User talk:Nick/Archive8

Thanks
Hello Nick,

Thanks for solving my problem with welcoming users, sorry this is my first time doing it and I can't seem to move the things to the right places. Can you show me how so I can speed up the process? Thanks ♠  K  | ☢ 13:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah, nevermind; I figured it out. But thanks for helping me with about half of my errors =P. Later dude, ♠  K  | ☢ 14:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC) P.S. I couldn't fix them all because it said something about telling a admin to do it, so I'll leave those to you since you're an admin. Send me a message if you fix the ones I couldn't.

Bot tagging dispute
Somehow this post got made to your archive 7 as well. Here it is again.

You were one of the respondents at Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive241.

If this article is going to be tagged by the Chicago Wikiproject, they need to be putting in time and effort expanding and improving the article. If they will do that, I see no good reason not to let them tag the article as coming under their project. I do agree it's a bit of a tenuous link though, but if they're going to help improve the article, don't look a gift horse in the mouth. -- Nick t 00:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Pmanderson and I are preparing for WP:DR by attempting to understand each others arguments. You can see some debate at User:TonyTheTiger/DR_bot and more on his talk page. Actually, I am trying to understand his. It seems one contention may be that use of ChicagoWikiProject conveys a promise or responsibility to actively edit an article.

As stated on his talk page, I actually believe that a tag is appropriate for other reasons such as cases where


 * By virtue of their editorial interests and resources they are likely to be strong researchers capable of adding significantly to an article.
 * By virtue of their editorial interests and skills they are likely to be strong copy editors capable of refining an article.
 * By virtue of their editorial interests they are likely to be interested in vandalism fighting for an article.
 * By virtue of their editorial interests they want to monitor quality improvements for an article.
 * By virtue of the readership interests (related to their topic) they want to monitor and assist in quality improvements.

I believe that a project could become active in an article for any of the above reasons. The categorical screening for articles where the above are likely to be true is what we have used the bot for.

The project from which I gained my assessment experience was WikiProject_Biography. They currently have 373,659 articles tagged. Even if they had 250 members each active enough to actively edit almost 100 articles they would need to remove their tag from about 350,000 articles if they were promising to actively edit the articles which they are tagging. I am not aware of any such promise. A tag is a statement of relevance in this case. It is not harmful to the article being tagged. The long and the short of it is if we tag an article we will at times take positive actions on some. For example, I nominated Hillary Clinton for WP:GAC because even though it is a mid priority article for us I noticed it was well developed. I make no promise to get any more involved in the candidacy than this. Right now our main task is to identify our Top priority articles and keep on top of new partially assessed articles. Can you give me some clarification. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 19:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that if your project is tagging an article, your project should be taking an interest in that article, helping to improve and expand the article wherever possible. If it's not possible, then I'd question the use of tagging it, and if your unlikely to ever be in a position to edit the article, I would also question the use. We're not here to tag articles until the end of time and I'm quite disappointed that instead of editing away at articles, your both preparing for dispute resolution. -- Nick  t  19:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

no rationale
Hi Nick. Please use instead of no rationale. Doing so, categorizes the image by date whereas no rationale puts the image in an unsorted category. Thanks! --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 09:08, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, remember to notify the original uploader that their image may be deleted. The code is on the nrd template. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 09:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Request for undeletion of [[Image:Underwood Carrie.jpg]]
This is a request for the undeletion of the. It was deleted on May 12, 2007 by you for the following reasons: (Unused non free image). I believe the deletion was made in error. The reason is that proper procedures was not followed in the deletion process. The uploader user:Eqdoktor who is still an active editor was not notified of the deletion notice Image:Image_name.ext. The image was deleted from the two pages it was used in Wikipedia by an editor who appears to be out to make a WP:POINT - contributions or has an improper understanding of the deletion procedures and/or WP:FUC policies. If its at all possible, at the very least rescue the related talk page as it has extensive discussions on the implementation of WP:FUC and why the image conforms to the policy - Thanks --Eqdoktor 06:33, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but that image does not qualify for use under our non free image policy, in that we do not permit the use of non free images to illustrate living persons. The image was orphaned quite correctly and was deleted after the necessary 7 day waiting period.
 * This image should not have been uploaded at all and it will remain deleted, despite slight mitigating circumstances surrounding the deletion process, the image, should it be restored, would be deleted properly within the 7 days again, bearing that in mind, I see no good reason to waste another administrators time asking them to delete the image again.
 * With regards to your comments on the talk page of the image, I'm afraid your contention that any photographs taken at a concert are copyright-able to the concert promoter is fanciful and downright incorrect. Photographs taken at a concert belong to the photographer in the absence of any contract or explicit terms and conditions agreed to at the time of booking which say otherwise. This is because there is normally no previous copyright-able material present in any image and because there is sufficient artistic creation in the photograph, both of these criteria would make the photographer the sole owner of the image. In short, the creator owns the image. In the case of television and the screen capture, the same holds true, the creator - the cameraman - will have assigned his copyright over to his employer. The screen capture lacks any sufficent creativity to be considered for copyright protection in its own right, that, coupled with the fact that the screen capture contains material that is already protected under copyright by a 3rd party prevents a screen capture from being the copyright-able property of the creator. This is referenced in the Bridgeman v Corel court case, faithful reproductions of 2D works of art do not qualify for copyright in their own right but inherit the copyright of the original work.
 * Due to the fact images from concerts, film festivals, awards ceremonies, sports fixtures and such can be copyright-able to the photographer and released under a free licence of their choosing, we don't need non free images used to illustrate living persons.


