User talk:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington/Archive/Archive08

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Messages

This is an archive of old discussions. Please do not modify this page.

Archives: The Basement

From HKelkar's arb.

Thank you for your suggestion that I should read WP:NPOV. I am not sure what suggested to you that I had managed thus far without having read it.

I still do not find any justification for the view that if X is quoted from an RS, Y must also be quoted; unless Y is necessary to set the context for X. In other words, NPOV applies to articles, not individual refs in articles. In fact, a summary of NPOV from WP:OR: In many cases, there are multiple established views of any given topic. In such cases, no single position, no matter how well researched, is authoritative. It is not the responsibility of any one editor to research all points of view. But when incorporating research into an article, it is important that editors situate the research; that is, provide contextual information about the point of view.....

In other words, if I wish to quote a Guardian article to indicate the FCO doesnt like Modi, I am under no obligation to report that the same article states that Gujaratis in Walthamstow do; as long as there is already a statement on the page that Gujaratis as a whole tend to. Hornplease 11:56, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need a few keywords to do a google search (which were conveniently not provided neither by Terry nor by you), and please stop spouting WP:CIVIL on users who do not agree with you. In this case, Terry wrote –
Despite his popularity with the wider Gujarati electorate, he remains a controversial figure and the Muslim community and international organisations blame him for the genocide of more than 2000 Muslims.
However, this very page says – There was to be no Pinochet-style arrest for Narendra Modi. Instead, a man either responsible for mass-genocide or the saviour of India's Hindus - depending on your point of view - rolled into Wembley conference centre last night besieged by hundreds of Muslim protesters from as far afield as Bolton, Birmingham and Leicester.", so writing that he's a murderer and responsible for genocide, based strictly on this is ludicrous. Moreover, these pages have no mention of "international organisations" blaming him for genocide, whatsoever. Talk about WP:NPOV, this edit was totally biased and defamatory; such politically motivated editing is considered disruption on Wikipedia. Hmph. — Nearly Headless Nick {L} 12:50, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would only 'spout' WP:CIVIL at people who I am interacting with for the first time who are perhaps being a little needlessly aggressive. In particular, the ('hmph'y? :)) statement "I hope you understand that Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Citing sources and Wikipedia:No original research are important policies of the encyclopedia. " is more than enough reason to point out that, yes, of course I know, and civility might be kept in mind as well.
About your points above: (1) I can only hope that in the 'google search' discussion we have been talking at cross-purposes. In particular, the link [1] was quoted; Fred Bauder said it was one of the possible viewpoints; you said "yes, but sourced out of thin air?" I pointed out that no link was given, but a simple google search of the title indicates that it wasnt think air. I do hope that we misunderstood each other somewhere, because otherwise I dont understand your point that no keywords were provided. The diff clearly provides them.
(2) The article also says: "But outside the centre the Muslim protesters were claiming he had blood on his hands over the "organised pogrom"."; "Indeed the absence of any arrests following the 2,000-plus killings is one of the main reasons for the anger of Muslim groups." ; "The Foreign Office echoed the Home Office line and a spokeswoman said: "We are concerned by a report that the state government of Gujarat did not do as much as it could to prompt an end to the violence."; "The Hindu chief minister of India's Gujarat state is blamed for the sectarian murder of at least 2,000 Muslims last year." Given this, as I said (a) more moderation should have been applied; so the word genocide naturally shouldnt have been there - "genocide of 2000" sounded ludicrous anyway; (b) as a source for the Muslim community 'blaming' him for 2000 deaths, it is acceptable; (c) as a source for him being controversial, it is acceptable; (d) as a source for the British Foreign Office's opinions that the government Mr. Modi headed committed sins of omission during the riots, it is acceptable. So 'international organisations' should actually have read "foreign government agencies" which is actually equally negative.
I think you need to calm down a bit. Of course it was politically motivated; nothing these people have done has not been politically motivated and very, very disruptive. (I note with sadness, however, that you seem to think that some forms of political motivation are disruption and other are not.) That's not the point, however; the point is, does WP:NPOV enjoin on us the duty to represent all views in a linked article? That was what your original comments implied, and to which I took issue. Hornplease 22:19, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I will stand by what I have said before. It is quite evident that you do not understand WP:NPOV at all; please stop all this wikilawyering and take this up somewhere else. I will continue to oppose such kind of biased editing from any kind of editor. You quote that crowds of a religious community have been chanting something & probably crowds of the opposite community have been saying something opposite. On wikipedia – we need to put forward all the viewpoints presented by the media. That very page says "Modi murderer" or "Savior of Hindus?"; and calling him a murderer and a person who committed genocide, purely based on this would be biased, when the editor has conveniently omitted to present the other facts. Perhaps you could look for a mentor at Wikipedia:Mentorship, which is highly recommended in your case. Chao. — Nearly Headless Nick {L} 15:09, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are you always so irritable? OK, I'll let you be, though I confess I am distressed that a simple discussion, even without content in question, should lead to this. Of course it might be that I havent understood WP:NPOV, it might even be the case that I havent understood it 'at all'; but I really think that you need to re-read what I have said above, and elucidate below, and at least figure out where in WP:NPOV it is contradicted. It appears clear to me that an article must represent the balance of opinion on a subject; So if we were writing an article on the Flat Earth Society, to choose everyone's favorite example, we need to express balance; but if we were to quote who believes the world is flat from a particular RS, it is not incumbent on us to indicate that the same RS says that those people are mistaken or that many others disagree, as long as the article as a whole reflects the balance of opinion in the literature as a whole.
Also, I specifically said that the use of the word genocide was unjustified. The word murderer was nowhere in the quote, or I would have objected to it as well. You seem to be acting as if I put the quote into the article in the first place.
Thank you for your suggestion. I strongly suggest you find one as well.
Hornplease 05:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
PS. It's spelled Ciao. Unless you mean him? He's very good, I recommend him.
I do not let the spelling conventions of the 20th century bind me down. Have a nice time. :-). — Nearly Headless Nick {L} 07:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Narendra Modi, 52, the chief minister of India's western state of Gujarat, was catapulted to infamy last year after presiding over India's worst communal riots for a decade.The main charge: that his police force merely watched as Hindu mobs in Ahmedabad, Gujarat's historic main city, and in surrounding towns and villages, burned out entire Muslim communities and desecrated mosques. The riots left 100,000 people homeless, severely damaged India's credentials as a secular democracy, and were described - correctly - as genocide. - This is the only profile of Modi on Guardian and I believe they would have read a few articles to write it.British widows sue Gujarat govt over genocide and it is possible to find at least a few thousand articles on Google at least a few hundreds on educational domains. MerryJ-Ho 17:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The link you cited on the article in question was – [2] and not – [3]. Ref. to diff I have no problems if you are citing the correct sources. However, take care that you do not manipulate the source to write what you want to write and remove the other necessary points the article mentions. — Nearly Headless Nick {L} 12:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Modi profile page was linked on the original link and anyone who would have seen that page could easily have browsed to the Profile page from there, secondly before removing one could have confirmed the facts..the misrepresentation case could have some value if one had asked Hkelkar on what grounds the removal of the ....In 2006, a chargesheet was filed against Modi by the widow of the slain ex-MP Ahsan Jafri for complicity in the Gujarat riots. was justified in the same vein.MerryJ-Ho 16:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone could have easily browed to the Profile page is not a justification at all. As with any other user (including Hkelkar); I do not support the removal of well referenced and sourced edits. — Nearly Headless Nick {L} 09:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elsi mate

