User talk:Nsk92/Archive 3

AfD

perhaps you might want to revisit Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shomarka Keita in view of John Z's comments there. DGG (talk) 03:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll take another look. Nsk92 (talk) 03:38, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou

Just a little note to say thankyou for participating in my successful RFA candidacy, which passed with 96 supports, 0 opposes, and 1 neutral. I am pleasantly taken aback by the amount of support for me to contribute in an administrative role and look forward to demonstrating that such faith is well placed. Regards, WilliamH (talk) 10:20, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

draft

Yes, i am still making changes. i will have a good many more--see one pointed out to me today by Crusio and my preliminary work up of it on my talk page. I could of course make them later, but I want to proceed one at a time now. DGG (talk) 04:24, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, but please let me know when you are done. Nsk92 (talk) 04:30, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

My RfA

Nsk92, thank you for your contribution to the discussion at my recent RfA. I appreciate how you were so specific in why you supported. If ever you have any concerns about my actions, adminly or otherwise, don't hesitate to let me know. Best wishes, Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:08, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks and good luck! Nsk92 (talk) 21:17, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

ANI

I hope you understand my point about coming forward about what you see is problematic instead of hiding behind words like "POV". Ottava Rima (talk) 16:48, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

No, I happen to think that you are completely wrong on this one. The HC's edits to the Pornography article were a clear example of POV pushing and bad faith editing. Nsk92 (talk) 16:51, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

PLL

Thanks for backing me up with data on the AfD for this article. WVhybrid (talk) 04:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Nothing inappropriate about it

The reason for opposing was absurd, so I made an absurd comment. Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 02:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The problem with your comment was that it was too easy to mistake it for the real thing, that is to think that you are really disclosing the real-world name of another user. User:Everyme was clearly confused by your comment as this edit shows[1] and there could easily have been others. Nsk92 (talk) 02:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I tried to telegraph it — and I discussed this with Everyme before re-inserting the comment. I mean, let's face it, any time you make a point indirectly, there is a slight risk that someone's going to misread it. Since that is most definitely not the user's real name, and since he has already put his real name out there, there's nothing really at risk, either. I can see that you're concerned about privacy issues, but it is completely impossible for a comment like that to cause any real harm! That's how I feel, anyway. I wouldn't make the comment if I considered it likely to cause any damage. Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 03:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. Actually, I did not know that the user in question already disclosed his real name somewhere (not a good idea, in my opinion, since it does tend to bring the trolls out fairly often). I had understood your commment for what it was to beging with, but you can't assume that others are familiar with Omar Khayyam or have any idea who he was. (I'll try to test this in the class I'll teach on Wednesday -:). In these types of situations it is far better to be literal. Nsk92 (talk) 03:19, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, you're right — I probably should stick to a more literal tone in RfA, which is not exactly the chattiest forum at WP! I wouldn't use my real name either; I just thought that was one heck of a crazy reason to oppose, and I'm a bit disturbed by the growing number of litmus tests. I mean, just a few more of those and no one will pass, I think : ( Cheers, Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 04:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

EFF support

Quick question. Since you are a supporter of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, don't you think they would be concerned with the Fairness Doctrine and it application toward the Internet and the possibility that it may include Wikipedia? Chris (talk) 13:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I am certainly concerned with such matters personally but I do not believe that using a WP userpage for extensive political advocacy of such causes (or any other political causes that I believe in) is appropriate. Nsk92 (talk) 13:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

F2

You added a F2 item regarding mathematics in F2 disambiguation page. I was wondering if this wasn't the same as the Gallois field entry in the "and also" section? Best wishes, Nono64 (talk) 09:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is. Sorry, I just did not notice it there, will remove my duplicate listing momentarily. Nsk92 (talk) 11:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Great job!

A belated, but well deserved, great job on the revisions to the geometric group theory page! The page looks much better now. You've answered all of the comments and requests in the talk page in one attempt, and made an all-encompassing and well-written summary of the area. This is now a fantastic reference and resource! Sabalka (talk) 17:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks! Nsk92 (talk) 20:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Apologies

Hello! I just wanted to pass along my apology for disappointing you in my train wreck of an RfA (there is a scrap metal sale going on now, if you're interested). I am going on Wikibreak and I will let you know when or if I am back on the site -- I am trying to take time away to clear my thoughts and refocus on this and other priorities. Be well. Ecoleetage (talk) 05:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you and please come back! Although I opposed in your RFA, I do think (as I said in my !vote) that you are a valued contributor and very much an asset to the project. So have a good wikibreak but please do come back! Nsk92 (talk) 12:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Stallings theorem about ends of groups

Please: see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (mathematics) and my edits to Stallings theorem about ends of groups.