 * Finally, although cliched "We are trying to create a free encyclopedia here, not a pretty "ooh, look at all the pictures" encyclopedia" - so if you can't find a free image and it's the reader won't understand the article in the absence of an image, please don't include a non free image. Nick 09:57, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Probably a good idea to restore the talk page with the tag.   Jenolen    speak it!  10:24, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Why ? Nick 10:26, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It's been pretty standard, when an image is deleted as replaceable fair use, to keep the talk page in place; helps serve as an archive of the discussion; can help prevent a complete re-writing of the same points elsewhere... it's a check & balance thing on RFU deletions. Do I have the name of the template wrong?  Jenolen    speak it!  10:48, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * There was no debate regarding deletion of the image, it was simply deleted in accordance with our fair use policy. The talk page itself is a deletion candidate as a talk page without an article/image to go with it. I've undeleted it anyway, if you wish to copy it or move it elsewhere, that would be fine with me. Nick 10:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Jeez, a simple no would have sufficed... (/grin). Are you getting enough sleep?
 * The image was deleted without following proper Wikipedia procedures, I get a full and rather condescending lecture on WP:FUC which should not properly be happening on this talk page but on a deletion discussion page.
 * Anyways, Thank you for undeleting the talk page - it is now safely on my hard-drive.
 * Be that as it may, I believe this "back-door" deletion without a debate or discussion to reach a consensus with the uploader and/or community seems to me in "bad form" for Wikipedia. Building a free encyclopedia may be a goal of the Wikipedia project but the key to achieve that goal is working in consensus. Wikipedia works by building consensus. Consensus is an inherent part of the wiki process.


 * Leaving aside your beliefs and obvious prejudice against fair use images in Wikipedia, the image was deleted without following proper procedures as laid out in Images and media for deletion. I (the uploader) was not served a deletion notice on the image. Consensus was not reached as you (as the biased admin) and the image deleter has unilaterally decided to delete the image without a proper discussion on the merits of the issue. What is the harm in having a discussion in the correct forum and following the proper procedures? Why the rush to delete the image and avoid a discussion with the uploader/community to reach a consensus?


 * Kindly and please undelete the image, submit the image to a full deletion review. I have no particular love or attachment to the image (which is trivial for me to recreate) itself but I do have a big problem with the "rush to judgment" that seems to have been taken up with the issue. --Eqdoktor 12:00, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The rescued talk page is up on User:Eqdoktor/archivedis. I find it amusing (I really am) that it was tagged with :The result of the debate was to Delete the image. There was no debate - it was unilaterally deleted. --Eqdoktor 16:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * There's something like 50,000 non free images either up for deletion or that have been deleted over the past couple of weeks, there's no way we can justify application of process for every single on of those images. I'm sorry, but I'm still not going to undelete the image and I really think your missing the point here, even if you had been informed, the image would still have been deleted. There is nothing you can do to save the picture, it should not be on Wikipedia, full stop. Nick 16:50, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

'''Carrie is not getting MY picture on Wikipedia? The horror! I'm crushed really...''' Image uploading... Why do they allow the peons to do it?... As you yourself has said, "We~ are trying to create a free encyclopedia here, not a pretty "ooh, look at all the pictures" encyclopedia." Nice... Talk down to the editor why don't you... I understand WP:FUC and the need for free images in Wikipedia well enough thank you - baby talk is not required. The point is rather your actions and the manner in which you perform your duties as an administrator.

