User talk:Nsk92/Archive 8

Koji Gyotoku

I fixed my entry article since your reviewd my nomination's entry. I think its ready for DYK. Spongie555 (talk) 03:54, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I have replied at T:TDYK, at your nomination's entry. There are still some issues that need to be fixed. Nsk92 (talk) 04:20, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I replied again with more edits. Also i cant fix the apps (gls) thing on the infobox if you can help me with that i would appreciate that. Spongie555 (talk) 05:01, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

thanks for help on infobox but I'm having trouble with reference thing like I write all the cite for it but it says it needs title or something like that in big red letters. Koji Gyotoku can you see what is wrong with reference for me. It is only ref 1 that needs help because I was testing to see hoe to add the publications about the article. Spongie555 (talk) 05:41, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the first ref is attempting to refer to a reference that has not been defined. The second ref seems to be missing the "title" field. As a DYK reviewer of your nomination, I am not supposed to edit this article at all, as then somebody else would have to review it. Therefore, if you are having technical trouble, I suggest that you ask for help at Wikipedia:Help desk. Nsk92 (talk) 05:56, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

You may also try using Template:Helpme for immediate help. Nsk92 (talk) 06:13, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Idk how to add the name for the reference so its all messed up Spongie555 (talk) 05:49, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Like I said, put the "helpme" tag (see Template:Helpme) at your user talk page; someone will then assist you fairly quickly. Nsk92 (talk) 05:51, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I put the template on my talk page I will see what they say. This is just my first DYK nomination that made it this far and im trying all i could to get it passed. Spongie555 (talk) 06:48, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Someone helped fixed the reference for me. Idk if its good now Spongie555 (talk) 07:08, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I think it is ready now i fixed the grammer and ref 3. Spongie555 (talk) 07:34, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I have a question. I know you passed my DYK after i fixed it but what happen to the nomination under DYK suggestion page? I went to check on it one day and it was gone. Does that mean it is gonna be on DYK soon? Idk beacuse this is my first DYK that passed. Spongie555 (talk) 06:07, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Your nomination was moved from T:TDYK to Template:Did you know/Preparation area 1, which is the standard next step after a nomination is approved. There is nothing that you need to do now, just wait. Your entry will appear at the main page in a few days. When that happens, you'll get a notification message at your talk page. Nsk92 (talk) 06:16, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I have one last question but this one is about DYK. When they mean 5x expansion does that mean a new article that was 5x expanded or an old stub article that was 5x expanded? Like can you expand an old article and put it on DYK? Spongie555 (talk) 04:16, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

This is explained in DYK rules, WP:DYK. Yes, an old article may also be eligible for DYK if the prose portion of the article has been expanded (within 1-5 days) at least fivefold. However, an article that has appeared at DYK before cannot be renominated again, even after a 5x+ expansion. Nsk92 (talk) 04:28, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey can you review a DYK for me Dechencholing Palace. I asked you beacuse you reviwed my last nomination but this one is not my nomination i just helped with the article. Spongie555 (talk) 19:59, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey can you review a DYK for me Rinzin Dorji. It is article i made and you have reviewed all my other nominations and trust you more to review my nominations. Spongie555 (talk) 04:55, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but no. I reviewed the second entry you suggested as a courtesy but I'll have to stop there. For the DYK process you are not supposed to pick your reviewers - that would compromise the integrity of the process, especially if it becomes a pattern for a particular reviewer and a particular nominator. You'll just have to wait until the nomination works its way through the process; somebody will review the nomination, even if it does not happen as fast as you would like. Nsk92 (talk) 05:12, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Philadelphia transit strike of 1944

— Rlevse • Talk • 06:02, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar Awarded!

		The Guidance Barnstar
		To Nsk92 in recognition of good oversight and advice in the process of bringing an article I created, L. Martin Griffin Jr. to the Main page through my very first Did you know... - your suggestions regarding the hook, etc. were timely, friendly and spot on. My best wishes to you today, and every day! Jusdafax 07:41, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! Nsk92 (talk) 07:50, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK Query for Lightning (Revere Beach)

I replied to your query on the T:TDYK page. I tried to explain the hook, and I also provided an alternative hook if you think the first hook still doesn't work (or if you just like the second hook better). Best, IronGargoyle (talk) 15:58, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I have marked ALT1 hook as verified. Nsk92 (talk) 16:10, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Russia articles poorly researched should be removed

Nsk92 :::: These articles should be removed off the article

Bad source - Do the Math: article[1] is a blog and cannot be used as a good source and why did they not publish this in the Wall Street journal but on a Blog? makes not a whole lot of sense to put it in a blog outside article news source.

