now meant to login once every six months or something, just to stop them from closing your e-mail address down.

Ponyo, who can check these things, knows you tried a password reset from logs made on the system and to be brutally honest, most people roll up here with a new account and deny any link with a previous, blocked account. Not many people come here, admit they can't access their account but make an unblock request anyway.

I'll get a second opinion, but if there's agreement to unblock you, what I'd propose we do, all being well, is that we unblock your main account (if you get access to it), or if you can't access your original account, we ask that you create a new account and we will leave your original account blocked, but with a note in the block log so nobody blocks your new account.

Hope all that's useful. Nick (talk) 13:32, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ok. yes useful, thank you.87.112.32.97 (talk) 14:33, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

i'm getting sick of how bias wikipedia does to cater one particular editor, despite the countless of times he's been vandalizing. i only reverted the revision he undid from mine. he shouldn't have undid my edit in the first place per interaction ban.Lucia Black (talk) 17:47, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Lucia Black: - the same restriction has been placed against Chris. It is quite clear that the interaction ban is being broken by both of you, and isn't working as intended. If there are further breaches, it will escalate to account blocks. Nick (talk) 17:52, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, i am content with that so long as my revisions don't get reverted by him again.Lucia Black (talk) 17:55, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of you are allowed to edit the article. If either of you do edit the article, it will result in a block of no less than 12 hours. There is no exception to this for any reason. Nick (talk) 18:02, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Like i said, i'm content with it because my edits wont be reverted by him again whether or not i can edit there again.Lucia Black (talk) 18:05, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

U should report him, i heard he was on 1RR so he should automatically be re-blocked. Did i mention he was formerly an admin.? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miami Bleach (talk • contribs) 18:35, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick note that this user has been globally locked for abusing multiple accounts. Regards, -- Quentinv57 21:57, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nick. I'm guessing that you had good reason to block 50.162.86.254 - presumably a self-evident sock of somebody - but you haven't left a talkpage message or given a reason in the block log. As it stands, it looks as though the only reason for the block is his one silly edit to WT:RIGHT, which wouldn't be enough in and of itself to warrant a 72 hour lockdown of the IP. Any chance you could elucidate on the reason for blocking, so that I can deal with his unblock appeal? Thanks, Yunshui 雲‍水 14:44, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Yunshui: The IP was used by User talk:LiberalsCanSuckIt yesterday (it was autoblocked before I hardblocked it), but they're almost certainly now on a new IP address. The user likely responsible has just directed some abuse our way on IRC from a different IP address so there shouldn't be any issues with the above IP address now. I probably meant to tag the block as being Long Term Abuse. I've unblocked anyway. Nick (talk) 14:55, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I knew there'd be a good reason. Thanks! Yunshui 雲‍水

You put in a "block" for no reason that I had to ask for removal.

Then when I tried to do anything, I get another one from some "Fluffernutter" freak saying I was "Autoblocked."

This why your shitty encyclopedia doesn't get anyone new wanting to help any more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.162.86.254 (talk) 15:14, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Nick. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "sandbox/2".

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply edit the submission and remove the ((db-afc)) or ((db-g13)) code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: ((subst:Refund/G13|User:Nick/sandbox/2)), paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Dwpaul ^Talk 19:25, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

		Cookies!
		Jeffrd10 has given you some cookies! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else some cookies, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Thanks for the work that you did to get me unblocked the fools who Hijacked my account are now facing retribution for their action To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add ((subst:Cookies)) to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with ((subst:munch))!