Sorry about that - almost always I leave the block summary, "sockpuppet of Bonaparte", but I guess I forgot this time. Khoikhoi 15:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

deletion process

Dear Sir,

I would like to bring to your attentions that while processing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Slavic given names, you most probably were distracted by some much more urgent issues and omitted a step of removal of all links to the deteted article. I will gladly finish this for you, but in the future please at least relegate this minor step to your vassals or younger famiuly members, since it clearly does not require the mighty hand of an admin to accomplish.

At your service, `'mikkanarxi 00:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure! — Nearly Headless Nick {L} 11:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question on Critical Mass AFD

I don't mean to imply any mistakes or wrong doing on your part, but I'd like some clarification on your closing decision on the AFD for Critical Mass (band). Specifically

  1. Did you compare the current article with the previously AFD'd one?
  2. Did you compare the current version of the article with the version at the time it was nominated for AFD?
  3. Did you look at the second to last comment (by User:Xtifr)?
  4. Are you going to do anything about CriticalMass?

I know that there were more Delete "votes" than keep "votes", but I also know that AFD is not a vote. Also, with CriticalMass still around there's another problem, that being that if the band is non-notable, then they are non-notable and the article at CriticalMass should be deleted as well. If you do not intend to delete that, then may I ask that you restore the deleted text on a usersubpage for me (maybe User:ONUnicorn/Critical Mass)? The deleted article was sourced whereas CriticalMass is unsourced. It was also more complete and detailed than CriticalMass. If you aren't going to delet CriticalMass I'd like to merge some of the info, and especially the sources into that one. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs) 17:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Restored as asked. `'mikkanarxi 19:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you mikkanarxi. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs) 20:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you mikka. Unicorn, I am aware that AfDs are not votes; please assume good faith with me as I have done my homework. In case you are not satisfied as to the deletion of this article you can always take this up at WP:DRV. — Nearly Headless Nick {L} 10:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I did not say that you wern't aware that an AFD wasn't a vote. Neither did I not assume good faith. I mearly asked for clarification as to your reasoning. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs) 16:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Critical Mass (band) on deletion review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Critical Mass (band). Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, your reasons on how or why you did so will be greatly appreciated in the above review.~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs) 15:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ice Age (band)

Hello - I noticed that you closed out Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ice Age (band) as a delete after all of the votes in the AfD were for keep. Was there some other factor at play in the decision to delete? Chubbles 00:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also noticed this and wanted to ask what was going on. I just don't see how you get a delete result out of that AfD. The "votes" have not been falsified; they are from established users; they make arguments based on relevant policies and guidelines. Eluchil404 08:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In case you are not satisfied, you can take this up at WP:DRV. The band fails WP:MUSIC and WP:BAND. Regards, — Nearly Headless Nick {L} 10:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that those redirects lead to the same guideline,Wikipedia:Notability (music), criterion 5 of which the band passes (or so it was claimed at the AfD). In any event, I have posted this at DRV for further consideration. Eluchil404 11:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Magna Carta Records is not a major label in any way – [4] — Nearly Headless Nick {L} 11:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hilal khashan Deletion

At the final count, there were 5 keeps and 2 deletes. You decided to delete. Was it a joke? Please take appropriate action before I do. Stammer 05:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I didn't reply to your notice was that you posted it on the top of the page. Anyway, you have put up the article for DRV, let's see how it turns out. Best wishes. — Nearly Headless Nick {L} 08:50, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Welcome

Hi,

Just had my project eval. Very hectic times now come to end. But the tension hasn't ended. Placements start the next week! — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 12:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Storage systems deletion