Bad source - from Atlantic Review[2] has a great deal of discussions of disagreement in its form. There is countless disagreements on the article on viewers stating is mislead on its edit review outweighing the article entirely. Another poor researched article.--Globalstatus (talk) 23:25, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Questioning: Alantic Review: article[3]

Kyle Atwell[4] vs. Ronald Steel[5][6] on the Atlantic Review - Kyle Atwell[7]who says little on the subject on Russia not being a superpower trying to override Ronald Steels[8] facts who clarifies Russia is a superpower in greater detail and titles it.

Kyle Atwell is an US army Lieutenant and only has a masters degree in foreign relations and also has little experience in internation foreign relations which he has not written any certified publication books on record but a small journal review on the Atlantic Review[9] and has so little foreign relation contacts than just a Twitter account & Linkin account[10] reference, that's it. Kyle Atwell is very pro USA in particular on the subject on his articles what I have found him to write in foreign relations subjects. I think it is kinda of bias if someone is pro USA to only write subjects on good old USA and good this etc etc.

Roland Steel is a professor of international relations at the University of Southern California who has written books for over 48 years[11][12][13][14] on international foreign relations experience over Kyle Atwell. I mean you can Google Roland Steel[15] and find countless reviews on his extensive experience on international foreign relations[16]. Ronald Steel is also a US citizen but he does not write only bias articles or books. He write subjects as it is and I favor he so much more on this subject.

Questioning the facts on this article: Alantic Review[17] is very ill founded on its facts cannot reference Roland Steel's extension experience on international foreign relations on the subject even arguing on Russia, Kyle Atwell lacks the subject on little information to contrast the matter. I found this article[18] poorly used and should not be used on the article —Preceding unsigned comment added by Globalstatus (talk • contribs) 00:23, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Template_talk:Did_you_know#Thomas_William_Burgess

Hi! Please see Template_talk:Did_you_know#Thomas_William_Burgess. I have the feeling the nominator made a little error in his nomination. Cheers, Maashatra11 (talk) 09:04, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I have commented there. You are probably correct that the nominator meant to nominated a different article. I have removed your check-mark of the entry as verified for now. First, the article is still at AfD and cannot be technically promoted until the AfD is closed. Second, a part of the hook fact is not mentioned in the article. Third, a user who suggests a hook should not be the one approving that hook - this is one of the DYK rules. Nsk92 (talk) 09:17, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I didn't really suggested that hook, it was actually entirely written by another user (Alansohn). Anyway, I have inserted the info concerning Ederle's coaching by Burgess from the Burgess article to the nominated article now. I hope it will ok when the AfD is closed! Thanks, Maashatra11 (talk) 09:41, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Still, as a matter of protocol, it is better to be on the safe side. I have double-checked everything and, apart from the still open AfD, everything else now looks to be in order. I'll mark the entry as verified once the AfD closes. Nsk92 (talk) 09:43, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

How rude!

I was replying in good humour to User:Nvvchar/Sandbox 5, nothing to do with the nom LOL. Dr. Blofeld 11:57, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, no problem, thanks. Nsk92 (talk) 12:06, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Old Melbourne Gaol

Ok cheers - to be honest, I am struggling to find a good extra 7-8000 more characters without incorporating every little non-notable tidbit about the prison. It's a shame as I thought the factoid is quite interesting, but I guess rules are rules - to nominate this again, would it need another 5x expansion - 13,000 to 65,000? Maybe at least I can go for a good article maybe :) Jwoodger (talk) 02:37, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I have replied at the DYK nominations page. Nsk92 (talk) 05:18, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Vinny Deolalikar

Hi, Nsk92. I saw your comment about Vinay Deolalikar P ≠ NP Proof Attempt and WP:NOT#NEWS. The AfD discussion closed before I got a chance to respond, so I figured I'd do that here. It's borderline whether the proof attempt is news or a notable event.

For me, the New York Times article story edged it into notability; they give analysis beyond what I've seen elsewhere. In particular, they talk about the reaction: "What was highly significant, however, was the pace of discussion and analysis, carried out in real time on blogs and a wiki that had been quickly set up for the purpose of collectively analyzing the paper. This kind of collaboration has emerged only in recent years in the math and computer science communities. In the past, intense discussions like the one that surrounded the proof of the Poincaré conjecture were carried about via private e-mail and distribution lists as well as in the pages of traditional paper-based science journals."

They're not the only ones making this kind of analysis; NewScientist ends with 3 paragraphs about the increase in collaboration, for instance: "This flurry of online activity suggests that a new way of doing mathematics might be emerging, with blogs and wikis rivalling blackboards and journals – a potentially positive outcome, even if P vs NP remains unresolved."

Those, to me, are the beginnings of "lasting effects". But there's no way to tell yet.