--Jeffrd10 (talk) 17:52, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nick - since I didn't want to continue the discussion on Eric's talk, and since I suspect continuing it anywhere on-wiki will result in unnecessary drama, I've sent you an email. Please respond. I'm genuinely curious. Kevin Gorman (talk) 16:38, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Nick. I am an individual only. I used the word we so that if any user uses non reliable sources like i was said to used, i could have told him to not to use them on Wikipedia citing this experience. I do not work on behalf of any person either natural or artificial (organisation, company etc.). Hope your doubt is cleared. Regards Pavanjandhyala (talk) 13:54, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cyclone Winifred, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Russell River (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:13, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have requested an arbitration case regarding a matter in which you recently expressed an opinion. If you're interested, it's here. Regards  Giano  12:35, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, my friend the IP is back. [17] I've tried debating with him but he refuses to listen. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 17:30, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A different admin blocked him and now he's back with a sock. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 19:30, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help. I wanted to try reworking the article with some of the new edits he made (maybe if I leave in most of his copyedits he'll stop insisting on the large inaccurate section), but it would involve reverting to a previous version. Would that be okay? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:52, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nick. I see you template-protected Template:FIFA Ballon d'Or recipients in January, but I'm not sure why, as it only has nine transclusions. Did you have any special reason for protecting it? Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 06:07, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Mr. Stradivarius. It was one of a number of FIFA Ballon d'Or templates and articles that were being heavily vandalised, altered and edit warred around the time of the award in January. It was edit template protected because a couple of the accounts vandalising were auto-confirmed and although it's not transcluded onto a great many pages, it's transcluded onto 9 relatively high traffic pages. The main article is semi-protected until April but I'd be happy to remove the protection now, I doubt any of those who were interested in vandalising the whole set of articles really care about them now. Nick (talk) 10:50, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see it appears to be an annual attraction. :) Maybe semi-protection would be a good idea in that case. Or we could just unprotect and doubtless end up protecting it again next year. It does strike me as the kind of template that the second paragraph of WP:TEMP-P is warning against protecting though, so I think something other than template protection is probably best. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 14:07, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - I've unprotected, I don't think it's something we will have to worry about until next year again. Nick (talk) 14:57, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's much appreciated. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 14:59, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is any reason to treat this editor with kid gloves, he has been active for years, had some of his work subject to various deletion processes before, and hence WP:BITE does not apply. Further, considering that my only prior interaction with him has been a prod, which he reverted without bothering to reply even with an edit summary, I am not inclined to go out of my way here. You and others are of course entitled to deprodding, even if it wastes two hours of my work and costs us at least one DYK (I was just about to write one, now I have to compile a lenghty AFD instead) and is further going to require others to review what I believe is a series of clear violations of WP:N; still - I am not holding it against you, perhaps I am in the wrong here, and I do appreciate your message on my talk page. We will discuss this at an AFD at which I will certainly ping you so you can present your side there. PS. That said, upon further review of your edits, I am somewhat disappointed that while removing the prod, as well as the notability template, you didn't bother to explain your rationale, neither on article's talk page or even in the edit summary: [18] and others. I'll kindly ask you to stop deprodding the article in such an unconstructive fashion, please go back and provide on the talk pages of the articles you deprodded an argument for why they are notable first. Thank you, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:07, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus - I'm removing all of your PRODs because they're technically invalid. You're linking to Wikipedia:Notability (creative professionals) (a redirect which goes to failed proposal Wikipedia:Notability (artists)). I'll wait for your explanation before removing further PROD tags, in case it was some sort of error on your part. Nick (talk) 13:44, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, you are certainly right that I messed up with that link, thanks for pointing this out. I thought it was going to Wikipedia:BIO#Creative_professionals, where WP:CREATIVE redirects. In fact, it should be going there; I'll change the redirect accordingly, and eliminate all confusion thus. In either case, however, the claim that majority of said bios fail N, GNG and BIO still holds; even if I linked one incorrect guidelines, I'd think one should address the correct ones before deprodding an article...? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:09, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus - It's difficult to justify explaining why each subject is notable when there are so many linked to the wrong notability criteria, you say you're judging against Wikipedia:BIO#Creative_professionals but I don't think that's the appropriate notability criteria to judge presenters and hosts against, they're not what I would consider creative professionals, they're more in the vein of newsreaders, weather presenters and the like and I'd have said they probably should be judged against Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Entertainers which refers to television shows and other productions, which is where I would consider Eurovision broadcasts to reside.

I'm looking then at the criteria that states "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." and I'm broadly satisfied that those subjects who have hosted national or international Eurovision coverage are notable under this criteria.

There are a number of the articles I've looked at which meet the more general criteria of A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other and independent of the subject. fi:Erkki Toivanen has a dozen multiple published secondary sources which could be included in our article when someone with suitable language/translation skills is made aware of the issue and some of the other articles have content or references in foreign language versions which could help the English versions. I'd have tagged these as having content in a foreign language version that could be used before PRODing for deletion, but that's maybe just me.

I'm quite happy to discuss these articles at AfD, as it's not immediately obvious which notability criteria to judge these people against and what level of notability hosting Eurovision might confer and it's quite possible they should be deleted. Nick (talk) 11:41, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think your argument about Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Entertainers being also applicable has merit. Feel free to deprod any of the articles that you think can be saved; I'll review what's left in a week or so after uncontest prod replies, and consider the merits of AfD. Erkki Toivanen, for example, does indeed look well developed on fi wiki, and thus I agree an AfD is going to be needed here. What I am just asking, however, is that you don't do any mass deproddings because you disagree with me on some particular articles. But seriously, look for example at Helga Guitton which you deprodded. Can you show me a single reliable reference for her? (I assume you are aware that per Wikipedia:External_links/Perennial_websites#IMDb just having an IMDb entry is not sufficient for BIO notability). If you cannot provide such a sources, I'd kindly ask you to AfD this particular article yourself (since you deprodded it). For the record, I have sometimes AfD articles I deprodded and where I voted keep but where I felt a wider discussion is going to be necessary. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:43, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PS. It seems that Mrluke485 (talk · contribs), the poor "newbie" you are worried about, has once again removed the AfD notice from an article, after being warned that they should not do so, and suggested he doesn't see it as a serious issue ([19]), and deprodded all articles I tagged, even through he acknowledged about half of them don't have good references ([20]). I'd appreciate if you could help me review and expand or AfD some of those articles. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:51, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I trust you're aware that a lack of references does not negate a claim of notability made in the article. Helga Guitton can claim notability because she presented the Eurovision Song Content and presented on Radio Luxembourg. If you think this should be deleted, you know where AfD is. I and other editors should not be having to go around cleaning up after you've tried to PROD articles using notability criteria without any community consensus (and which actually failed to gather consensus), and when challenged, used a different, but similarly wrong notability criteria. This is YOUR mess, clean it up. Nick (talk) 10:47, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Thank you for blocking a vandal at, and protecting, Mike Greenberg. Bearian (talk) 16:54, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

user:FeelYouUp is derp on Wikipedia. Danger^Mouse (talk) 14:11, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Nick. You have new messages at GeneticVariation's talk page.
Message added 05:09, 25 April 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.[reply]

Acalycine^{(talk/contribs)} 05:09, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Nick, why did you revdel the mistaken EPH edits by T13? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:22, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User request from T13 - if you look at the deleted revisions you can see why. Nick (talk) 19:34, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you kindly for the way you've managed this Nick! I greatly appreciate the assistance, but feel even more grateful due to the quick time frame and respectful communication from you. Warm regards,--Soulparadox (talk) 12:58, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nick. I just saw that you changed few of the deletion tags, and also you removed the website ref that I had on the Indjija. Might you advice why you stated "remove text merged from page without attribution"? I had cited the reference after looking at it and rechecking it.