I found that the page was deleted by you without leaving any reason for the same. As per the debate going on, I don't see any reason for deletion. Can you please provide me the reason? --Rajendra Divecha 03:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, I would request you to give me the contents of that page as I haven't maintained a copy of the same. If not on Wikipedia, the content might find a place somewhere else. --Rajendra Divecha 03:28, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The debate was five-day old and it had to be closed by an administrator. I saw no reason for keeping the article, as its contents were fairly redunant. In case you insist, I will post the contents of the article in your userspace. — Nearly Headless Nick {L} 04:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have placed a reply to your comment on my talk page. Requesting you to please reply it accordingly. --Rajendra Divecha 12:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK

My apologies --PaxEquilibrium 19:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Situation

I've dfollowed your advice to post a note to WP:AN/I about the behavior of User:Zoe. But it seems that I am in position of defence now [5].--Nixer 20:41, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Nixer

I was not in any dispute with Nixer. So far as I can remember, I have never had ANY dealings with Nixer. Nixer did a revert to a ridiculously-POV vandalization of another user whom I had just wanred for a 3RR violation, which meant that Nixer was meatpuppeting for the 3RR, and the 3RR applied to him as much as it did to the other user. Your unblock is unacceptable, and I plan on re-blocking immediately. Please don't unblock without discussing with the original blocker. Wheel warring is unacceptable. User:Zoe|(talk) 01:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You accusations of meatpuppetry and sockpuppetry border on cynicism. Try assuming good faith with other editors and please understand the difference between POV edits and overt vandalism. Such things are better discussed on the talk pages of the articles; to generate consensus. Your block was illegitimate and still is. I recommend that you unblock at this instant. User:Dmcdevit has confirmed that Nixer has not engaged in sockpuppetry. — Nearly Headless Nick {L} 09:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As I have repeatedly said, I have never accused Nixer of sockpuppetry. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject India Newsletter: Volume I, Issue 3 - December 2006

Project News
  • Name change of cities in Karnataka: A straw poll was conducted on the proposal to change the name of cities in Karnataka, per the Nov 1, 2006 decision by the Karnataka government to rename them from the current anglicised forms. The result of the poll was to change the names. As controversial as the decision may be in the real world, the article Bangalore in Wikipedia still reflects the old name. You may be interested in knowing why. Dig the archives.
  • New Project Noticeboard (Shortcut:WP:INB): WikiProject India now sports a new colourful centralised noticeboard. An effort to make the noticeboard current and dynamic was mooted a few days back, and Ganeshk came up with the new format. The new noticeboard will strive to be the one-stop shop for all project related information. The shortcut is WP:INB.
  • Members List: The old members list is being phased out to give way for the new members list. New members are requested to add their names to the new members list. As the newsletter grows, further issues of the Project Newsletter will be delivered to those enlisted in the new list. So dash down now, to check if ur name is in there.
What's New?


Congratulations to all contributors
who helped to develop the above
content to represent the best of Wikipedia!
Need some help?

Are you stuck at a point where admin help is needed? There are 22 Indian Administrators in Wikipedia at the last count. If you need some help with anything related to WikiProject India, they are just a couple of clicks away!

Note from Editor's Desk
  • Welcome to the December 2006 edition of our newsletter. Time flies past like matter into the black hole. It is interesting to notice that we are already into the last month for the year of 2006. 2006 saw discussions and development beyond realisation. In the world of Wikipedia where quality counts than quantity, we have come a long way. We've made better than 'nothing', to say the least, and even that is an achievement. I take this opportunity to thank everyone including those who have dotted the i's and crossed the t's.
  • As before, we'd like to stress, this is your newsletter, and we want you to be part of it as well. Provide us with news tips. It can be anything related to the project, from discussions to calls for help, and other interesting stuff within our community. If you have received or given any barnstars recently, do let us know. Sponsored content for recruitments within your WikiProject sub-groups are also welcome. We'll be very happy to include them here.
  • Before we sign off, Advance New Year Wishes, everyone.
This edition special
  • How to?: The "how to" part of assessment is very simple. Just head on to the talk page of any India related page and you'll find the {{WP India}} template. Simply classify the article based on the content and the criteria mentioned here. You can find the detailed instructions here. If you think it may qualify for GA/FA status, first consider submitting the article for peer review.
Signed...

Edited by Chez and distributed by Lostintherush

You are receiving this newsletter because you part of Wikiproject India. If you'd like to change your subscription options, please say so at the Outreach Department.

If you run a covert newsroom operation, provide us with ur news tips here. Letters to the Editor are welcome as well.


D-uh. — Nearly Headless Nick {L} 09:15, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your name

Can I just say that I really admire your name, Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington. One of the finest on Wikipedia as we know it. I'm curious - is there a category for exciting user names? MarkThomas 15:55, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a Pandora's Box. Who would stop me from adding myself to the cateogory. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 16:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ambuj Saxena, whilst both obscure and somehow florid simultaneously, lacks the flamboyant decadent joy of Sir Nicholas' terminory distinction. MarkThomas 16:38, 3 December 2006 (UTC) I must dismiss the above. I alone carry the most absurdly inflated username on Wikipedia. Sir Guthrie Stone McHugo Rose Benwickshire D'essert Belzingo 21:34, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Say's who. All that's your POV. My name IS THE BEST. Let's have a vote....Now let me gather my cabal. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 05:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jokes apart, the person whose name made me her fan would be It's-is-not-a-genitive. When I first saw that name in the recent changes page with a dozen contributions in five minutes, I my first reaction was that I am seeing a vandal. But when I went through her contributions in detail, I ended up giving her a barnstar! — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 10:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Mark. And its a nice username you have got for yourself. Best wishes. — Nearly Headless Nick {L} 12:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

I would like to take the time to thank you for voting in my unsuccessful RFA. I appreciate your suggestion and will try my best to be more active and civil. Have a nice day! -- Chris is me 14:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

#wikipedia

You accuse me of making statements I don't recall making. I allow you to paste the portion of my statements from your log that incriminates me, as I'd love to see just what you're talking about. --Golbez 19:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn

I appreciate your support, but have decided to withdraw from consideration for a position as an arbitrator. The community has overwhelming found me to be too controversial to hold that position. Thanks again for your support.--MONGO 19:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Can you please check?