In more practical terms: is there a place to put articles like these so that they don't have to be created from scratch again later (or fished out by admins from the invisible-to-me trash)? Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 21:37, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Anti-Semitic

I've just read your comments and your erroneous arguments on WQA trying to paint me as Anti-Semitic. With respect I think you should learn the difference between 'Jewish' and 'Zionist'. They are not mutually inclusive. Recognising the very real influence the Zionist movement has on some Western Governments, particularly the US and UK doest not indicate anyone has a prejudice against Human beings for being Jewish. In fact I suggest you contact Norman Finklestein, who is Jewish, and ask him about this issue. To quote your comment "Lots of people who are anti-semitic claim that they are not and some of them even honestly believe it (the same is true for any other kind of prejudice)" - This is absolutely utter nonsense and points to a propaganda propagation if anything. And frankly insulting. I am not unintelligent and more than coherent and cognitive enough to recognise whether I have prejudices or not. I'm afraid the arguments you are trying to propagate are only serving to lesson your own rep as these days more and more people are not falling for the tired old 'race card' being pulled to stifle criticism of the Zionist Movement and the often dreadful behaviour of it's Israeli regime. These are judgements based upon behaviour not prejudices on anyone's race or ethnicity. Vexorg (talk) 03:42, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Pending changes/Closure - High-traffic pages

Hi, I am contributing to a summary of the pending changes trial at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Closure and I wondered if you could explain your comment that it only works on high-traffic pages. Most people who went commented on the subject thought that it was bad for high-traffic pages. i.e. if there are a lot of edits going on then it all becomes confusing. I guess the term high-traffic could mean two things. Do you mean high number of views, rather than high number of edits? Yaris678 (talk) 16:32, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I mean high number of views or more precisely a sufficiently large number of editors having that article watchlisted and available to review edits submitted by IP editors. Nsk92 (talk) 19:33, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I see. What I think might be quite clever is if pages that are on a lot of watchlists don't appear on Special:OldReviewedPages. Or maybe they should appear in a separate section at the bottom or something. That way the people who are most familiar with the article can deal with the pending changes. Where an article isn't on many watchlists it would appear at the top of Special:OldReviewedPages and hence attract a more general reviewer. Yaris678 (talk) 18:28, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Pending changes/Vote comment

As you commented in the pending closure discussion I am notifying you that the Wikipedia:Pending changes/Vote comment is now open and will be for two weeks, discussion as required can continue on the talkpage. Thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 23:13, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Your edit to WP:DELPRO regarding "no consensus" NACs

My apologies for reverting your recent edit to this guideline. I did it because not all "no consensus" closes are "controversial". I've done quite a few of them due to lack of participation with no delete !votes at all besides the nom. However, if you feel that this language belongs in this guideline then please open up a discussion at WT:DELPRO.

If your change was prompted by this NAC attempt at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vinay Deolalikar then I would agree, that was a completely inappropriate non admin close, not because it was "no consensus" but because it was a contentious debate with serious BLP issues. I wouldn't have touched that with a 10 foot pole. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 11:54, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. In part yes, my edit was prompted by what happened in the Deolalikar AfD. I would have thought that essentially "no consensus" almost always comes under "controversial"/"close call". I may follow your suggestion regarding bringing it up at WT:DELPRO. Nsk92 (talk) 12:55, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I have posted a suggestion at WT:DELPRO. Nsk92 (talk) 14:12, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Philip Hayes (general)

The DYK project (nominate) 06:03, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

City of Washington–Washington & Jefferson College relations

I'll do it tonight. I like to review an article all in one sitting if I can, hence why it hadn't been done yet. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 22:19, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I have not edited this article (and don't really plan to) and stumbled on it rather by chance; just wanted to make sure that you did not forget about the nomination. Nsk92 (talk) 05:03, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Montgomery Bell State Park

I have located the references you requested for the DYK nom hook of Montgomery Bell State Park. Thanks for catching the mistake. Dincher (talk) 22:25, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Done and done. Dincher (talk) 19:03, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I have marked the nomination as verified. Nsk92 (talk) 19:06, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Steve Beshear