Also you stated that the Deletion does not stand valid, as "speedy deletion declined - doesn't qualify as A1 and G6 isn't valid". Please advice for it as well. Once you let me know, I can revert to you. Also your talk page size is too much. Suggest you to archive it, so that the page does not take much time to load. Danke. Vishal Bakhai 19:30, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

The text you added to Indjija came from Inđija_railway_station, but you didn't link to the article or make it sufficiently clear what article you had taken the text from. You should really have asked for a history merge to be carried out so that the history of Inđija_railway_station is incorporated into Inđija and each author credited as is necessary.

The speedy deletion was turned down because that would have resulted in the loss of page history and author data, and it doesn't meet the criteria for A1 - it isn't too short to identify its subject and it can be expanded in future with photographs and additional details of the station. Nick (talk) 19:50, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this. However, I did not get any option of requesting a merge. Also, I just coped the only paragraph from the Railway page, which you have still kept under Inđija. Also, how do you ask for a "history merge"? Danke. Vishal Bakhai 21:18, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

You need to request a page move (which includes a history merge) at Wikipedia:Requested moves. The paragraph of text has been removed, you may need to refresh or purge the page to not see it on your end. You're also needing to do something with your signature to direct people to your user or user talk page, btw Nick (talk) 21:24, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You know that you've succeeded when the vandals start calling you names. Bearian (talk) 13:32, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Thanks for being one of five admins to finally block a vandal! JustBerry (talk) 22:55, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't there need to be something on his talk page? --JustBerry (talk) 23:00, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, they see a block message from the user interface when they try to edit and other users see the block log when they look at the talk page. The notice is a bit of unnecessary (and stigmatising) duplication. Nick (talk) 23:06, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Just added a message to JustBerry, after he quickly declined an entry I made, with very spare and vague feedback, and I saw right above my note your note and his response, saying that he is now not reviewing anymore after many too quick declines...would you mind taking a look at the page? I believe I made the "sentences flow" better. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Dave_Malloy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.164.155.109 (talk) 15:28, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have approved the article - it probably shouldn't have been declined for sentences not flowing quite correctly, rather, that should have been some advice you could have been given during the approval process. Nick (talk) 15:54, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick: Hello Nick, after responding to this long list of complaints regarding my AfC reviews on my talk page, it's perfect timing for your message to be the last one on my talk page. I will stop reviewing new AfC submission for the time being, but I will be "fixing" or trying to address the old ones I have made. Yes, I think I did review a little too fast, as I was trying to clear the backlog. Although speed has value, I see how the quality of my reviews has declined a little while speed has increased. I will try to visit the IRC channel, definitely. I just wanted to address one more thing: is adoption with you a possibility? I realize that some administrators are very busy and do not have the time, but I would like to offer myself as a mentee if you are willing to be the mentor. User:GorillaWarfare used to be my mentor, but I believe she is currently busy/inactive. Let me know your thoughts upon my proposal --JustBerry (talk) 14:13, 22 May 2014 (UTC) Waiting for Nick to reply.

JustBerry I'm afraid I don't do adoption but don't mind providing a little help from time to time, either here or on one of the help IRC channels. Nick (talk) 16:39, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nick, nooooooooooooooooo.

(5x5 of sadness). --JustBerry (talk) 16:42, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wait... "Users who are not new or inexperienced – but who would still like some help – might like to consider whether Editor review (for an assessment of work to date) or Editor assistance and/or the Help desk (for one-off problems) might be more appropriate than adoption." Wikipedia:Adoption. Let me look into that. --JustBerry (talk) 16:45, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Banner has been troubling editors on Ireland project till he got blocked twice and then conditionally unblocked. Since then his participation on UE Boom was one-directional and simply consisted of contradiction to any changes that I would propose and creation of [| hot air] that was noted by unrelated editor. His participation on the talk page of UE Boom was lacking AGF in my opinion and even without entering into this, his PA has been [| noted]. He violated one of | conditions: "You conduct yourself properly on talk pages, in a manner consistent with good-faith discussion intended to improve the encyclopaedia" Dmatteng (talk) 18:11, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with the situation involving The Banner. I would speak to the administrator who blocked and/or unblocked him for guidance. Nick (talk) 19:32, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted a message to the administrator who blocked him a while ago. However it appears that he was on a wiki-break and the message got archived. Could you please assess the situation? The problem is that he is inducing Mendaliv towards wiki struggle and there are two end results of it the way I see it: Mendaliv is decreasing the quality of the article by removing content backed by reliable sources together with the sources themselves in a disguise that he is making the article more neutral/improving it. Example: "generally favorable reviews" para - it doesn't have to be sourced, its our summarization of reliable sources, same as done in HTC One GA; introducing hot-air that drives away editors who would like to help to improve the article. Dmatteng (talk) 09:22, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I should reply to Mendaliv on WP:ANI considering what Dennis Brown has said. But I would like to clarify. 1) WP:IRC. I haven't used WP:IRC in "extensive" manner, not that I think it would be bad if I would. I have used IRC about 8-10 times in the last few months. From all of this, The Banner was mentioned only once in relation to his posts on the article's talk page. I asked if something could be done about him using the talk page of the article inappropriately. Sam took a look at the talk page and posted a message advising The Banner to stop personal attacks. 2) Infobox. When I was developing the article I found that there is no suitable Infobox and went to the WP:IRC to ask for an advise. I was advised by you (if I'm not mistaken) that I can use any suitable Infobox. After that Samwalton helped me to correct some formatting issues on the infobox [21]. 3) I think it is distressing that Mendaliv hasn't introduced himself as an involved editor in ANI (who is in a content dispute with me). And now, as he said: "about a freaking wireless speaker" I'm not sure how to interpret it. Is he a good-willed editor whose interest is to improve the quality of the article? That comes along with his posts on the talk page: "Oh for the love of Pete, would you stop replying to comments all over creation?"; "I'm not a man that likes to use a five-dollar word needlessly."; "What really, really pisses me off.." [22], [23]. I'm not sure if such posts are being appropriate on the article's talk page and if they are not decreasing the quality of the discussion. Dmatteng (talk) 07:15, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dmatteng - yes, post at ANI. I'm not interested and don't intend to become involved in this discussion. You've taken my comments out of context and have tried to use my name to support your argument. I don't appreciate that and don't intend to comment further on this issue. Nick (talk) 11:45, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if you have perceived it this way. I'm particularly sorry that I made it sound/it sounded the way as if you have endorsed this specific infobox. I think you have said that I can use any infobox that can incorporate the specs. (Later on Sam Walton took a look at it too.)