~(is user:Eqdoktor included in this "we" you talk about?)

I am more disappointed and dismayed that an admin have taken such a high-handed approach to the whole thing. Frankly, I don't know. I may not be up to date on the latest Wikipedia policies and if there is a special category in which certain administrators are free to ignore policies and procedures as they see fit - I apologize. As it is, I believe that this matter is being handled extremely poorly as the administrator. Do you agree that good faith attempts have been made to come to a mutually satisfactory outcome has failed and the next step is on to Deletion review? --Eqdoktor 17:58, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You as the admin, neglected to check the proper procedures were followed before deleting the image.
 * You as the admin, had unilaterally decided that the image in question had no merit and refused to undo an administration error.
 * You as an admin has decided transparency and consensus building does not matter when it does not fit your purpose.
 * An admin has decided that any debate or discussion with user:Eqdoktor under proper Wikipedia procedures and policies is far too dangerous to be held and is best swept away and dismissed as we have here.


 * Hi-ho, hi-ho, it's off to deletion review we go. Nick 18:02, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi-Ho, Hi-Ho Just look at what we have below... --Eqdoktor 18:22, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Image:Underwood Carrie.jpg. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Eqdoktor 18:22, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Qian Zhijun 3
Nick, I understand that you closed the third AFD for Qian Zhijun based on the two previous AFDs. However, these AFDs were disputed at WP:DRV, a third AFD was opened by User:Viridae for the express purpose of letting it run its full course. Given the contentious history of this deletion, and in the interest of process, can you reopen this AFD and restore the article? --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 12:47, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Second this. Completely improper, especially considering the way the discussion was going at the time of closure. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:00, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I also want to express my dismay at this bad decision. Not that your closure was especially bad, but what is the harm in having ONE debate that is open for the full, normal length and closed properly and impartially?  We had to go through AfDs for Daniel Bryant 13 times before the issue was finally, actually settled by one AfD that wasn't (at last) closed early.  This is heading the same way; we've had 3 DRVs and 3 AfDs already in the last week plus.  You, but only you, can revert your closure and not be questioned and help bring this to a real closure for the community.  Mango juice talk 13:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I ran across this on AfD today after missing the first couple bungled AfDs and was astounded to see it closed delete apparently ignoring all of the meaningful current discussion (and indications that the article had changed significantly since its original nomination). Nobody wants to see it go to DRV again... &mdash; brighterorange  (talk) 13:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Third, or is it fourth this? I am highly dismayed that an early closure occurred after a previous early closure was given as the reason for re-opening this one.  That sort of precipitous action compounds problems, not resolves them. FrozenPurpleCube 13:34, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * This situation is now at RfC. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom
The Qiun Zhijun situation is at ArbCom, and you have been listed at a party. Please leave comments there. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:20, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Why thank you dear chap, comment duly left. Nick 16:53, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Discussion request
Why are you deleting my messages left on your talk page? --Eqdoktor 21:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Possibly your wildly inappropriate accusations of bullying and misuse of administrative tools, coupled with your continued reluctance to read and understand the reasons why the image was deleted and why the notification to the uploader had no bearing on the deletion. Nick 21:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Policies and procedures were clearly not followed. All debates and discussions rushed through or avoided altogether. All requests to have relevant policies pointed out to me ignored. I'm sorry but this seems to be arbitrary to say the least. --Eqdoktor 21:21, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * You still refuse to listen - even if the necessary procedure was followed, the image would still have been deleted. I've pointed out numerous polices that detail why the image is wholly unacceptable for Wikipedia above. You have failed to listen. If your still displeased, you can always take your complaint to WP:ANI. I consider any discussion here now concluded. Nick 21:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. --Eqdoktor 21:31, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Diff not diffing well enough ?
I didn't know whom to address this to, so I thought I'll pick an admin. Redirect me if necessary.

Look at: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=National_Public_School%2C_Indiranagar&diff=132042050&oldid=101770627 Isn't it not diffing correctly at least as far as the "School Events" (sub)section is concerned ?
 * Hi, everything looks OK to me, though your missing out 80+ intermediate changes, which is probably why your experiencing problems. Use helpme if you need further assistance and someone will come and help you much faster than I can, or if your patient, give me a shout and I'll come and have a look further. Nick 18:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Awaiting apology
I await a full apology for your behaviour today. And I demand an explanation for why on earth you responded to User:Throw's fourth unblock request, even 4 hours after he had been blocked from editing his user talk page for abusing the unblock system. Why has he gone totally unpunished for this?