Does

A-B

really appear to you as if it says

A − B ?

And does

a=b

not look jarring, as opposed to

a = b,

which is consistent with TeX style? Michael Hardy (talk) 03:57, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, got it. Will try to remember the spaces in the future. Nsk92 (talk) 04:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I have just gone through Wikipedia:Manual of Style (mathematics) a couple of times and I don't see the issues of spacing around =, - , > etc being discussed there explicitly (maybe this should be added). Is there some other place where these issues are addressed? E.g. with "belongs to" sign I am not sure which looks better:

g∈G

or

g ∈ G.

With inequalities it also does not seem very clear: n ≥ 0 or n≥0, although the former is probably better. Nsk92 (talk) 04:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Miles Fisher

Thank you very much for your work providing new sourced material for this article. I may not get a chance to work on it further and address points from the GA review for a few days, so I really appreciate what you are doing. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 04:23, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure, you are welcome! (Although I did rather little there). Regards, Nsk92 (talk) 12:12, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Just FYI, I mentioned you at Talk:Miles Fisher/GA1. Thanks again for your help. Cirt (talk) 19:10, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks. To be honest, I am kind of skeptical about the chances of the article to pass the GA review now. The problem is that this actor is just not sufficiently well-known yet. When I looked around, I have not found any newsmedia interviews with him as an actor and I actually could not find any fansites for him either. I would imagine that these issues would inevitably arise at a GA review and it would be difficult to overcome them until more coverage is available. But, if it works now, then great. Regards, Nsk92 (talk) 19:51, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh well I had thought that we pretty much covered the earlier life stuff that the GA Reviewer was looking for, it seems like from the notes left at the GA Review itself that all that was lacking was some critical reviews of his performances, but only if they could be found and if not then no worries. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 19:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure about this. I would expect more questions about the personal life of Fisher (g/f, hobbies, likes and dislikes, etc). If there was at least one interview with him, it would have been much easier to cover these items. But, as I said, it is worth a shot and if it works now, then great. Nsk92 (talk) 20:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay sounds good. I'll keep looking for more sources in the meantime. Cirt (talk) 20:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

related to fibonacci numbers and fractals

I think that the main problem related to my contributions come from

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Eppstein

whih seems have a "rage" relating my contributions

perhaps reasons are pending deletions on his personal article

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/David_Eppstein

My goal is only to increase information in a new "fibonacci numbers and fractals" new open article which was proposed by another wiki contributors weeks ago (history log exists)

kind regards jean claude perez

_____ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.229.26.74 (talk) 13:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

First, there is no pending deletion of the David Eppstein article. Second, the problem is not with User:David Eppstein but with your own edits, such as addition of ELs to your own work to articles like Fibonacci numbers. Such edits by definition represent a conflict of interest and are strongly discouraged by the guideline WP:COI (which I recommend that you take a careful look at). There are good reasons for discouraging such edits since they give the appearance of using Wikipedia to promote one's own work. In a situation like this, especially since objections have been raised by other editors, you need to convince them that addition of links to your work is appropriate. There are several considerations to keep in mind here. First, at a minimum, the work in question needs to be published and pass the WP:V requirements. Second, it needs to be sufficiently notable in and of itself to merit inclusion. This means that it is insufficient for your work to be relevant to Fibonacci numbers. It is also necessary to show a sufficient level of citability of this work and to establish that it has been used or at least referred to by a substantial number of other scholars in their own publications. Moreover, one also needs to keep in mind the WP:UNDUE considerations. For a very classic and well established subject like Fibonacci numbers the bar for inclusion of the material is higher than for less well-known subjects. As I said in my edit summary, if you really insist on having a link to your work added to Fibonacci numbers, you need to discuss this first at the talk page Talk:Fibonacci number and try to obtain consensus for inclusion of the link there. This is quite necessary since several different users have removed the links in question from the Fibonacci numbers article: myself, User:David Eppstein,User:Gandalf61[2], and User:Johnuniq[3]. Nsk92 (talk) 14:28, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou

Just wish to say thankyou for your assistance in creating the AfD for Charles Linden. Regards. Colliver55 (talk) 22:34, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure, you are welcome. Nsk92 (talk) 22:44, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Witch hunt

It's not witch hunt when more than 10% of the oppose votes are checkuser confirmed sock puppets. Please strike your assumption of bad faith. Jehochman ^Talk 02:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Please. It is you who has a bad faith problem here with your relentless attacks on the oppose votes in this RfA. Nsk92 (talk) 02:40, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