But, what I really wanted to say I thought I followed the right route. I went to the IRC help channel while unsure. I was advised and followed the advise. When later on an editor changed it, I have refereed to the initial discussion on the IRC. I would like to mention that the Infobox has been also accepted at the broader consensus on the article [24] and status quo ante was established with the mobile infobox in it. Dmatteng (talk) 12:07, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) FYI, I've notified Dmatteng of the usual Wikipedia practice regarding user talk pages: User_talk:Dmatteng#Nick.27s_talk_page. NE Ent 12:27, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nick - As per your decision to move Federal State of New Russia (2014) back to Federal State of New Russia, I believe the same reversion should be made to New Russia Party (2014), which was also moved there by User:RGloucester for apparently the same reason. --Nizolan (talk) 15:43, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! --Nizolan (talk) 16:11, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nick, if you're free could you make a decision or comment on the 'Move proposal'[25] at Talk:Federal State of New Russia?Haberstr (talk) 08:59, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

May I see a copy of this email? I do not currently have OTRS access and would like to see the relevance to your finding of File:An image of Michael Jackson's "Pepper's Ghost Illusion" at the 2014 Billboard Music Awards.jpg as an unambiguous copyright violation. Ellomate _{(questions? talk/consult my lawyer)} 04:53, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have access to OTRS either, I was performing the deletion on behalf of an OTRS agent who doesn't have administrator permissions here on English Wikipedia. I was informed the rights holder didn't give permission for the release of the image, but if you wish to query the ticket, then you should raise the issue at Wikipedia:OTRS_noticeboard. Nick (talk) 10:53, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I was wondering if you'd reconsider returning Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Trinity Army to the mainspace and just go ahead and delete it again. It has three problems with it: first, part of it is copyvio from here. Secondly, it's fairly promotional in tone and at the very least, reads like it is the group's personal webpage. Finally and most importantly, I can't really see where the group will ever pass notability guidelines as a whole, so restoring it won't really do anything except for give the user (whom I've blocked for their username) false hope that the group will eventually have an article. At the very most it could be included in the main article for the college, but I don't think it'll ever really pass GNG for organizations. There just isn't anything out there that isn't primary or trivial in scope and the one source I found above appears to be a press release that the Sunday Times reprinted. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:36, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tokyogirl79 I've got your user in the IRC help channel right now. He asked for the article to be undeleted on the basis he has new content, references and source material to add. I'll make sure he edits out the copyright violation when he's able to edit the article. Nick (talk) 10:48, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I have to say I'm very, very skeptical that he'll add anything of worth to the article. I know that sounds harsh, but there really is nothing out there for this group, which is essentially the spirit squad of a relatively small college. Most spirit squads or student organizations fail notability guidelines and this seems to be no exception. I really think that you're just giving them false hope that the article will pass AfC. I know, I know, I sound WP:BITE-y, but I really think that the best thing to do would be to encourage them to add a small subsection in the main article for the school as opposed to encouraging them to edit a page that's mostly a list of alumni for the college (that had something to do with the spirit group), a list of past events and vendors, and so on. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:55, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll see what I can do ;-). I'm currently explaining about linking to newspapers for references and not copying and pasting the content into the article. Nick (talk) 11:00, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I've written a TL;DNR type paragraph on their page. I don't want to come across too harsh and scare them off and I'm willing to write up a paragraph as well, if it comes to that- but I think that it'd be better if they just added it to the main article, which needs some TLC as it is. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:08, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I did let out a little squeal when I saw the copyvio notice on the main article. Nick (talk) 11:11, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd removed it to give you a bit more time, so I was a little surprised that you deleted it. In any case, I figure that I'll wait to see if they request a name change or come back on. If not, then I'll just add a small paragraph to the article for the college under "student life". Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:14, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• It occurred to me that deletion was the only option - it couldn't really be approved with a copyvio in the history, the original creator was blocked, you had the only good edit free from a copyvio, so if I'd revdel'd the text, it wouldn't have correct attribution, the original creator couldn't edit and receive attribution because they were blocked, so for all those technical reasons, deletion seemed the safest option. He says he will return tomorrow to write a paragraph (I've said about 10 lines of text) so we shall see. Nick (talk) 22:11, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nick,