I am mightily, mightily pissed off. You do not seem to even begin to understand why. That is a great shame. I have never come across you before, which seems odd given that you seem to be heavily involved in Scotland-related work, but I certainly hope that our paths cross infrequently, given today's performance. --Mais oui! 13:59, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

BLP concerns
I noted your changed comments, but that you sustained your support. (If the concern is serious enough for you to switch to neutral or oppose, I would understand and take no personal offense.) I would like to better understand the situation, particularly in regards to out-of-process admin actions. Would you have the time and interest to explain a bit and maybe answer a few questions? I am available on-wiki, on IRC and via e-mail, if you would indulge me. Vassyana


 * I'd be happy to answer your questions here, I'll do my best to answer them within 24 - 36 hours. Nick 23:45, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Could you give me some general guidelines or a general example of when a sysop would need to act out-of-process, or outside of policy, in order to make sure BLP issues are properly addressed? Outside of poorly referenced claims, what are the most common BLP issues? What BLP issues are most overlooked? Thanks again.Vassyana 01:51, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It's mainly complaints coming in from the subject or their representatives via OTRS or e-mailed to a specific admin that require us to appear to be all cloak and dagger-ish, in reality, we've got a perfectly valid reason to delete an article, block a user or to delete numerous edits. There are some really complicated complaints that can crop up on OTRS and require some of the most unusual remedies. We are frequently caught in the middle of disputes between former business partners, competing websites and the like.
 * Normally, if we have to delete an article, we'll recreate a small stub whenever possible or restore any revisions free of any problem text. Nick 11:44, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much for your prompt response. Would it possible, without divulging inappropriate information, to have a BLP subforum with brief reasons for these actions? I know that sounds creepy and I also know that OTRS people are already overworked and overstressed. However, it's important to me that the community is aware and understands what is going on to avoid misunderstandings and miscommunication. Do you have any ideas on how that might be addressed outside of such a forum? Also, there have been some recent out-of-process deletions based on BLP rationale that you've seemed to support, but did not seem to be OTRS issues. Were some of these actually OTRS issues? If not, what was the basis in BLP need? BLP issues seem to be a large concern right now and I'm trying to understand the situation. Thank you again for taking the time to address these questions with me. I most sincerely appreciate it. Vassyana 12:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * If an issue is raised via OTRS and action taken, the ticket number is often left on the talk page and any OTRS volunteer can then access the ticket, so we police ourselves. All OTRS volunteers are responsible for our own actions regarding the information we look at and how we act, we don't really have protection from the Foundation, so perhaps we're over cautious but none of us particularly want to be named in a lawsuit, so releasing information is not really an option, sadly. We do try and detail what the complaint was as much as possible, but you can't really say "I've deleted 200 revisions where the subject was named as the man who killed Kennedy" (the Seigenthaler case) for example.
 * We're also becoming more aware of the type of complaints we receive and OTRS volunteers can see an article that could possibly result in a complaint and take action before such a complaint is received. We will take action, it's never normally popular but most of the community understand what needs to be done. This isn't going to be popular, but when it comes to unilateral action for BLP issues, you only need to go through one RfA and unless you go mad or have incredibly bad judgement, ArbCom will always support admins removing problematic BLP content through unilateral action. Nick 12:42, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for taking the time to indulge my questions. It is truly appreciated. Vassyana 05:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

free use (editor/photographer submits own photo) versus fair use
Earlier this month, I asked: ...should high quality fair use images be used instead of low quality free images...

You replied: Free images over fair use images any day of the week and under any circumstances. Wikimedia Commons is here - our sister project for collecting and cataloguing free images, media files and such. -- Nick t 17:20, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

At the time, I was asking just to become more familiar with the policies. Now, I have a real situation. There currently is no content dispute. I inserted a photo which was removed by another editor. It does not bother me that the photo was removed. Therefore, I am not asking your opinion to support a dispute.