User:GiorgioOrsini and User:Giovanni Giove keep vandalizing and enforcing their POV on several articles removing references about certain people: Benedetto Cotrugli, Giovanni Luppis, Francesco Patrizi, List of Croatians. Can you please do something?

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Hkelkar

This case is now closed and the results have been posted above.

For the Arbitration committee, Cowman109Talk 06:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Thank you for voting

File:In-the-dark.jpg
Thank you for voting in my RfA which at 51/20/6 unfortunately did not achieve consensus. In closing the nomination, Essjay remarked that it was one of the better discussed RfAs seen recently and I would like to thank you and all others who chose to vote for making it as such. It was extremely humbling to see the large number of support votes, and the number of oppose votes and comments will help me to become stronger. I hope to run again for adminship soon. Thank you all once more. Wikiwoohoo 19:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strange deletion

On what grounds did you delete Pingus? The deletion debate certainly shows no consensus for deletion. The game is notable and has been mentioned in several high profile publications, including even CNN [6].--Eloquence* 00:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise for the inconvenience. I have undeleted the article. — Nearly Headless Nick {L} 11:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! :-) --Eloquence*
Relevant links to discussions – [7], [8]. — Nearly Headless Nick {L} 09:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Hi, Thanks for removing the protection on the India page! This, as you well know, is a mixed blessing. :) [[User:Fowler&fowler|Fowler&fowler]][[User talk:Fowler&fowler|«Talk»]] 16:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Concordia Newsletter

NEWSLETTER

Concordia is currently trying to relaunch. I, and all the members of the ex-council, wish to welcome new members to the group. We are a group who aim to promote remaining civil, in an environment where messages can easily be interpretated wrongly.

Help out now!

  • Try and help people remain civil! Talk to them, and help them in any way possible. Do not be afraid to use the talk page.
  • Give people the Civility Barnstar.
  • Make and spread some Wikitokens so people know there are people to help if they want assistance.
  • Add banners or logos to your userpage to show your support.
  • Suggest some ideas! Add 'em to the talk page.

We are a community, so can only work though community contributions and support. It's the helping that counts.

Decision Making

The council expired one month ago, but due to the current position of the group the current council will remain until the position of the group can be assessed, and whether it would be sensible to keep Concordia going. For most decisions, however, it will be decided by all who choose to partake in discussions. I am trying to relaunch because of the vast amounts of new members we have received, demonstrating that the aims are supported.

If you wish to opt of of further talk-page communications, just let us know here.

- Ian¹³/t 20:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC). Kindly delivered by MiszaBot.[reply]

User talk:Jimbo Wales unprotection

Would you object to this page being un-semi-protected? --Sam Blanning(talk) 02:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ofcourse not. — Nearly Headless Nick {L} 11:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[9]. — Nearly Headless Nick {L} 11:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers. --Sam Blanning(talk) 22:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re WP:SIG

Hello. Could you kindly review the above-mentioned guideline and remove the image from your signature? Best wishes. — Nearly Headless Nick {L} 15:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note Sir Nicholas. Done. Cheers -- Szvest - Wiki me up ® 17:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lot of grammar-nazis on Wikipedia! What say? ^_^ — Nearly Headless Nick {L} 13:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lol! Well, it doesn't matter to me. On my userpage I got big red heading which says correct me if I am wrong. -- Szvest - Wiki me up ® 15:31, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again :) -- Szvest - Wiki me up ® 14:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pinguis DRV

When you take action on a DRV discussion, you can simply close it, no reason to keep it open. ~ trialsanderrors 23:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Hello

Thank you for pointing that you.

I will surely keep that in mind the next time I edit wikipedia

Regards

naxalrevolution

You're welcome. — Nearly Headless Nick {L} 10:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Dakshayani

This user's ben asking for unblock for over a day now; could you respond to him? Thanks. Part Deux 20:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I just put him out of his misery – [10]. — Nearly Headless Nick {L} 12:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I sure did, and called you the name that Samir once used, though I refrained from typing it down :-) Tintin (talk) 11:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

lol! :-)--thunderboltz(Deepu) 11:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This one is for you. Dakshaayani 09:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barrington Hall