You may want to extend the block for User:85.210.177.155 , because after you blocked him, he issued an unblock request that had a definite legal threat on it. Kosh Vorlon    16:52, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up KoshVorlon. I'll keep an eye on the IP when the block expires, but after 72 hours, my feeling is they'll switch to another IP or give up. Nick (talk) 17:06, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They've done both. 85.210.187.251 (talk) 23:10, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nick - Did you delete the page Miss Multiverse before making a research to find out if there are any advertising? did you see the references? furthermore what happened to collaboration and making articles better?. I'm genuinely curious. Jose Cuello (talk) 16:38, 13 June 2014 (UTC) Jose Cuello (talk) 13:46, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jose Cuello I deleted the articles because they had been previously deleted, see Wikipedia:CSD#G4._Recreation_of_a_page_that_was_deleted_per_a_deletion_discussion. If you wish to recreate, you're going to have to make enormous improvements to the article, provide many new references, and preferably write your draft through the Wikipedia:Article Wizard which will allow others to help you write the best article possible. Nick (talk) 20:40, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Explain how my edit was vandalism please. As you appear to have used rollback here Darkness Shines (talk) 15:06, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And do not accuse me of editwarring, and do not threaten to block me, I have but 1 revert, you are on two. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:15, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are removing content that is clearly an improvement to the project. That's vandalism. Sorry. Nick (talk) 15:18, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redacting my comment, situation has been explained at WP:ANI. Apologies to Darkness Shines. Nick (talk) 16:12, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have brought the matter to ANI. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:22, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know Darkness Shines. Nick (talk) 15:31, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nick.

I was reading in The Register, a UK based IT site, about a new switch Facebook is building. Referenced in the article: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/06/18/facebook_open_switch/

was a company, Pluribus Networks. When I came to WIkipedia looking for more, I got this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pluribus_Networks saying the entry had been deleted with undelete being blocked.

The company has been written about in the US as well http://www.networkworld.com/article/2165116/lan-wan/move-over-sdn--startup-looking-to-go-where-only-cisco--vmware-tread.html and entries for the guys who started the company that reference the company are on WIkipedia as well:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chih-Kong_Ken_Yang https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Drost

Considering that the company demonstrably exists and is influencing the likes of Facebook with regard to data center switch design, does it not make sense that they have at least a minor entry similar to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumulus_Networks or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nutanix?

Cheers,

Budbandit (talk) 17:47, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article was deleted following a deletion discussion, it wasn't simply my decision, so it's not my decision to undelete it. You'll need to draft an article and demonstrate the issues which led to its first deletion have been resolved (so more references from reliable sources etc). If you head along to WP:Article Wizard and follow the instructions there, draft an article and submit it for review, we will see what we can do to help. You may also wish to read our new terms of use at [26]. Nick (talk) 19:00, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Sir, with due respect, I just wanted to let you know that there were discussion about "AR Freeflight" on ANI here and you deleted it without going through the discussion. A.Minkowiski ^{_Lets t@lk} 14:58, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A.Minkowiski - The discussion is about who tagged what, there's no discussion about whether or not to delete the article. Nick (talk) 17:16, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But sir the article I created were not spam, you can check my record, I'm not new one A.Minkowiski ^{_Lets t@lk} 17:21, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sir it was stub- about A.R Freeflight drone, I'm quite aware about spam, I being established editor can never create an article that doesn't follow Wikipedia guidelines. A.Minkowiski ^{_Lets t@lk} 17:38, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A.Minkowiski the article I deleted did not follow Wikipedia guidelines. It was promotional in tone, it lacked any independent third party sources, and contained only one source which did nothing to establish notability. Nick (talk) 18:04, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I know sir, but it was stub in its present form, I was working and adding content to it plus sources too. I know about guidelines, I know there was one source in the article. It was not WEB PROMOTION or spam or promotional in tone. in text box there were only website that actually occurs in every article, it doesn't make any sense of spam. I always respect admin actions, but you should also consider what actually I am saying. I request you to restore article so that I can build up it to good article. Thank you A.Minkowiski ^{_Lets t@lk} 18:14, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A.Minkowiski - write up a draft at the WP:Article Wizard and submit it for review. I can undelete the article for you and move it to a destination of your choosing. Nick (talk) 18:40, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Sir, please undelete my article and place it where it was originally. A.Minkowiski ^{_Lets t@lk} 18:46, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A.Minkowiski - it can't go back there because it doesn't meet the guidelines and will be at risk of deletion again. Do you want it to become a draft or would you like it restored to your Sandbox ? Nick (talk) 18:49, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sir I assure you it wouldn't be deleted if you undelete it, I'll remove all the rest stuff that looks spam to you in my article. A.Minkowiski ^{_Lets t@lk} 18:55, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The problem isn't restricted to promotional content, the article lacked any demonstration that the topic was notable and there were no independent references. I'm not sensing you understand just what was wrong with this article nor have any knowledge of what to do to prevent deletion. I am only going to undelete the content into the Draft namespace. If you disagree with this, I'm not going to undelete it at all. Nick (talk) 19:11, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I respect every admin action, if you think I am wrong than Okay I am wrong, I can not argue with any admin because I respect admins and I respect Wikipedia, Sir do whatever you want to do. No more words to say, Thank you A.Minkowiski ^{_Lets t@lk} 19:17, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sir if you think its good to move it to draft space, then do it, I'm fine. Thank you A.Minkowiski ^{_Lets t@lk} 19:21, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now at Draft:AR.Freeflight. Please substantially improve the article and submit it for review through the Articles for Creation process before adding it back to the mainspace. Nick (talk) 20:05, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

...at the Patent slip article, please? The state of the article is under question, following detection of plagiarised text from a magazine in the UK. This has led to the rest of the article material being scrutinized for WP:Verifiable.