The reasons given for a replacement photo is: 1. No free equivalent. All Singapore Armed Forces camps and bases impose physical security measures, just like any other military camps and bases in the world. These measures include: No entrance possible for persons without official reasons; No image-capturing devices allowed, regardless of military status, unless special approval has been granted. As such, it is not possible for the uploader to obtain a free equivalent to this image. An exception would be when RSN ships participate in foreign exercises and images of the ships are taken by, for example, a United States Navy personnel. It is also noteworthy that unlike in the United States, works of a Singaporean civil servant produced during his/her course of work (for e.g. photographs) is not public domain. Perhaps the interested person objecting to the fair use status could find out when will the next foreign exercise be and request for permission to be onboard the foreign warship. 2. This image is produced here in a non-commercial nature with the illustrational and informational purposes. 3. Details of the copyright has been properly attributed to the copyright holder, SPG Media Limited. 4. This low-resolution image serves its purpose of illustration adequately. 5. This image has been published previously by SPG Media Limited in their official publications. 6. This image meets general Wikipedia content requirements. 7. This image is used in at least one article.

The photo that I took was a side view of a Fearless class ship (same class of ship as the fair use image). It is a free image because I took it and licensed it to Wikipedia.

My question to you is "Isn't a free image preferred over a fair use image whose fair use status is describe above?" If so, I may submit my photo for discussion on the talk pages to see if other editors are satified with the quality of the photo. I consider your opinion more important to help me know the policies of wikipedia rather than deciding if my picture is of good quality or poor quality.VK35 19:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * We always prefer a free image. The rationale you've been given above is a pile of crap too, Wikimedia does make commercial use of images to raise money (to feed the servers, for instance). If your free image isn't up to much, don't have an image at all. Boats aren't kept in a big paper bag, yeah, you can't generally get onboard, but it's easy to take a photo from a pier opposite, a ferry or a bridge. It's just someone who wants a pretty picture over a free picture. Nick 19:23, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Consensus

 * See WP:CONSENSUS, "Silence equals consent"; the template was stable for eons. Matthew 18:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Unblocked Jay-G7, Chi Brown, Brendvs3 and Delarion97
Can You Just Unblocked Me and Let Me Out, So I Could Get Free To Go Now?. -4.68.248.134 01:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Masha Allen
OK Nick. What do I have to do, who do I have to talk to, to get this (and Matthew Mancuso) restored.

I am beside myself with rage here. It took me a while to be calm enough to sit still to even log in. It has taken me fifteen minutes since then.

I do not edit much, this is true, but I read a lot and I know our policies. User:Phil Sandifer's deletion of this article WAS COMPLETELY AGAINST POLICY AND WITHOUT CONSENSUS.

The article was well-sourced, NPOV and had earned a B-class rating from WP:WPBIO. It dealt with a notable individual who, despite being a minor, had testified before Congress and been the subject of considerable non-trivial news coverage. Yet Mr. Sandifer, whose user page clearly indicates that he has a troubled relationship with policy and whom other admins have strongly suggested should resign his adminship, was simply allowed to delete it claiming "Grotesquely inhumane article in flagrant violation of the spirit and point of BLP. No compelling reason for us to compound the harm and intrusions into her private life suffered". If he was, as he has suggested elsewhere, concerned about the details of Masha's treatment at Mancuso's hands, that was a small detail which could have been cleaned up through the usual process of discussion on the talk page. Nothing in the rest of the article was intrusive (unless you consider posting about people's appearances on Oprah and Nancy Grace and testimony before Congress to be invasions of their privacy.

I am also unnerved that the Mancuso article was deleted; there had been discussions there about merging it but the consensus was in favor of keeping it separate as he had also molested his biological daughter as well. Again, this was deleted citing "serious BLP issues" without any elucidation of what those issues were. We have AFD to settle things like that if editors refuse to be specific.

Why is Mr. Sandifer allowed to retain his administrative privileges in any event despite clear deviations from policy? If it will take me starting an RfC to get him desysopped, I will do it. I will, in fact, do WHATEVER IT TAKES to get him desysopped. I never believed Wikipedia administrators were the kind of people who did things like this and got away with it. Until now.

I earnestly implore you to do this. I will talk to Jimbo, I will do whatever I have to. My trust in Wikipedia has been broken. Wiki&#39;dWitch 02:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd suggest you stop with any suggestions of trying to have Phil desysopped or you'll find yourself pretty quickly blocked for disruption. These articles may have been suitably referenced, but they were not encyclopedic, do you honestly expect any other encyclopedia to carry graphic descriptions of sexual assaults carried out against a victim - NO. We're working to reform the material into much more suitable articles that are encyclopedic in nature and that aren't invasive and frankly trashy and distasteful. Nick 11:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Then do it in the open where we can all see it. Where are these articles being developed? On IRC like everything else that's controversial around here? I never wanted to get involved in this one for some currently personal reasons, but I don't think I have any choice now. The vast bulk of that article was devoted to Masha Allen's public speaking out. If there were concerns about this they could have been resolved on the talk page and that short section rewritten. That's all it would have taken. Why these bulk deletions? Daniel Case 02:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Wiki&#39;dWitch, please come down from the Reichstag. There is a way of resolving this without escalating it.  The question is, is this case remarkable as a case, has it had a lasting impact on society, is it regarded as a legal precedent, or is it merely a notable abduction case?  That will tell us the right context in which to document it.  If it is a notable abduction case, for example, it can be covered in some way in the article on child abduction.  Without obsessive focus on personal details.  It's that focus which is the fundamental problem, not the concept itself. Guy (Help!) 12:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, why was it notable?