When there are proven irregularities, and evidence of further irregularities that need to be checked, asking questions and noting relevant information is not "bad faith". I am going out for tea. Let's reconnect later and see if we can iron out this disagreement. I don't want to upset other people needlessly. Jehochman ^Talk 02:44, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you for your participation at my RfA, which passed with a count of (166/43/7). I appreciate your comments and in my actions as an administrator I will endeavor to act in ways that earn your full confidence, even though I don't have it now. Cirt (talk) 01:39, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Kahler manifold

Dear Nsk92,

Thanks for correcting my mistake on Kahler manifold. I don't know why I wrote that.

Topology Expert (talk) 12:44, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

systolic group theory?

Hi, Since you seem to be an expert in geometric group theory, I have been meaning to ask if you could create a page as above. The area seems to have been very active recently but I have not been able to find a discussion elementary enough so that I would feel comfortable creating a page myself. Katzmik (talk) 15:55, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I would not say that "systolic group theory" already exists as a separate subject. There is a notion of a systolic group that has been introduced recently in the papers of Januszkiewicz, Świątkowski, Osajda and others, but the topic itself is too new to be called a "theory". So it is probably more appropriate to create an article for systolic group rather than systolic group theory. To be honest, I don't know enough about the topic to write such an article right away, but I'll look up the relevant papers when I have time. I actually have a few other things on my to do list that I'd like to create articles about first. For example, small cancellation theory is one of them. In fact, logically, one needs an article about small cancellation groups first since systolic groups are, in a sense, generalizations of small cancellation groups and it is the difference between the two notions that makes systolic groups interesting (e.g. the fact that small cancellation groups have virtual cohomological dimension two while systolic groups can have arbitrarily high cohomological dimension). Nsk92 (talk) 16:09, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Note the original paper by Ballmann et at from twenty years ago where the subject has its origin. In a sense systolic groups are more elementary than small cancellation, at least to a geometrically minded reader. Katzmik (talk) 16:12, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Interesting, which paper of Ballmann is that? I am not sure what is simpler, as both the metric small cancellation condition and the definition of a systolic group are pretty simple. However, small cancellation groups are plentiful and easy to constuct while higher-dimensional systolic groups are not that easy to come by. Certainly, "generic", in any reasonable sense, simplicial complexes will not be systolic since there is a local obstraction to being systolic and in a large random object this obstruction will occur with probability close to 1. Nsk92 (talk) 16:26, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking of Ballmann, W.; Świątkowski, J.: On $L\sp 2$-cohomology and property (T) for automorphism groups of polyhedral cell complexes. Geom. Funct. Anal. 7 (1997), no. 4, 615--645. From the point of view of systolic group theorists, this is the trivial case. Katzmik (talk) 14:48, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

James W. Cannon

I am involved with WikiProject Wisconsin and the article came up on the project's new articles watchlist. You did an AWESOME job on the article, so I nominated for Did You Know - the best new articles on Wikipedia - so that it might appear on the main page after about 5 days after it was created. There are very new articles on mathematicians being created, so it has a very good chance of running sometime on September 25 (UTC) if there are no major issues. Kudos! Royalbroil 04:19, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much, I appreciate it! Nsk92 (talk) 11:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Another DYK regular reviewed the article and left some comments at Template_talk:Did_you_know#Articles_created.2Fexpanded_on_September_21. I wonder if you would review the comments and consider addressing some of them? I don't understand most of what he is requesting, but it sounds like he thinks that parts of article are written too technical. I have a bachelor's degree in math, so I'm not a good judge, but I did find the "Mathematical contributions" section to be very difficult to read because it's very technical. I didn't think that too technical was a problem for DYK. You did provide wikilinks for context. Maybe you could add some more filler phrases/sentences giving short, basic explanations of areas which he contributed in. That might be difficult since he contributed in many different areas. I tried to pick a hook that anyone could understand. By the way, September 26th would be the date, not the 25th, for the article to appear on the main page. Royalbroil 14:39, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'll take a look and think about it. To be honest, I wrote the article largely with the mathematical audience in mind. I'll think about either trying to give a more informal explanation of a double suspension theorem (which would be hard) or maybe putting a sentence or two regarding the math biology paper of Cannon, Floyd and Parry[4] that Victuallers mentioned (however, I have to say that I have never seen this paper before and am not familiar with its results). Nsk92 (talk) 15:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, I added some stuff regarding the math biology paper. Maybe Victuallers is correct and it might be better to use that for a DYK hook. Please take a look. Thanks, Nsk92 (talk) 16:48, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Cannon, Gromov, and hyperbolic groups