I have had this conflict (internally) on all of the articles I have done on Kentucky's governors. At what point do they become "historical figures" rather than "political figures"? When they die? When they retire from office? And who moves them from one GA category to the other when that happens? Ernie Fletcher, for example, was the most recent past governor, but barring a political resurrection, he is probably done with elected office. But Julian Carroll's political career also seemed over when, at the end of his gubernatorial tenure, he was under the shadow of an ethics investigation. Nevertheless, he has come back to win election to the state senate. Also, there is John Y. Brown, Jr., who was governor once, and ran for the office again, as well as running for Senator. He was also the owner of 3 professional basketball franchises and turned KFC into a world-wide enterprise. Where does he best fit? My solution has been to put all of the governors in "historical figures", which is probably where they will all end up eventually. However, I would truly value any insight you could give into how to better manage these nominations. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 18:21, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I am not really experienced with the GA process, so what I wrote is basically just a personal opinion, and not a particularly well-informed one at that. Technically, Steve Beshear can certainly be listed under WP:GAN#HIST and there is a significant overlap in coverage between WP:GAN#HIST and WP:GAN#POL. As a matter of personal opinion, I think that currently active politicians should be listed under WP:GAN#POL. Beshear is the current governor of Kentucky so he certainly is a currently active politician. Also, as a process matter, I think the description of the topics covered in WP:GAN#HIST is a bit too broad (and maybe it really needs to be split up or refined), so in the interests of avoiding potentially large backlogs in WP:GAN#HIST, if a particular subject also qualifies for listing under a different category, it may be better to list it there rather than in WP:GAN#HIST. Nsk92 (talk) 18:45, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Amir.Hossein.7055

Thanks for the clarification on that. When I said "Iranian politics", what I meant was Prime Minister of Iran and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad - two previous high-profile targets. Sorry if I wasn't clear. :( Usually socks/vandals can't keep away from the high-visibility stuff. Cheers! TNXMan 14:30, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, I see, no problem. Actually, the User:Verysomenotes account did edit a few higher-profile articles as well, such as List of Presidents of Iran and Ruhollah Khomeini. I think he was just getting started... Nsk92 (talk) 14:47, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Ivan Gannibal

I have shortened the hook for T:TDYK#Ivan Gannibal per your request. -- Y not? 23:13, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

if you're semi-retired, why are you spending so much time undoing my contributions? Don't you have anything better to do? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cloudmichael (talk • contribs) 21:37, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

As it happens, I do quite a few other things on Wikipedia, as you can easily see from checking my contrib record. I have already explained to you, at your talk page, in detail my problem with your edits. Your edits are based on trying to insert your own unpublished work in various Wikipedia articles. This violates two main Wikipedia content policies, WP:V and WP:OR, as well as raises serious conflict of interest and undue weight problems. Nsk92 (talk) 04:03, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!

For your additional comments on the Rhodocene GA review! Canada Hky (talk) 20:41, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Secret pages 2

Because you participated in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Some Person/The Real Secret Page and Secret Barnstar, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Secret pages 2. Cunard (talk) 06:27, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Rhodocene GA nomination

Hi... Just a quick note to let you know that I have been working on the rhodocene article where you commented on the GA nomination, and have made some significant changes. I have also responded with comments to the comments made by you and the other reviewers. This is my first GA nomination, so apologies if this is the incorrect protocol, but I was wondering if you might stop by and comment on the work done so far, and perhaps indicate what else needs doing. Many thanks for your review. Regards, EdChem (talk) 07:41, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I am about to leave for a 5 day trip and will have little internet access in the meantime. Plus I have never done any GA reviewing before so my experience with the GA process is basically close to zero. Therefore I was going to leave the actual reviewing process for this article to somebody more experienced than myself. But I'll take a quick look and see if anything jumps at me that is worth mentioning. Nsk92 (talk) 07:47, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks... as for basically zero experience in GA, it's the same for me so I appreciate your willingness to contribute.  :) EdChem (talk) 08:07, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Requestioning acedemic sources on Russia as great power from you Nsk92

Becuase you have changed the status from superpower to great power I am now going to question you about Russia being great power. I want to read only acedemic sources from you that say Russia is a great power and not from great power article (not the table in the end) (that is not an effective source) because of contributing editors who have denounced edits in the great powers is not the accurate source of information when there has been conflicting contributing editors that denouced the sources on there. Since the article is misleading the readers I am questioning its sources to say otherwise with information stating Russia is a great power and not a superpower. There should be a weight of sources to have this article state it is great power (because the intro is misleading) or the article will mislead the editors or edit back to superpower status again as sources are avialable under Russia as a superpower. Provide these acedemic great power sources please.--Globalstatus (talk) 21:04, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

please read talkpages on wording on Russia great and superpower before undoing edits: :::

It reads: Adding this in consensus as this is what the heading should say nuclear weapons states and possesses the world's largest stockpile of weapons of mass destructionand is the world's largest energy superpower. Russia is a great power although such characterization is disputed by some analysts Russia is characterized as a superpower by a number of sources

After reading over and over the orginal change it just doesn't make sense so I am posting this version for the intro for the time being as sources are directing to this wording is much better.--Globalstatus (talk) 22:52, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Nsk92 I am asking you again to show me your acedemic sources that Russia is a great power? I want to see your evidence as you have been actively involved in this discussion saying Russia is a great power so I want to see you provide your sources of information then. Do you have this information? Yes or No? If see what are the sources, acedemic sources?--Globalstatus (talk) 23:14, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage

Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:43, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit warning for disrupting article