 * Victim was first known to the public as the "Disney World Girl" erased from pictures taken by her pedophile adoptive father in the hopes of generating some leads as to who she was. That received wide coverage.
 * She has since allowed her name to be known and appeared on several TV shows and testified before Congress, with a law named after her that has since been passed. She is not notable solely as the victim of child sexual abuse, but as a spokesperson for a cause. And it is likely that she will be filing suit against the adoption agency involved.
 * I have been through far too many AFDs for someone to convince me that some offending passages merit the unjustified speedy of an entire article. Any other admin who did this would be desysopped pronto. I think it's rather presumptuous of Wikipedia to presume to speak for victims who've chosen to tell their own stories by silencing them. Masha Allen was erased from pictures in an attempt to find her molester. Wikipedia erases her to satisfy the moral proclivities of some of its administrative elite.
 * Tell me, what would you do if Masha Allen herself said you shouldn't have deleted the article, even the details of what Mancuso did to her? Would you tell her to go away and shut up, that you know better than she does what she should want? Daniel Case 02:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * As diplomatically as possible, yes. We don't include articles just because people want us to include articles, we include articles due to their notability. If we should have an article, it needs to be encyclopedic, the majority of the content needs to be notable and it should not read like tabloid journalism. We're not a traditional encyclopedia, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't behave like a proper encyclopedia when it comes to writing about whatever it is we write about. As I keep on repeating, time and time again, there's no moratorium on the recreation of a proper, fully sourced, encyclopedic article on Masha Allen. I believe current thinking suggests it'll be something like "Masha's Law" with a small amount of background on Masha and details of the law. Sexual Assault doesn't generally make someone notable, but what they do afterwards may do, pressuring Governments for changes in the law for instance would be notable. In any case, no article needs to have detailed accounts of the sexual assault. Nick 11:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I understand this ... I have enough vandalism to my user page from angry vanity article subjects to attest that I'm aware we don't let subjects of articles dictate coverage (though I suppose there's nothing to stop Ms. Allen and her attorney from requesting that answers or reference keep the scraped article up, the article that was put together by us ... it would be just as likely to come up at the top of a Google search, as in fact it does. I assume, also, that if the focus of that article is to be limited, that some of the material that was in it can be put in other articles? The effect this case had on international adoption of children from Russia cannot be underestimated (and I suppose it's time I sat down and created that one; I'm certainly an expert in the subject); it might also be worth a mention in trafficking in human beings now that Congress has criminalized trafficking for adoption purposes and we know Masha's case is not the only instance of a child being adopted for sexual purposes (that was in the article too). There are interesting and notable details I'm aware of which have not been made public yet but I would not hesitate to add to articles when reliable sources report them. In sum, it seems to me, the ArbCom's feeling is that the only real problems with the article were 1. the details of the abuse and 2. having all this in an article with the abuse victim as the primary subject. There would be nothing to prevent notable and sourced information not part of 1. from being used in other articles where relevant. Am I understanding this correctly? Daniel Case 14:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Pretty much, yeah. How ArbCom is going to react to new articles that are built on a slew of non notable sexual assault victims though is unclear though. Nick 14:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The new article I have proposed would merely contextualize Masha's adoption as one of many incidents in the history of U.S. adoption of Russian orphans that highlight the effects of lax or absent government regulation on both sides. It certainly wouldn't be based on "a slew of non-notable sexual assault victims". Daniel Case 18:58, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds like an article for your userspace first then you can run it by a few admins before it goes live. Nick 19:07, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The proper resolution is to reverse the improper disruptive deletions and open an AfD. If Phil is not willing to do that, then I'm in full support of Nick escalating this.  It's not the first time Phil's done this, after all. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Jeff, I can just about tolerate you wittering on about how we should have articles on internet memes, but when you start going n about articles that contain graphic content on children that have suffered abuse, it becomes pretty clear your behaviour here is inappropriate. Drop the stick and get the hell away from this long dead horse. I fully endorse Phil's deletion on this and as I've said, which I consider most reasonable, I'll support a proper, encyclopedic recreation covering the case and not focusing on the individual. Nick 12:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I'd say your behavior is the inappropriate one, both with this set of articles and your inappropriate commentary toward me. Cease it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Reminder
Hey dude, before you drastically ruined my userpage you gonna msg me first.--SuperHotWiki 04:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Any user can remove non free content from userpages, simply removing material that shouldn't be on your userpage in the first place is not "ruining" it. Nick 11:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Morron - keep out
DON'T START DELETING ARTICLES WITHOUT READING THEM, THANK YOU! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steffan_Todorovi%C4%87 - IT DOES SAY THAT THE PERSON IS A FICTIONAL CHARACTER!