Hi, Thanks for the great piece on Cannon. He is certainly one of the founders of hyperbolic group theory and his role should be more widely acknowledged. I do want to bring to your attention the following two chronological details: (a) the volume edited by Gersten which contains Gromov's long paper, is a report of a seminar that took place in june '85 (a couple of years before the volume was actually published); (b) gromov's dense seminal paper "hyperbolic manifolds, groups and actions" (32 pages) appeared in '81. Katzmik (talk) 14:55, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. However, I don't think that this would fit well into the article about Cannon himself. It'd probably be more appropriate to mention this in the article hyperbolic group. Nsk92 (talk) 15:38, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I only meant to point out that the article about Cannon seems to suggest that he developed hyperbolic groups before Gromov did, whereas the dates I cited suggest the opposite. Katzmik (talk) 15:40, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I certainly did not mean to convey that impression (I'll take another look to see if the wording could be tweaked). I think that regardless of pre-chronology, Gromov's 1987 monograph is the place where hyperbolic groups are introduced and the theory of hyperbolic groups is officially born. Nsk92 (talk) 16:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I added a detailed bibliography to Mikhail Gromov, please take a look. Katzmik (talk) 16:48, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks good! Really, someone brave enough -:) needs to take a shot of actually adding stuff about Gromov's mathematical contributions to the article about him. Nsk92 (talk) 16:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the two of us could give it a shot? We could start with giving a list of subsections which would hopefully get expanded in the future. Katzmik (talk) 08:04, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

My error

I just looked through Gromov's '81 paper and did not find any trace of the thin triangle condition. Thanks for correcting my historical misconception. I don't think there is any need to modify the presentation at Cannon. Katzmik (talk) 17:01, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

not really important to read

hey, how can you suspect my account as a single purpose account - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Magibon_(2nd_nomination)... well, i do only have one other edit beside that AfD discussion... and yes, i am a noob on this wiki thing (i don't even know how to put proper link to that discussion page -_-;)... and yes, i broke that WP:OtherStuffExists (i didn't know about that WP thing before). i just thought that all wikipedias have same rules. anyway, thanks for informing such things. btw, how bout that user Campus101, he only has a few other edits, all on the same page and same date, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Campus101. can i suspect him as single purpose account too? (i just wonder how many articles should i edit so that my account won't be suspected as single purpose account anymore) TribaL_iLLusioN (talk) 13:27, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

It is not a matter of suspicion, but a factual observation based on looking at one's contribution record. An spa is defined as a user who had made few or no contributions outside a particular single topic. At the time I placed the spa tag on your comment in the Magibon AfD, you had only two edits, one edit marked as "minor" in May 2008 to To be determined and another edit on September 22, 2008 which was a vote in the Magibon AfD, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/tribaL_iLLusion. That makes you satisfy the definition of an spa, at least for now. Regarding User:Campus101 the situation is less clear. He/she had 4 non-minor edits to Campus (hentai) in April 2008 and one edit in September to the Magibon AfD. Nsk92 (talk) 15:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks for replying :) TribaL_iLLusioN (talk) 16:12, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Adam Pease and Josef Urban

Could you perhaps have a look at these two computer scientist bios? It appears that one created an article for the other. Urban created the Pease article and is rather aggressive about it (see Talk:Adam Pease). Pease seems to be notable, but not Urban. But computer science is not my field and after my experience with Urban's aggressiveness, I admit getting irritated with him and therefore I hesitate to tag the Urban article (even less prod it...) before having a better-informed opinion. Thanks. --Crusio (talk) 23:39, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I'll take a look. However, I am a mathematician (a rather pure one at that), and not a computer scientist. So my opinion in this case may not be particularly well-informed. Nsk92 (talk) 13:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, after taking a look, my impression is the same as yours: Pease is notable but Urban is not. Urban is a recent PhD (2004), with no significant record of citability in either googlescholar of WebOfScience. I think the article can be AfD-ed. Nsk92 (talk) 15:57, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you for supporting me in my RfA, which passed with a count of (154/3/2). I appreciate the community's trust in me, and I will do my best to be sure it won't regret handing me the mop. I am honored by your trust and your support. Again, thank you. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 18:05, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Cannon DYK

Hello Nsk-- please see this edit. I was confused by the phrasing of the proposed hook. Kablammo (talk) 22:26, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, I have revised the hook replacing "laws" by "patterns". Please take another look. Thanks, Nsk92 (talk) 23:12, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