Please do not delete sections of text or valid links from Wikipedia articles, as you did to Barrington Hall. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. See the discussion on the Talk:Barrington Hall page - you are incorrectly interpreting the policy. Argyriou (talk) 15:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly review the concerned guideline and revert yourself. Also your warning, to a edit made in good faith came as unwarranted. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} {L} 16:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the YouTube links are not reliable sources as any person with an internet connection can upload any kind of file over their website. Many of the vidoes uploaded are copyrighted by their respective owners and links to those should not be used on Wikipedia. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} {L} 16:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Read the discussion on Talk:Barrington Hall and [[Talk:WP:EL]]. There is no consensus that it is against policy to link to YouTube videos which are not clearly infringing copyright. That particular video clip is claimed to be allowed to be posted on YouTube, and nobody has offered any evidence that the clip exists on YouTube in violation of copyright. Deletion of a link which does not knowingly violate copyright, which has been discussed at grat length on the talk page, is not a good-faith edit. Neither is wholesale removal of links to YouTube throughout Wikipedia. Argyriou (talk) 16:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly are you talking about? We do not need consensus on Talk:Barrington Hall for deciding if we need to keep YouTube video links on this website. Speaking of WT:EL, the guideline clearly states –
  • Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. See Reliable sources.
  • Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority. – YouTube is not an authority, there is not reliability as anyone can upload new videos, including copyrighted ones. Facilitation of copyright violations is not a choice with Wikipedia. Either link it to the website retaining the copyrights over the video or remove the link to YouTube.
Kindly get yourself familiar with Wikipedia's guidelines of reliable sources and external links and revert yourself. Regards, — Nearly Headless Nick {C} {L} 16:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Have you even looked at the videos you delink? In the Barrington Hall case, the video is not some talking head talking about Barrington Hall, it's a video of the actual building; it is by its very nature, a reliable source. The restriction on personal websites, besides being controversial (see the WP:EL talk) is also a guideline to the potential reliability of a link. The guideline is titled "Links normally to be avoided". It does not read "Links always to be avoided". The guideline assumes (not entirely justifiably) that in the "normal" case, most personal web pages are not reliable sources, but it does not ban such links.
If you were removing video links after having examined them, and tagging them as copyright violations or irrelevant to the article, or such, you'd be doing useful work. But if you're just going through articles and automatically removing all YouTube links without checking them, you're vandalising Wikipedia. Please stop. Argyriou (talk) 16:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is an ongoing discussion on the WP:ANI relevant to this thread – WP:ANI#YouTube_link_deletion. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} {L} 17:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: WP:SIG

Sorry about the images in my signiature. I didn't know about that guideline. I removed them as soon as I read the message you gave me. - King Ivan 06:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your co-operation. Although, you didn't have to be sorry about it. Cheers. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} {L} 06:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

rfa/agathoclea

"And that is why, children"

I didn't quite get that :) What is why? - crz crztalk 18:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So that they may defend innocent users from the onslaught of communism. ^_^ — Nearly Headless Nick {C} {L} 09:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Islamic extremist terrorism

Thanks for closing the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Islamic extremist terrorism. KazakhPol 19:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Noticed you removed link to hurricane video...

Not complaining, since it appears to be Wik policy, but is there a proper way to link to a video clip? - Marc Averette 19:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can link to those websites that *own* the copyrights of the videos or mention the "licensing information" as to whether they have the rights to host the video on their servers or not. Regards, — Nearly Headless Nick {C} {L} 12:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving Zora's talk page

Dear Nick,

That's sweet of you to suggest it, but after looking at the Werdnabot talk page, I think I'd rather not be a beta tester. I think I will archive monthly, however; I can put it in my computer scheduling program (Above and Beyond) which runs my life and damn well too. Zora 01:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Block User:Mustafa Akalp

Hi, you have blocked User:Mustafa Akalp for 48h for his 3RR on the Persianate article. The editing there is a complicated story. Around 23:30 user discovered a bad troll and in some edits (like [11]) a clear vandal operated from the open proxy (see User_talk:58.147.4.20). Mustafa made two reverts fighting this troll, reported it on an admin's talk page on WP:AIV and finally got the troll blocked.

According to Mustafa's E-mail he believed that reversions of such a user does not count towards the 3RR. Later in a completely unrelated editorial argument between Mustafa and User:Tajik he made two more reverts. He believed that he did not violate WP:3RR as such noncontraversial edits as reversion an open proxy are not counts.

I agree that Mustafa formally violated WP:3RR - edits by the open proxy to the Persianate article had not been a simple vandalism. On the other hand, he acted in good faith believing he followed the letter and spirit of the policy.

In this case 48h block appears to be excessive. Is it possible to shorten it? Alex Bakharev 07:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead, I trust your judgment. However, ask Mustafa not to violate WP:3RR in any case; and look for consensus. Best regards, — Nearly Headless Nick {C} {L} 08:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can also see disruption by removing clearly reliable sources from Iranica though. That is disturbing. However, if you can assure me that he will regard the guidelines and policies, you can unblock him. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} {L} 08:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

Thank you; I will now return to my regularly scheduled railroading. --NE2 11:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

Dear Nicholas, Thanks for your good faith. Also thanks to Alex for his referance fom me. I will under pressure of obligation to respect to this referanceand your good faith in my future edits. I think this is my responsibility. Please let me state some points; My first/main mission is to organise/categorise/wikify/contribute Turkey related articles. Unfortunately there are not so much Turkish users in wiki. Of course there are much users which interested in these articles,but some (a group of) users ,put some misinformation, unsourced infos, strong anti-Turkish POVs to these articles. As a conclusion I defence these articles( I accept that some time in a aggressive way under stress). In persianate case; of course Iranica can be accepted as a reliable source, but I have some suspicion for Iranica in Persianate. Like as Islam Encyclopidia for Muslim. Just for my info;Can I restrict my self for 1RR (to protect myself for a period of time, to calm down), where can I find details in wiki.? Thanks again. Sincerely yours. MustTC 12:22, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from editing the Persianate page till the period your block would have naturally expired. Also avoid the talk page of the article, so that other users may assume good faith with you. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} {L} 12:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the welcome

Hi Nick, Just letting you know that I replied on my talk page. You can remove this notice now if you like.

81.104.210.31 11:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I surely won't. I think I have a fetish for n00b messages. Oh wait, or was that b00bs? — Nearly Headless Nick {L} 11:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

maybe it was n00b massages ;) 81.104.210.31 11:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I registered to upload a picture!