User:Nsk92 This is a warning for edit disruption[19] edit war according to the reverts you have made on Russia by undoing edits and making threats to editors on Russia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. If you continue to perform reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor of content you should first try to use discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If the edit warring continues, you be blocked from editing without further notice. --Globalstatus (talk) 11:12, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, give me a break. It is you who have been disrupting the Russia article and are well on your way to a block. Nsk92 (talk) 11:41, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Philadelphia transit strike of 1944

The article Philadelphia transit strike of 1944 you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Philadelphia transit strike of 1944 for things which need to be addressed. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:57, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Aipac - Iran nuclear page

There is no consensus, this user NPGUY have harrsessd and deleted my stuff all the time regarding this subject. Basically, AIPAC is a powerful lobby in the US, so I put this information under US/EU views. Which rule does I break? Do you warn NPGUY too for he reverting? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MUCHERS22 (talk • contribs) 11:40, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Your edits at that page have been challenged, so, per WP:CONSENSUS, unless and until explicit consensus to add them is established at the article's talk page, you should not re-add those edits yourself. Otherwise you may be blocked for edit-warring. Nsk92 (talk) 11:45, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

No there is no consensus, you base your threats of warnings only because your personal emotional and political views. So unless there arent any consensus you have no right according to the rules on Wikipedia to threat to block me from editing. There are a discussion going regarding AIPAC on this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_program_of_Iran . There havent been any consensus yet, we have views from both sides. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MUCHERS22 (talk • contribs) 12:54, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

You clearly do not understand the meaning of WP:CONSENSUS. Once a particular edit has been challenged (like your edits have been), this edit must not be re-added to the article until the editorial dispute has been resolved at the article's talk page. If you attempt to re-add your edits, that have been challenged, without consensus to re-add them at being established at the article's talk page, you will be blocked from editing. In your case, since you already have a substantial record of lengthy recent blocks for edit-warring, the next block you get is likely to be a long one or maybe even an indef. Nsk92 (talk) 13:38, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh I get on your toes, regarding that you see antizionism as antisemitism (see your talkpage) I knew what kind of problem you have with my aipac quote. Its so obvious. Truth hurts huh. Bullshit that there is a consensus saying something else. Ive got multple sources that back up my claim and Aipac is agent lobby in the US so obviously it is an "US view". With your principle I could basically delete the whole wiki page about Iran's nuclear program since I "challege" it. Comon, tell me straight up which rule I explicity rule that may result in a lifetime ban. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MUCHERS22 (talk • contribs) 13:44, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Like I said, re-read WP:CONSENSUS again, and while you are at it, take a look at WP:NPOV and WP:TE as well. You have been warned several times about edit-warring and you have been blocked for edit warring several times recently, for a month the last time. The next block you get for any kind of disruption is likely to be a pretty long one, and possibly an indef. Nsk92 (talk) 14:06, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

So you cant tell me what rules you base your allegations on? I guess it just proves my point that this clash with your political and emotional view regarding the subject.

Do you even know what consensus mean?

"Consensus describes the primary way in which editorial decisions are made on Wikipedia. There is no single definition of what consensus means on Wikipedia, but in articles consensus is typically used to try to establish and ensure neutrality and verifiability. Editors usually reach consensus as a natural and inherent product of editing; generally someone makes a change or addition to a page, then everyone who reads it has an opportunity to leave the page as it is or change it. When editors cannot reach agreement by editing, the process of finding a consensus is continued by discussion on the relevant talk pages."

With that being said, who say that NPGuy is right when there is no consensus on the subject(!). Also even if I were banned 2 3 or 832 times it doesnt matter. Wikipedia's blocking isnt based on accumulated blocks' and sanctions but on the present rule violation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MUCHERS22 (talk • contribs) 14:44, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

It does not matter who is right or wrong in particular editorial dispute. WP:CONSENSUS means that in case of a dispute an edit that has been challenged may not be re-added until and unless the dispute has been resolved and consensus to re-add that edit has been achieved. If you disagree with NPguy's position but are unable to convince him directly, you can try other types of WP:Dispute resolution, such as WP:3O or WP:RfC to get extra input on the dispute from other editors. However, attempting to re-add a contested edit until the dispute has been resolved constitutes WP:Edit warring and will get you blocked. The number of times you have been blocked before is not directly relevant to the validity of your position, but it is relevant to the length of the next block you get in case of continued disruption. Nsk92 (talk) 15:01, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Well if it doesnt matter whos right or wrong why doesnt NPGuy get warnings too? By your principle I could remove, as I told you before, a whole wikipage about a certain topic because I solely "challenge" whats being stated, thats the exact situation we have right here. Me and NPGuy had a discussion on the talkpage but he refused to let me add the aipac source without any reasonable arguments leaving me with the assumpation due hes personal agenda or ideology being the main reason he is so eager to delete this short sentence about Aipac. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MUCHERS22 (talk • contribs) 15:19, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I am not familiar with the details of your dispute with NPguy, but a general principle of WP:CONSENSUS is that an edit that has remained in an article for a long time (say several months) is presumed to have consensus. On the other hand, new edits, which either add new material or remove material that had been in an article for a long time, are not presumed to have consensus and may be challenged, provided a challenge occurs relatively quickly (within a few days). Once such a challenge to a new edit does occur, the contested edit may not be re-added until the dispute has been resolved. The same principle applies to edits of NPguy or anyone else. Nsk92 (talk) 15:31, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Well it is only NPGuy that have deleted the sentence and he havent given me a plausible reason for doing so. Could I do the same - remove something and then give a plausible reason for the removal? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MUCHERS22 (talk • contribs) 15:44, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