THINK AGAIN, thank you!!!!! jesus christ, I see you have a way of beeing annoying by nature. you seem to get awefully lots of complains.


 * We don't carry articles on fictional footballers you've invented during school playtime. Nick 12:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Ha
I was just reverting ANI with a WP:DENY summary, but I liked yours better.--Isotope23 17:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Montana Barbaro deletion
You should not delete an article when it is currently on AfD, is part of an arbitration case, and makes you part of a wheel war. violet/riga (t) 10:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

So you close with snow after less than 12 hours and with only a few votes? You didn't even give time for people to respond (I was asleep!) and your actions are premature. violet/riga (t) 10:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * What a terrible shame. Please do remind me, just what precedents have you set recently for informing fellow administrators concerning undoing their actions. ? Nick 11:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * What a civil response. Your actions constitute a wheel war and I will add this to the arbitration case.  violet/riga (t) 12:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * A telling response. It seems I'm not able to use my own discretion to close a deletion discussion now. Very good. Do carry on. Nick 12:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Clearly you are biased in the proceedings and should not be involved in such things. SNOWing an AfD after so few votes and such a short time when it is subject of an arbitration case is simply wrong.  You were fully aware of that but chose to override due process so that you could get your way.  violet/riga (t) 12:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Probably best if we stick to the Arbitration pages now. Nick 12:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

GNAA 10 AfD Pool
I happen to notice you restored this for history usage...is that done? Can this safely be re-deleted? ^ demon [omg plz] 10:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * No, I was asked to undelete the page in order that it be marked as a historical doo-dah. I'd ask Kim Bruning before deleting it, she knows more about it than I do. Nick 11:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Talk:2006 Duke University lacrosse case deletion
Care to explain yourself? I discussed this with David Gerard at User talk:David Gerard. The history was moved there for GFDL concerns. Gerard agreed it was a reasoanble approach. Mango juice talk 13:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It was deleted due to the serious libelous content and other BLP issues. I'll undelete for you to copy the history (not the content) onto a new page (just like we do when we move images to Commons) if GFDL compliance is an issue, drop a note when it's safe for me to delete again. Nick 14:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Should be done, it's in the same location. I deleted the revisions myself.  Mango juice talk 15:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Lolicon
I'm a bit confused as to why you protected the article, as there is no edit war going on. The image did get changed because the file was deleted, then reuploaded to commons. Right now we're trying to clarify the image's situation on the talk page, but there definitely isn't an edit war going on. -- Ned Scott 00:56, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm still trying to get to the bottom of this, but I'm not happy at the one good image being replaced quite a while after concerns were first raised about the image used as it's replacement. Nick 01:02, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, but we don't need to protect the article for that (maybe semi for the people from 4chan). -- Ned Scott 01:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Back to Semi-protected. Nick 01:18, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks! -- Ned Scott 01:22, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The Emirates Group
Will do. User:Nighet Abbas is a sockpuppet of Lil Proton who is currently on a one week ban. He is also most likely the Emirates spammer from awhile back. Pcpirate16 20:06, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm working on tidying up the article. I'll get a checkuser to run over Nighet Abbas and block if it's confirmed, though it does like highly likely. Nick 20:21, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Very nice clean up on this article. Pcpirate16 23:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair Use
What do you mean it's insufficient? I just worked my butt off putting it on all of the images I've uploaded so that I don't get anymore bot messages. What is all of this "Rationale" stuff these days? It didn't used to be required. 500x500 isn't considered low? I thought that Something like 2000x2000 would be considered high, not 500.