The following was material you added in Nov 2006, without citation:

SECTION How It Works

The process of slipping a vessel is an easy, cheap and straightforward way to take a large vessel out of water for inspection or repair. In many cases, it's possible to take a boat out of the water on one tide, make any repairs and return the boat to the water on the next tide. In tidal harbours and ports, it's normally necessary to wait for high tide. The first step involves the cradle being lowered to the bottom of the inclined plane (or slipway) at which point the vessel will manoeuvre into position directly above the cradle. The vessel will then be moored to the cradle with a number of ropes fore and aft to prevent the vessel from moving in any direction.

Once the vessel is secured to the cradle, the process of hoisting the cradle out of the water and up the slipway will begin, care is taken when the cradle starts to bear the weight of the vessel, if the vessel is not sitting correctly in the cradle, it may damage the cradle or fall of it when totally out of the water. Normally the boat will sit on large wooden wedges when she starts to lift out of the water, although in some cases, larger boats may be temporarily welded to the cradle by divers. When the engineers and staff who operate the slipway are happy that the vessel is sitting correctly in the cradle, it is then hoisted up to the top of the slipway, normally beyond the high tide mark.

Originally, men or horses would have been used to drag the cradle and vessel up the slipway, but with the advent of the steam engine, most patent slips would be converted to steam powered operation. Today electric or electro-hydraulic winches are the norm.

Typical reasons for slipping a vessel, include for the painting of vessels, and in particular, the application of anti fouling protection applied to the hull. Other uses include repairs below the waterline, replacement of propellers, inspections for insurance purposes, or the fitting of sacrificial protection. It is possible to slip a vessel on a patent slip, carry out the necessary work and return the vessel to the water in the same length of time it would take to pump out a dry dock. This has time and cost saving benefits for vessel owners."

The text is spread out a bit now, so you may have to add the citation(s) more than once. Please note the attention that the earlier plagiarism has called to the article, and ensure that your material is suitable paraphrased and edited. Will look back, cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 01:38, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I notice you haven't edited since yesterday, but since you unblocked David Hedlund I'm bringing to your attention that at continuing discussion WP:ANI#Reblock recommended, several people are arguing he needs to be reblocked. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:43, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I had to defend my own article and I see nothing wrong with it. I partly rewrote it from a pharmacological view point. I have stopped editing all articles now. I only edit on my own page User:David_Hedlund/Alcohol_(drug), is that breaking the rules? --David Hedlund ^SWE (Talk) 17:46, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@David Hedlund: There is no such thing as my own article, this is a collaborative project, and noone owns any articles here. You were conditionally unblocked, promising not to continue making controversial edits, seeking consensus first, yet you made edits that were clearly not supported by other editors, as can be seen on Talk:Alcohol (drug). With deliberately misleading edit summaries to boot. The obsession you're showing, and your apparent inability to abide by the conditions for your unblock, show that a reblock is needed, in order to prevent further disruption. Thomas.W ^talk 17:52, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I mean the article I started and wrote nearly all material on. --David Hedlund ^SWE (Talk) 17:59, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You mean the article you created as a content fork from Alcoholic beverages ([27]), Ethanol ([28]) and other articles. Having written much of the material still doesn't give you the right to make edits against consensus. You do not own articles, not even articles that noone else has edited (which isn't the case here). Period. Thomas.W ^talk 18:14, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Thomas.W: For the record, I'm in the top edit for the alcoholic beverage article.[29] I really do not like your tone at all. You better not call me things like obsessed and complain on everything. Its only your lack of self-esteem and you known it. --David Hedlund ^SWE (Talk) 18:52, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hold it, folks, let's remain civil and not throw insults around. David, what Thomas says is correct; please read WP:OWN. The fact that you created an article, the fact that you have been the main contributor to an article - that does not make it "your" article. Other people can edit it, other people can change what you have written, you can be overruled by WP:CONSENSUS on anything about "your" article. When you were told to stop making controversial edits, that included to stop making edits to "your" article. If you should be topic-baned from editing articles about alcohol, that would include a ban on editing "your" article. --MelanieN (talk) 19:07, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I read somewhere here at Wikipedia that "you are the copyright holder" so I was just practicing using the term. I did not mean that I personally own the article though. --David Hedlund ^SWE (Talk) 19:09, 1 July 2014 (UTC) @MelanieN:[reply]

Nothing at Wikipedia is copyright. It's "the free encyclopedia anyone can edit ." Basically, every article here is crowd sourced. If you want to control the content of an article, get a web page or start a blog. You don't control it here. MelanieN (talk) 20:33, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nick. I added "Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, Edit on your own user space when warned about block." in User:David_Hedlund/Links. --David Hedlund ^SWE (Talk) 18:52, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• He has now copied the entire article he was working on (45K bytes...) to his user talk page to continue editing it there. That's what I call obsession. Thomas.W ^talk 20:09, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas, I asked you once already. Stay civil and lay off the name calling. You know better. MelanieN (talk) 20:36, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi.

Re: Special:Permalink/617134022#Statement by Nick

This section confused me a bit. Are you suggesting that ArbCom can act as a supreme court over the RFC process and overturn closures it disagrees with? I alternately read your statement as you possibly thinking that the RFC closer could be at fault, but that also seems wrong.