From what I can see in the edit history of Nuclear program of Iran, NPguy has been removing the sentence that you have been trying to add, that is he has been removing an addition that has been challenged and consensus for re-adding which has not been established. So he has been acting within the rules, while you have not. Nsk92 (talk) 15:59, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Well if you look into the talk-page there is only 2 users arguing about this (Me and NPGuy), so there is no consensus what should be written, you only take NPGuy part because he represent the same ideology as yourself. If there were a consensus which there arent I would agree that my adds indeed are a violation but as I said there are no such thing. Just because no one else than us 2 (me & Npguy) havent taken either part - it doesnt mean there is a present consensus. How about someone else take my part, which indeed happend this week, check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:WookieInHeat editing on the Iranian Nuclear page where he took my part and approved my sentence on the Iranian nuclear program-wikipage and didnt removed it. That is consensus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MUCHERS22 (talk • contribs) 16:24, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

You are still not getting it, although I have tried to explain it to you several times. NPGuy challenged your new edits quickly after they were made; once that happened, you may not re-add those edits until and unless the dispute has been resolved and explicit consensus to re-add those edits has been achieved. If you are unhappy with the level of participation in the dispute, you can always start an RfC or request a WP:3O to get extra input. Nsk92 (talk) 16:40, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Tell me then what would be considered a consensus. Btw is this you? http://www.pandora.com/people/nsk92, just wondering because I have some questions about the Pandora site.

Consensus is a reasonable degree of agreement between the editors on how to proceed - WP:CONSENSUS discusses the topic in more detail. No, the pandora thing has nothing to do with me and the nsk92 there is somebody else. Nsk92 (talk) 16:52, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Exactly, so if there comes some more editors that take my part just like WookieInHeat did, there is a consensus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MUCHERS22 (talk • contribs) 16:56, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

In the relevant thread Talk:Nuclear program of Iran#AIPAC I only see two participants, you and NPguy (well, and now, me). In general consensus is a more complicated thing than pure numbers, but two editors arguing for something and one editor arguing against it certainly does not constitute consensus. Moreover, typically in any editorial dispute some degree of compromise and negotiation is necessary to reach consensus; it is also usually the case that positions of individual editors are more complicated than simply being "for" or "against" a particular edit. Nsk92 (talk) 17:08, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Just for the sake of argument, how would a consens be reached that favor my point of view regarding this topic? Also, how would a compromise look like? Give me examples. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MUCHERS22 (talk • contribs) 17:19, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

There is quite a bit of relevant information about how consensus in case of disputes is reached available at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and at various pages linked there. Look there for details. Nsk92 (talk) 17:23, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I didnt ask for links only for your examples, just a sentence or two, would you be able to do that for me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MUCHERS22 (talk • contribs) 17:25, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Err, I am not sure what exactly you want here. Consensus is a complicated thing and cannot be easily described in a sentence or two. You could look at some of the recently closed RfCs and AfDs to see how consensus is evaluated in those types of debates. Nsk92 (talk) 17:34, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

So you dont even know what the consensus in this might look like? Also how come you simply removed my add to the Aipac page? Isnt addition all about consensus and compromising? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MUCHERS22 (talk • contribs) 17:55, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I did not "simply remove" your edit. I explained why I reverted your edit in my edit summary and also in a separate thread at Talk:American Israel Public Affairs Committee#Edits by User:MUCHERS22, where you are free to comment and to try to work out a compromise wording. Nsk92 (talk) 18:05, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I replied. So, you cant use for the sake of argument type a short example? I mean, we are talking about 1-2 sentences. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MUCHERS22 (talk • contribs) 18:09, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by an example. Like I said, consensus is a complicated matter and it depends on many things including raw numbers and the strength of the arguments presented, as well as on the relevant WP policies and guidelines. But, say, if in a particular dispute, there are ten editors arguing "for" a particular position, and two editors arguing against it, and if both sides present reasonable and well-argued points, the "for" position would probably be deemed to be a consensus opinion. Nsk92 (talk) 18:15, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh so it is indeed a matter of the majority vs the minority, just like I stated before. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MUCHERS22 (talk • contribs) 18:17, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