Tkenna 21:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic terrorism

Hi again Sir Nicho. I thought most of the views at the Afd were for naming it Islamist terrorism instead of Islamic terrorism. Cheers -- Szvest - Wiki me up ® 12:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{sofixit}} by all means. Godspeed! — Nearly Headless Nick {C} {L} 12:29, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh-kay. I corrected it myself. Looks like I made a *horrible mistake*. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} {L} 14:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks mate. It's not a horrible mistake. It was just a simple mistake. -- Szvest - Wiki me up ® 13:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, well. Lots of difference between Islamist and Islamic. :/ — Nearly Headless Nick 13:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TfD

Dear Nicholas, I am here again.(Since you brought me to life, I wait additional care now.!!) Please take a look to this case(If you have time); I opened a TfD. Creator of Template deleted/divided and transferred my and some other comments. I sent many messages to that user about Tfd. But he insists to destroy my comments. He changed the name of Template when TfD in process. here the last version of TfD( if not changed in some minutes again) Is it alloved this action before TfD close.?

  • He logged-in as IP and Username, (I think there is no bad faith here), but he emptied IP talk page and User talk page, I found them from my contributions here talk messages;IP talk,

User talk Also you can find his comments on my Talk page. Regards MustTC 16:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would love to...

...but I do not know how myself. It is incredibly frustrating when dealing with people who simply won't listen. I deal with a significant number of people who simply ignore the rules because they think they know better but so far have not (I believe) attacked anyone - which I think is pretty good as I'm now at ~5250 edits :).-Localzuk(talk) 16:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your signature

Hello there, I was wondering if you would please modify your signature to conform to the guidelines laid out at Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages. The general guidelines are that signatures shouldn't contain images, they shouldn't contain unnecessary internal links or any external links, and they shouldn't be unnecessarily long in Wiki source. The reasoning for this final bit is that overly long signatures tend to overwhelm the actual comments in edit mode, making it hard to track down and respond to specific comments. You can fix your signature by removing any images and external links, any unnecessary links (like links to Wikipedian organizations, articles, or subpages in userspace), and removing excessive color, font, and formatting code. Thank you. --Cyde Weys 17:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ogiedogie – [12]. — Nearly Headless Nick 17:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I did like the old one... —¡Randfan!Sign here? 18:22, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes it's time to dropit and move on...

The debate over the barrington link has become a waste of time. The same arguments are being repeated over and over. I think at this point it is a better use of our time to simply move on. ---J.S (T/C) 23:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries on talk pages

Hi. I noticed that you most of your edit summaries to talk pages are just "comment", i.e. that you overwrite the automatic edit summary (normally consisting of section heading). May I politely suggest that you don't do that? — I'm often interested in which section someone has commented, especially in long pages such as WP:AN, and when you erase the section name, the edit summary totally loses the purpose: I still have to use the diff to find out where you commented. At least, please append the "comment" to the section title. Now that you're an admin, you don't have to be anal about 100% edit summaries — the automatic one works better on talk pages. Duja► 09:29, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can the developers on Meta not fix it? I can't imagine myself going around leaving no edit sumarries  ;) — Nearly Headless Nick 09:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh wait. I think I just understood what you meant – [13]. Cheers! — Nearly Headless Nick 09:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, that one is fine (it contains the section title), but this and this weren't; it's fairly difficult to find out where those ended up. Duja► 10:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I got ya! Cheers! — Nearly Headless Nick 10:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Although, it will definitely take sometime before I get used to it. I wonder why nobody else cared to tell that to me, when I have been *grossly abusing the system* since such a loooong time. >:) — Nearly Headless Nick 10:12, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Probably because it's a) only minorly annoying issue (e.g. how long time would it take until you decide to tell a person not to scratch his ass in public every while? >:)) b) difficult to spot on high-traffic pages — it only happened that I saw it twice in a short period on my own watchlist, and I probably wouldn't have noticed even then if you hadn't such a long user name. Duja► 10:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

/me scratches ass in public. — Nearly Headless Nick 10:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! Stop that! :-) Carcharoth 15:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Block log summaries

Hi there. I was looking at your block log summary here (21 Dec), and I noticed you used the phrasing "etc, etc." Do you think you could avoid using imprecise and open-ended expressions like that? It would be best to say what you can fit in, and what exactly the block was for, rather than vague hand-waving. Thanks. Carcharoth 16:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WT:RFA and his block-log for previous history of disruption. — Nearly Headless Nick 16:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bitis arietans YouTube link removal

Hi Nick, I noticed you recently removed a YouTube link from the Bitis arietans article. Most of the YouTube links were removed from this series of articles a while ago because they lacked copyright information, but the one you removed does have copyright information. It's at the end of the video and says "© Al Coritz 2006, Deadly Beautiful Zoological, LLC." Did you accidentally not notice this, or is this copyright information not good enough? If not, what's missing? --Jwinius 16:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

YouTube links are not reliable as any person with an internet connection can upload a file on their website. Moreover, many of these videos are copyrighted by their respective creators and links to those should not be used on Wikipedia, as this constitutes direct faciliation of copyright violations. Regards, — Nearly Headless Nick {C} {L} 16:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So, now we're not allowed to link to anything at YouTube, period? Is that it? Please confirm, but if so, I find that rather harsh. After all, it's not likely that people like Mr. Coritz will be streaming such video material themselves any time soon, since the bandwidth requirements are obviously prohibitive. --Jwinius 16:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unless the video's copyrights are exclusively owned by YouTube, no – you cannot link to the site. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} {L} 16:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That claim is utterly ridiculous. YouTube merely has to be authoriszed by the copyright holder to display the video for the link to be valid. Claiming that YouTube must own the copyrights for Wikipedia to even link to the video is far beyond anything required in WP:EL, WP:COPY, or the DCMA. Argyriou (talk) 17:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are just not willing to cease your disruption? Get over it. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} {L} 17:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