DYK for James W. Cannon

On 28 September, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article James W. Cannon, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Thank you for your contributions! - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 11:43, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks! Nsk92 (talk) 12:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Non-free or on-online sources

I found myself explaining the point you made here on several AfDs. Perhaps we should add it to the WP:V policy with an easy to remember shortcut. Or is it overkill to do so? Thanks, VG ☎ 13:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, actually, probably some formal clarification of these matters would be in order. In fact, there are several adjacent issues as well that probably need to be explicitly clarified also. For example, there is the question of links to non-free material. For external links both WP:EL and WP:SPAM make it reasonably clear that external links to commercial websites requiring payment should be avoided (except in the articles about those entities themselves). However, for references/footnotes that are given in an article for the purposes of verification links to sites requiring payment to view the relevant material are generally allowed. For example, if one cites a New York Times article from 1970, it should be perfectly fine to give both the details of the print edition (date, title of the article, name of the author, page numbers etc) and to give a link to the pay-per-view listing for this article at the archive section of the New York Times website. This basically corresponds to the standard practices but, as far as I know, it somehow is not explicitly spelled out anywhere, including such places as WP:V, WP:RS, WP:CITE, WP:FOOT, etc. Nsk92 (talk) 15:03, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Christopher Busby

Excellent diagnosis at the AfD. I myself feel that since the article did not claim notability in academia, the use of WP:Prof did not apply... as one might easily argue to delete an article on Queen Victoria for her failing WP:PROF as well. But as you pointed out, and much more eloquently than did I, he does pass WP:Notability (persons). Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:20, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree, you've made a very strong, well reasoned case. Guest9999 (talk) 23:51, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Alfred Zwiebel

Hi! Last August you tagged my article on the above subject/person for lack of references/citations as well as for possibly not meeting the criteria for notability. I have since revised and expanded the text and added several references and citations from published sources, as well as images of the subject's work (he was an artist). You were right to note that the article lacked proper references, and I thank you for pointing that out. But I do hope that the article will now meet the necessary criteria. If so, I would be grateful if you would remove, or give me permission to remove, the tags you placed on it. (As the subject was my father, however, I do understand that the COI tag, placed there by another editor, needs to remain.) If the article still doesn't meet the criteria, I will be grateful if you would tell me what still needs to be done. Many thanks in advance,Neidhart (talk) 08:34, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the hard work on improving the article. As a matter of my personal opinion, I still feel that the notability and sourcing concerns have not yet been properly addressed. Some of the references are problematic. For instance, Ref no 3 is: IMPRESSIONS 1967-1993: The Painting of Alfred Zwiebel, New York" ("IMPRESSIONEN 1967-1993: Malerei von Alfred Zwiebel, New York"). It is not at clear what that reference is. A reference needs to be to a published source (see WP:V), such as an article in a newspaper, a book, a journal, etc. Published typically means something that would be available in a good library. If there was an art exhibit, you'd need to find a verifiable published reference to that exhibit and to the fact that your father's work was presented there. Much of the other info in the article (such as the list of exhibits) is not sourced. The last section, "Later Years and Death" contains the material that is entirely unsourced. I am not questioning the truth of the information given there, but according to the WP:V requirements this info needs to be sourced to a published source (such as an obituary). In terms of notability, references 4-8 certainly help but, in my personal opinion, are not quite sufficient. For an artist with such a long career, I would have expected to see more, particularly more book references. Having said that, I don't have particularly strong feelings on the issue of notability here and if you remove the notability tag, I'd be fine with that (although somebody else may object). Again, thanks for working on improving the article. Nsk92 (talk) 10:20, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry bout that!

Just wanted to drop you a note and apologize-- my statement, coming as it did after yours, looked like I was summarizing your point of view, but in fact said things completely different from the point of view you had expressed. I believe the technical term for such a situation is "my bad". :)

On a side note, hearty applause for your contributions listed on your userpage. EFF membership + many math articles = all kinds of awesome. --Alecmconroy (talk) 11:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate the sentiment. Nsk92 (talk) 00:27, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

RE: Danielle Lloyd (motivational speaker)

All taken care of. Thanks for the note. GlassCobra 18:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Nsk92 (talk) 20:07, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Hello Nsk92. Thank you very much for your support in my recent Request for Adminship, which was successful with 111 supports, 0 opposes, and 0 neutral. I have to say I am more than a little overwhelmed by this result and I greatly appreciate your trust in me. I will do my best to use the tools wisely. Thanks again. Regards. Thingg⊕⊗ 01:47, 12 October 2008 (UTC)