No it is not simply a matter of majority versus minority. As I said, the strength of the argument and their reliance on relevant policies and guidelines matters as well, often more so than mere numbers. Contentions RfCs and all AfDs are closed by administrators, who are evaluate the consensus in a given debate. Nsk92 (talk) 18:23, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

You seems to be confused regarding this. But I thank you for your answers! —Preceding unsigned comment added by MUCHERS22 (talk • contribs) 18:27, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I speak with the benefit of considerable experience on Wikipedia. I have been an editor here for over 3 years, participated in well over a hundred AfDs, and in quite a few RfCs, and RfAs, and other types of debates, and created a few dozen articles. So I do know what I am talking about. Like I said, raw numbers are just one component, and not necessarily the most important one, in determining consensus. The strength of the arguments and their reliance on the relevant WP policies is often more important. For example, say there are five editors arguing "for" inclusion of a particular piece of information with the argument "everybody knows that this is true" and there are four editors arguing "against" its inclusion based on the absence of sources cited, the "against" position is the consensus one. Nsk92 (talk) 18:42, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Of course, but the thing is that you need to give me a fair reasonable reason to remove a certain thing if you want to call it a consensus to begin with. Like the aipac sentence on the Iranian nuclear page, NPGuy havent given any fair reason why he delete it. The "EU/US view" doesnt just focus on gov statements which he claims for example. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MUCHERS22 (talk • contribs) 18:58, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I took a look at Talk:Nuclear program of Iran#AIPAC and NPguy does present some policy-based arguments for his position, basically on WP:UNDUE WEIGHT grounds. Nsk92 (talk) 19:10, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Well not explcitly right? So exactly how is my sentence a violation in regard to WP:UNDUE WEIGHT? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MUCHERS22 (talk • contribs) 19:15, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

This is something that really needs to be discussed in the Talk:Nuclear program of Iran#AIPAC thread itself. But basically, the very first point that NPguy makes in that thread is a WP:UNDUE WEIGHT argument. He is saying that the legislation in question had overwhelming support, from both main parties in Congress and that AIPAC's support as such was not a significant reason for why the legislation was passed - thus singling out a mention of AIPAC's support is a violation of WP:UNDUE WEIGHT. Nsk92 (talk) 19:26, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

There is no non-neutral-clash going on. You just refer to it as a violation. Im not singling out AIPAC, I just exposed one voice from an american lobby organzation. These are their own words ("crippling sanctions"). NPGuy's problem is solely he think everyone is antisemite so he cant accept or compromising on the topic. As far as compromising goes, is it better if I just type out that Aipac has voiced for sanctions against Iran? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MUCHERS22 (talk • contribs) 19:35, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Any mention, no matter how phrased, of AIPAC's support for the sanction legislation in Nuclear program of Iran article is inappropriate, on WP:UNDUE WEIGHT grounds. The only situation where a mention of AIPAC may be appropriate if you can find sources which explicitly say that AIPAC's support for the legislation was important for its passage. Your failure to assume good faith in relation to NPguy's edits does not help your position. Nsk92 (talk) 19:44, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Well I dont even mention the legislation in my sentence, this is an isolated statment from Aipac which not necessary have a connection to a specific legislation. Like I said, there is no non-neutral failure whatsoever.

Also my point with does in fact help me and many more, because NPGuy refusal to compromise is based on delusional and conspiratory views that all people that write about Aipac is antisemites, with the result that he hinder information to be spread. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MUCHERS22 (talk • contribs) 19:50, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

A mention of AIPAC in Nuclear program of Iran without reference to specific legislation has even larger WP:UNDUE WEIGHT problems than a reference in relation to specific legislation. Mentioning AIPAC in this article may only be appropriate if there are specific neutral sources which indicate that AIPAC's position and lobbying have somehow significantly influenced the U.S. policy in relation to the Iran nuclear program. And calling somebody "delusional" is an example of a personal attack that only makes your position weaker and may itself lead to a block. Nsk92 (talk) 19:59, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Of course not the headline is "US EU views", there is no "hidden" rule that you must connect all the information and statements by politicians or lobby groups - to the legislation itself. Its not a personal attack, its a fact, why else do you think he is so eager to remove it? That goes for you too, I looked on your talk-page for instance where you seems to belive that antizionism is antisemitism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MUCHERS22 (talk • contribs) 20:12, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

what da f...man... its my own personal user page ...u cannot do that!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Micoapostolov (talk • contribs) 17:54, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