..."disruption" is a grossly inappropriate term, and it is uncivil of you to even suggest that a good faith editorial opinion given on a talkpage is "disruptive." Reread the Wiki definition of disruptive, toute de suite. Cindery 05:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Only if "the video's copyrights are exclusively owned by YouTube"? That does indeed seem a bit exaggerated. Last month, Dmcdevit removed some of my YouTube links and told me that " In order to be linked to YouTube, they need to have a source and copyright status. This could mean saying he made it and he owns the copyright to it, and then he can release it however he likes." Since Mr. Coritz has added this information to his latest video material at YouTube, I don't see that copyright is any longer an issue here. --Jwinius 22:46, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is an ongoing discussion on WP:ANI page, the link has been mentioned above. Feel free to drop a line or two, there. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} {L} 04:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just checked the link. No where on YouTube is it mentioned where it was sourced from, copyright information. If you are only providing the copyright information on Wikipedia, that is clearly not justifiable. The copyright information and the terms of usage should be specified on the site which you have sourced. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} {L} 09:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ongoing discussion? That would suggest that there is still disagreement on the issue, in which case it may be premature to go around deleting YouTube links from other people's articles. As for the link itself, as I said before, the required copyright information, which I only quoted, is stated clearly at the end of the video clip. --Jwinius 13:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The clip has been copied from another independent source that holds the copyright to that video clip. The copyright information showing at the end of the video-clip does not mean that the copyright holder has licensed YouTube to use the clip. Do you not understand the difference? Why not assume good faith with me and let it rest. There is already consensus regarding the issue on the WP:ANI page. Check here – WP:ANI#YouTube_link_deletion. Regards, — Nearly Headless Nick {C} {L} 13:25, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen WP:ANI#YouTube_link_deletion, but from that it looks like I'm not the only one who disagrees with you. Therefore, you must forgive me if I choose not to assume good faith. It is unreasonable to maintain that it is necessary for the creator of a video clip to sign their copyright over to YouTube before we can link to it. Mr. Coritz now clearly indicates in his video clips that he retains the copyright to his material, so it is no longer for us to assume that he did not voluntarily post his material on YouTube. Indeed, in this individual case we must assume the opposite is true unless we have specific reason not to. In other words, innocent until proven guilty, and not vice versa. --Jwinius 14:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is the administrator noticeboard, in case you did not notice, all the administrators (including myself, ofcourse) have been agreeing with me. You can do whatever you want, but please do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} {L} 14:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...that is incorrect: all the admins are NOT agreeing with you. You do not have consensus AT ALL on any of the many discussions on policy pages--consensus is against you, in fact. Cindery 07:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List the number of administrators agreeing with me and those who are not; and you are going to answer yourself. — Nearly Headless Nick 07:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

YOU list them--I could use a laugh. And admin opinions, in any case, donot count for more than anyone else's--takea long look at the NOR and EL policy pages. Cindery 07:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are only disrupting Wikipedia and making red herring arguments without have any knowledge of the copyright laws. Cease your disruption or file an WP:RFC. — Nearly Headless Nick 07:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your legal ignorance is currently placing Wikipedia in who knows how much legal jeopardy regarding libel--unsubstantiated allegations ofcopyright violation--and there is consensus that YOU are disruptive: please see current discussion at EL regarding filing a user conduct RFC against you, that you should be apologizing, etc. Cindery 02:37, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lennon

hi Nick - I don't want to get embroiled in the AP:EL border wars, but I did want to ask you about your removal from John Lennon of the 2 you tube clips. They were not add-ons in an "external link" section, but actually integrated into, and illustrative of, points being made in the text. I stopped reading the EL talk page because I couldn't take it any more, but I recall there being some movement against wholesale removal of You Tube references just because they are You Tube. So are you sure that these 2 need to be removed? thanks Tvoz 20:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:EL, WP:RS and WP:COPY. YouTube links are either copyright infringements or not reliable. — Nearly Headless Nick 07:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
YouTube links are either copyright infringements or not reliable. Not necessarily so. Policies and guidelines can't exercise judgement, only editors can do that. So when you delete a link, you have to justify why the clip violates policies, not just brand YouTube as "bad." -- David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 19:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly right, David Spalding. Nick, at least please acknowledge that there is a difference of opinion regarding this guideline. I would like a specific response, not a referralto general guideline pages. Thank you. Tvoz 05:27, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think I have had more than my share of discussions on WP:ANI. I have cared to present all the evidence as to *why* those links should not be used – [14]. There is a notification of an RfC filed on this issue. Please feel free to chime in. David, I think the users *have* exercised their judgment in framing the policies and guidelines. So, when you put in a link to YouTube, you need to justify how it *does not* violate copyrights and *why* it should not be removed. Regards, — Nearly Headless Nick 05:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Tvoz, there is a difference of opinion on this matter, and all the administrators who are comfortably aware of the policies and guidelines of this place have their reasons as to why YouTube links should be removed. Have a look here User:Dmcdevit/YouTube (admin), User:J.smith/YouTube Linklist (admin). Regards, — Nearly Headless Nick 05:36, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I have to say that a) I find the implication of the statement "all the administrators who are comfortably aware of the policies and guidelines of this place" insulting not only to me, but also to anyone who disagrees with you; and b) I've seen the hit list and a random sampling shows no valid reason for some of those pages even being included on the list. So I have no idea what the point is other than for systematic and indiscriminate excision of all material that you think could be tainted. Directing me to those two pages was a waste of both of our time as it illuminated nothing. This entire discussion is so far out of line with what I understand Wikipedia pillars to mean that I choose not to continue having it with you. I asked for a specific reading on a specific removal that you made and you told me that wiser heads than mine "have their reasons". That, sir, is classic totalitarianism, and it has no business here. Tvoz 06:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment at the RfC, sir. — Nearly Headless Nick 06:17, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The overwhelming consensus on policy pages is NOT a blanket You Tube ban--the overwhelming consensus is that there are some valid You Tube links, and therefore no blanekt ban is possible. You are grossly in error, and aware of it--you are, at this point, deliberately misrepresenting the truth. We call this lying, and it is evidence of bad faith. The current RFC is a user conduct RFC against you, and to the extent that anyone has even suggested it pertains to You Tube and policy it regards your disruptive behavior in refusing to honor the fact that there is no blanket You Tube ban. See EL, ANI, etc. Cindery 05:53, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop it, Cindery; and comment at the RfC. — Nearly Headless Nick 05:55, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The ONLY words you should be saying to me are "I was wrong, I apologize." Cindery 06:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise for trying to be so helpful, Cindery. — Nearly Headless Nick 06:07, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are not helpful, Nick, as you are aware--you are lying, bullying people, and disrupting Wikipedia. Cindery 06:23, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I have pointed ou already, you can say "I'm sorry, I was wrong"--to a lot of people, as in, the community--and then do something constructive with your time. Cindery 06:32, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes ma'am. — Nearly Headless Nick 06:34, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I missed the part where you apologized to the community. Cindery 06:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop wasting my time, and find yourself a good hobby. — Nearly Headless Nick 07:20, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stop wasting MY time, and the community's time--keeping bullies in check is a dirty job, but bummer for you-- I WILL be doing it. Again: you do not have consensus. You are lying about it. The consensus at the RFC is that you should desist and apologize. Below, a member of the extreme *minority* to which you belong has noted that you are incapable of knowing when the "drop it and move on." There isn't anything for you to do except apologize/get over it/admit you were wrong/move on already. Cindery 08:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