No offense intended with the probing, of course. I'm just not sure I see the connection between RFCs, even ones with low turnout, and ArbCom. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:40, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MZMcBride I'm hoping that ArbCom (and the Foundation) will provide guidance on RfCs relating to MediaWiki features being enabled and disabled. I don't believe the RfC can remotely be considered valid in light of the RfC participation figures compared to the numbers of people who used, opted-in and opted-out of the MediaViewer feature, and yes, I do think the closer is at fault for getting involved in an RfC this dubious. It feels like (though I will assume good faith) the RfC was little more than an opportunity for a small collection of people who didn't like a feature to try and get rid of it quickly and easily, purely thinking about themselves.

The community will hopefully be asked to decide on a way forward for similar RfCs in future, but bigger, better advertised RfCs with a longer period for soliciting comments is needed, and a way of attracting readers to make comments (perhaps like the Article Feedback system) developed, so it's no longer a few dozen old crusty editors but a genuine representative cross section of editors, readers and developers deciding on the features on the site. Nick (talk) 11:06, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

People have been throwing around that 14,000 number, but Special:BetaFeatures is prominently featured at the top of every page. I wonder how many users with more than five edits opted in. Sixty people isn't an enormous turn-out for a request for comments, but as people have commented elsewhere, the result was lopsided and the value in plus-oneing was not immediately apparent. Andrew Gray suggested a new RFC, though design by committee isn't the direction we should probably be headed in, I don't think. That is, we need smarter design the first time through. I still have difficulty understanding why any time or money was invested in MediaViewer rather than making file description pages better.

Regarding ArbCom, and others have hinted at this as well, I think you're really talking more about ArbCom acting as a GovCom. You're certainly not alone in this view from what I've been reading. However, there isn't a real dispute in need of arbitration here, as far as I can tell. This is about Wikimedia Foundation–Wikimedia community relations and resource allocation and many other facets. And these issues extend a lot further than the English Wikipedia.

I think people involved in the RFC were trying to kill the feature, but I think we need to better understand why that's the case. As a general rule, when you've resigned yourself to permanently adding an opt-out checkbox, your design has gone awry. People want good, intuitive, non-intrusive design. If people are clamoring for the off button, and going further to suggest disabling the feature by default, it generally indicates that something has gone wrong. And I personally see a pattern between tools such as MediaViewer, VisualEditor, ArticleFeedbackv5, and the like, though I'm obviously biased. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 03:48, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You were recently recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Media Viewer RfC. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Media Viewer RfC/Evidence. Please add your evidence by July 26, 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Media Viewer RfC/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. Before adding evidence please review the scope of the case. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:10, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The IP User talk:124.123.122.128, continued to remove the page content.--Vin09 (talk) 16:50, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you hide my vandal reverts on User talk:69.94.24.53? Dustin (talk) 22:27, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The edit summaries and content of the revisions warranted revision deletion. Nick (talk) 22:34, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't really very important, but I just don't see why you hid my reverts. I understand why you hid the IP's revisions. I thought that if you only hid the IP's revisions, then you couldn't view the diff, but people could still tell that I was rolling back an inappropriate edit. Dustin (talk) 22:38, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored what edit summaries I can, so people can see you were rolling back an inappropriate edit. You're correct when you say deleting one revision from the diff makes it unviewable, it's just the way revision delete works. Your individual revisions that were deleted are this version of the page, three times over [30] but without the ability to create a diff and show the changes, they don't make any sense. Nick (talk) 10:54, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This is a courtesy note that the draft findings and principles in the Media Viewer RfC case have now been posted. The drafters of the proposed decision anticipate a final version of the PD will be posted after 11 August. You are welcome to give feedback on the workshop page. For the Committee, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 02:40, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am adding this to the global blacklist on meta.  Defer to Global blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:07, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion discussion for this article was closed way to prematurely. An AFD typically runs for about seven days, this one wasn't even allowed to run 24 hours. That's a clear breach of policy. You cannot expect every Wikipedia user to be logged in and contributing 24 hours every single day. That's why the seven day running time is there in the first place. Acting on AFD's this way simply prevents the wider community to became aware and give their opinion. If you read Talk:2016_Formula_One_season you'll clearly see that there were users questioning the creation of the article. They simply were not given the time to respond in the AFD. Tvx1 (talk) 14:14, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AfD's are routinely closed early if there's only a low probability the discussion will result in deletion, and on that basis, given the comments on the AfD, it's closure was entirely proper. I don't see any evidence that deletion was remotely likely as an outcome looking at the talk page either, looking there, at the two most recent AfDs and elsewhere, there's abundantly clear evidence consensus exists for the page to exist and there's absolutely no point in continuing to discuss deleting an article that will have to be created at some point. The previous seasons were created between 14 and 24 months in advance, so this article created 17 months in advance fits in well with when the 2015 article, the 2014 article and older past articles were created, further reinforcing the idea that consensus exists for the page to exist this early, and therefore for it not to be deleted now. Nick (talk) 16:27, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Given the possibility of timed camera shutters and the consequent possibility of photographing oneself, this is clearly not a blatant copyright infringement, so a DRV will be filed should you leave the closure as "delete". It would be advisable if, in the future, you would refrain from assuming that others had failed to investigate the situation, for I at least did investigate, or I would have deleted it or advocated deletion. Nyttend (talk) 19:53, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The image file description quite clearly states "I took this photo when Tom was in concert, it is not copyrighted." which suggests the uploader is claiming to be the photographer, and is the cause of the copyright issue. If we had a claim of "I took the photo myself" I'd be more hesitant, but the uploader is lying somewhere, either claiming to have taken the photo, or claiming to be the subject later on, and as we will likely never know, deletion is the only sensible option. Fair use is a possibility which gets round the copyright issue. Nick (talk) 20:10, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you consider it such a possibility, why keep it deleted? Of course I understand that you might not want to do it while we're still discussing (I'd be so inclined if we were to switch rôles); I'm trying to understand, not trying to challenge you. I simply can't see a reason to keep it deleted after we finish chatting as long as there's a reasonable possibility of making a fair-use claim, as this means that it's not a blatant copyright infringement. Nyttend (talk) 20:22, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's a couple of discussions going on, it's a little more complicated because I only redeleted the image to correct the deletion reason and match it up with my IFD closure. I'm trying to ascertain if it's liable to be redeleted for the original deletion reason first before undeleting. I'm then intending to raise a Possible Unfree File discussion, as this has been requested by another administrator, and then it looks like there's going to be a bit of a race to do a Fair Use rationale, by the looks of things. Nick (talk) 20:30, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2014_August_6#File:Tom_Carstairs_In_Concert.jpg - I've asked the closing administrator not to delete the image, if it's agreed the copyright information is unacceptable, so you guys can put on the fair use rationale. Nick (talk) 20:46, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I came here to say that I'm a little confused by your close. Mainly what confuses me is the part where you state it is standard procedure to delete the image "in cases such as this". My long term understanding is whenever there is a question about copyright permission, the standard procedure is to take to WP:FFD, WP:PUF or tag as ((di-no permission)). I'd like to know where you got this idea that deleting an image in this situation instead of having discussion is "standard procedure." While I think you were trying to handle a situation quickly, I think your decision to close was made to hastily and this has caused, and will cause unnecessary confusion. Now I see that you've "moved" the discussion to PUF but your close still stands at FFD. At this point, I would recommend that you amend your close to state that you've re-opened discussion at PUF and possibly invite the editors who participated to also participate in the second discussion. It would also be wise to include a link to the prematurely closed FFD discussion in the new discussion as there is relevant comments. Maybe next time we shouldn't get in such a rush. It would've been perfectly find to let the discussion play out. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 22:26, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The image was deleted before I closed the IfD, which is possibly where the confusion comes from. The claim by the uploader to be the subject of the photograph after claiming to be a third party photographer was enough for me to consider the image a copyright violation and/or missing permission. If the image hadn't been deleted already, I'm not sure what I'd have done, probably it would have gone to PUF, where I sent it already, but I don't know. My deletion was to correct the log entry and tie it up neatly with the closed IfD discussion.