No, it is not your personal webpage. It is your Wikipedia user-page - there is a big difference. If you keep removing the MFD tag from the page before the MFD discussion is closed by an admin, you will be blocked. Nsk92 (talk) 18:12, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin Delete

Could use some help on Arthur Rubin delete request. Euro-Voice (talk) 14:14, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi, just letting you know that the above canvassing single purpose attack account is been confirmed as a sockpuppet of another single purpose attack account. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:25, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Craigmount High School

My apologies I think there was an edit clash I meant to revert User:OMGPOV's edits NOT yours. CheersTeapotgeorge^Talk 20:07, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

vandalism warning

I think you just warned the wrong person, User:DeanBear, for vandalism at Benoît Mandelbrot. This user had just reverted some vandalism by User:119.152.30.192. Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:07, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, that was my bad, thanks for the catch. Nsk92 (talk) 12:27, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:37, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

It's raining thanks spam!

• Please pardon the intrusion. This tin of thanks spam is offered to everyone who commented or !voted (Support, Oppose or Neutral) on my recent RfA. I appreciate the fact that you care enough about the encyclopedia and its community to participate in this forum.
• There are a host of processes that further need community support, including content review (WP:GAN, WP:PR, WP:FAC, and WP:FAR). You can also consider becoming a Wikipedia Ambassador. If you have the requisite experience and knowledge, consider running for admin yourself!
• If you have any further comments, input or questions, please do feel free to drop a line to me on my talk page. I am open to all discussion. Thanks • Ling.Nut (talk) 02:28, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Stalin, Malenkov and the First Secretaryship

Do you know that in 1934 Stalin abolished the General Secretaryship? Do you know that it was never made official that he was First Secretary during his rule? There are Soviet documents which exist which states that Stalin and Malenkov were both First Secretary from their respective time period........ Please read more about Soviet history before you start editing. --TIAYN (talk) 12:51, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll reply at the article's talk page in detail, but you are wrong on this one: there are no Soviet documents referring to Malenkov as First Secretary. All the Soviet/Russian documents refer to him as Secretary only. The First Secretary position was officially instituted only in Sept 1953. Nsk92 (talk) 13:01, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I hope you know that Stalin from 1934 to 1953 did not hold an office titled First Secretary, but he was First Secretary of the Secretariat... you don't seem to understand that..... Being First Secretary means that you are the first of the secretariats, this is of major importance and this information must be included.

Again, in Stalin's and Malenkov's case the First Secretary means First Secretary of the Secretariat and not First Secretary the office, but instead the political position of First Secretary... get it??? --TIAYN (talk) 13:06, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Reply at the article talk page, not here. Nsk92 (talk) 13:07, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

You've already broken the WP:3RR... --TIAYN (talk) 13:55, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

November 2010

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 12 hours for edit warring, as you did at Georgy Malenkov. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:24, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

That's fine. I see that you blocked all three people for 12 hours. I think that User:Trust Is All You Need should have been given a longer block, but that User:Str1977 should not have been blocked at all. User:Str1977 did not breach 3RR and was given no warnings; he also enaged in the discussion of the dispute at the article talk page. By contrast User:Trust Is All You Need had something like 7 reverts on the Malenkov article today, some already after receiving a 3RR warning; he was also editing against consensus at the talk page. I accept my block, but I think in the case of User:Str1977 a block was not warranted. Nsk92 (talk) 15:32, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Well the amount of reverts and their proximity to each other makes it difficult to tell exactly what's going on except that two editors are repeatedly reverting a third. Twelve hours is a shot across the bows intended to put an end to the edit war. It's easy enough to re-block if there's further disruption from the same person or people, but hopefully it won't come to that. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:50, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, as a point of fairness, I think that User:Str1977 should be either unblocked now or at least given a much shorter block than the others. I really do not see his actions as amounting to edit-warring. Also, note that there is a discussion (started by me) at the article's talk page, Talk:Georgy Malenkov#First Secretary, where a fairly clear consensus has already formed. However, I have seen no indication that User:Trust Is All You Need is going to abide by that consensus; in fact probably not. Nsk92 (talk) 15:58, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Question

Hi. I was wondering if you could please not link the sockpuppet investigation in your edits as it is popping up on the IRC chatroom due to the link? Of note, there is a rollback script that will make the rollback script that will make mass reversions easier. If you want it, I can give you the information to put into your script. Thanks. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 07:06, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I am basically finished with those reverts, but I'll keep your suggestion in mind for the future. I was linking the SPI page in the edit summaries so that other users more clearly understand the reason for the reverts. I am still not sure what sort of problems it may be causing at IRC - could you elaborate? Yes, I'd be interested in taking a look at the script you mention. (I did not use plain rollback here since it produces an edit summary that gives no reason for a revert. Nsk92 (talk) 07:12, 17 November 2010 (UTC)