YSR page protect

While I normally applaud any moves to protect a page that is seeing massive reverts, I think that you came in perhaps a tad too early on this one; my last statement on the talk page after removing [15] a section of the article was [16], indicating that the section needed merely to be rewritten. The request to discuss was ignored once, but I doubt it would have been ignored twice, when my edit summary [17] specifically requested it. (There are some newbies involved, I think). The discussion on that had not begun yet, and so perhaps a page-protect was not immediately called for, as there was insufficient evidence to my mind that people were unwilling to talk.

Just a thought. Hornplease 11:41, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, discussions are always more fun than revert-warring. — Nearly Headless Nick 11:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

YouTube link removals

Please stop removing the YouTube links on "Daniel Edwards" Wikipedia page. I'm the filmmaker that made those short films and I have given my permission for the links to be there. www.GoodnightFilm.com

You link to [18] in your edit summaries, but I don't see anything like "Sites which fail to provide licensing information" in the criteria. Am I missing something? TransUtopian 16:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. See Reliable sources and Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority. YouTube is not a recognised authority, as I have reiterated above, anyone with an internet connection can upload a video file to their website. Many of these videos are copyrighted by their respective creators and links to those should not be used on Wikipedia, as this constitutes direct faciliation of copyright violations. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} {L} 16:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transutopian, please see my talkpage, "Ongoing draft of RFC re Nick" and feel free to join in on the RFC/Arbcom case which will be filed.

Cindery 09:38, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion/Dave Gilbert (game designer)

How exactly did you arrive at Keep? Andre (talk) 21:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, I think there was a consensus to delete, but even if you don't believe this to be true, there certainly wasn't a consensus to keep -- no consensus maybe? Andre (talk) 01:42, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What consensus? As far as I can see, there were only five participants in the discussion. I produced the sources and closed it. Please don't take this personally. I have made worse mistakes. Cheers! :) — Nearly Headless Nick 05:23, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your good humor about it, but producing sources is really not your role in the deletion process if you're also going to close the debate. Besides, there were 3 delete votes, the nomination, and one keep vote which professed ignorance as to "alphabetti spaghetti." At any rate, you closed the deletion with a consensus of Keep, and certainly there was not. I am going to reopen and relist the AFD, since I don't think you handled it properly. No hard feelings. Andre (talk) 16:30, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Take it to WP:DRV. — Nearly Headless Nick 16:31, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:IAR doesn't mean you can ignore consensus procedure just to make things a little smoother and easier. As we're seeing now, that creates problems. Please see my comments on the new AfD. Andre (talk) 16:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do you understand what consensus is? 5 people participating is hardly what it means. Please take it to WP:DRV. — Nearly Headless Nick 16:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
AfD is not a vote. Therefore, consensus is not about numbers -- it can exist within a group of 5 users or a group of 500 users. Andre (talk) 16:56, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am deeply troubled by yet-another out of process action by this admin and the in-civil, flip response. —Malber (talk • contribs) 16:49, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't go so far as to call any of this in-civil. Andre (talk) 16:56, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The admin closing the AFD is expected to issue discression. Sometimes the admin is wrong. Thats what deletion review is for. This might be a case of misaplied SNOW, and DRV will sort it out. ---J.S (T/C) 17:15, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is not even close to a case of SNOW -- nor has anyone brought that policy up. The AfD was not properly closed and we don't need any input on the decision, we just need a new AfD. Also, J.S., no offense, but you've been an admin for a total of 10 days, I'd recommend picking up some experience before sticking your neck out with possibly iffy policy interpretations. I don't mind, but there are some users who might not be so understanding. Andre (talk) 18:07, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mimsy: did you happen to read the policy on how an admin should close an AfD debate? You're supposed to gauge consensus, not use your position to push a decision. —Malber (talk • contribs) 18:32, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Malber, do you wish to get blocked? — Nearly Headless Nick 08:40, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why Andre is so against going to DRV. Surely it would be an ideal place to Review a Deletion? --Amaccormack 12:07, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sir_Nicholas_de_Mimsy-Porpington/Archive/Archive08&oldid=1179727575"