The previous IfD discussion isn't the place to discuss the copyright status, given the discussion was previously focused on whether to keep or delete an image with, at that time, no copyright issues, but I'll happily put in a link to the discussion from there. I've widely advertised it, by linking to the PUF discussion on the pages where the image is used. Nick (talk) 23:28, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I ping'd you so that i could perhaps get a more constructed, and considerate response to the situation that i provided. I'm currently Banned from ANI to bring up such subjects, but i'm asking permission to bring it up anyways. The situation is "highly" irregular. Lucia Black (talk) 18:45, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could you expand on this slightly ? It's all a bit cryptic. Nick (talk) 19:38, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is linked to the discussion in my talkpage. Lucia Black (talk) 19:53, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your pagebans are nothing to do with me this time. They were initiated by Salvidrim and it is he who you need to discuss the issue with. As you can see from the ANI thread concerning Ryulong, consensus is against initiating sanctions against him which broadly match sanctions against you, there's nothing I can do in respect of any of this. The community agreed to sanction you, the community look likely to agree not to sanction Ryulong. Your course of action is appeal the ANI sanction (or all the sanctions) to the Arbitration Committee (though, being brutally honest, given an Arb has just page banned you under the terms of those sanctions, I find it unlikely they will vacate the existing sanctions). Nick (talk) 20:16, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reviewing the discussion and there has been no consensus for me in particular, i'm barely even mentioned at all. I'm asking you to analyze the situation...Which is why i ping'd you. There is no current consensus to see that says "in addition to the return topic ban of Ghost in the Shell (manga), we'll be adding to additional ones that have nothing to do with the current situation". Nor is it even a topic. Another note: Salvidrim! isn't giving me a proper respect to give me a considerate answer to why it is the way it is. Lucia Black (talk) 20:29, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion does not specifically concern you, you were page banned under the terms of the previous discussion which also resulted in you being banned from posting at WP:ANI. Please see Wikipedia:Editing_restrictions#Current_sanctions where, in your section, it states Lucia Black may be banned from any page if any individual administrator thinks that she is causing disruption. This restriction applies across all namespaces. Nick (talk) 20:38, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm asking for an administrator to bring it up in ANI for me, as i'm at least permitted to do so. The disruption is not caused in "Ghost in the Shell (manga)" and never has Ghost in the Shell (video game) has been a subject of what can be considered disruption either. And i just recently put Ghost in the Shell (video game) in peer review as i'm the primary contributor for the article and looks like that it is going to be close to FAC. I find it rather convenient.

On additional note: the probation is rather excessive, because it is an "indefinite" probation, and my "disruption" has always had a specific pattern, and always involved very very specific members. It would've been most natural to do a two-way interaction ban from me and Ryulong, or a two-way topic ban, as now Ryulong is now the only main contributor (as others are also topic banned from it). Lucia Black (talk) 20:57, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to raise the issue at WP:ANI, I'm formally allowing you to do so (link this diff with your original post and explain clearly the situation). I would caution you that I think it's likely to worsen the situation, but it's entirely at your discretion. Nick (talk) 21:16, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that formally allowing me to do so shows that i do have at least some valid points that need to be shared. Lucia Black (talk) 21:20, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]