Vala M 14:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm only trying to be helpful, before you find each image you've uploaded tagged for deletion. We require you, the uploader, to justify why a copyrighted, non free image should be permitted on the Wikimedia Foundation's servers, so we need to know why it's not replaceable in every article it appears in, who the copyright holder is and that is complied with Our non free image policy. Nick 14:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Speedy keep of Wikisource AFD.
Can you please tell me exactly which one of the Speedy keep criteria qualifies Wikisource to be speedily kept? I went through the criteria and here is what I noticed:
 * Criteria 1: So far I have only seen comments but not anybody saying "keep", "delete", etc. It seems a bit too early to determine that absolutely no one agrees with me. I am not going for a result other than delete.
 * Criteria 2: The nomination is not vandalism and not intended to be disruptive.
 * Criteria 2i: Does not appear to be a silly nomination. This is serious.
 * Criteria 2ii: Certainly not a forum for disruption.
 * Criteria 2iii: I did not WP:PROD the article previously.
 * Criteria 2iv: Most likely referring to Articles for deletion/Wikiquote. However the closing admin of that discussion said "it is clear from the consensus below that most are not candidates from deletion.". Note the word "most" and not "all" Also the administrator who closed the Wikiquote discussion said "Relisting individually is at editor discretion". If 2iv were going to be the case in a Wikisource nom the closing administrator would say "all" and something like "Please don't relist these".
 * Criteria 3: I'm not banned.
 * Criteria 4: Wikisource is not a policy or guideline, it isn't even in Wikipedia space. Fun  pika  21:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * 2iv. 3 might be closer than you think though. 21:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I hope that you are pleased with the result of your actions. I have retired from editing Wikipedia, so I hope that you are happy to have caused my retirement. I can't stand these bad faith accusations and even a ban threat due to my good faith actions. Goodbye. Fun  pika  21:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * If you feel that your behaviour could lead to a block or a ban, then a retiring is the correct decision. If you think others may see your behaviour in such light that they could block you or instigate discussion on banning you, then retiring is, once again, the correct decision. If you genuinely think your behaviour would not lead to a block or a ban, then you're probably over-reacting. I can't ban you, remember. Nick 22:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Well looking at this diff others probably see my behavior in such light that they can block me or instigate discussion on banning me. Fun  pika  22:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Take me out of the equation, does the same still hold true ? Nick 22:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Nope. Okay then I will unretire then... Fun  pika  22:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Do what you like then. Nick 22:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

70.17.89.33
In re User talk:70.17.89.33, I have e-mailed Zumbrun at the Washington Post to get him to clear up which is his legitimate IP (though the WHOIS on the WaPo IP is pretty clear evidence, I just want to be sure there's not a mischievous co-worker involved). I'll let you know if I get a response. I was actually planning on a longer block if he confirmed, on the order of weeks or months given the gravity of the offense to prevent further malfeasance given that the user took several days between edits already. If you agree, I might lengthen the block if I receive a response. Otherwise, I'll let it be and watch the article. Thanks. · jersyko   talk  21:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I was intending the extend the block if I don't hear anything from the IP address. Nick 21:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Lengthened to 3 months after receiving an e-mail from Zumbrun's Washington Post address. He confirmed his IP identity in the message. ·  jersyko   talk  14:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Admonish nominator?
Nick, we don't admonish people who make good-faith nominations. (messedrocker • talk) 23:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm far from convinced it was a good faith nomination, but either way, in the past now. Nick 23:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

TTN
Nick, I can understand cleaning up articles with as you described it, "two lines of useful text". However, to properly achieve this goal, TTN would need to actually examine the individual articles. There is no indication that such a process is occurring, nor is any of the deleted information being moved to the "List" articles. This is just a wholesale elimination of thousands of articles - "Scrubs" and "That 70's Show" have been put on notice, among others, with more to follow. --Ckatz chat spy  08:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * There has been discussion about this between other administrators and we can't find any articles being redirected that satisfy the criteria for having their own article. If you have any examples where they shouldn't have been redirected, diffs would be appreciated. Nick 08:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Nick, you have to see that the manner in which TTN is carrying out his/her "mission" is completely wrong. Just now, the entire series of articles for Weeds and Undeclared were wiped out, without *any* notification at all. The only hint at what has occured is a cryptic edit comment: "Cut links". This is not right. --Ckatz chat spy  20:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm a bit busy at the moment, drop another note on WP:ANI and see what everybody else thinks. I've had a quick look and all might not be well after all. Nick 20:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Uh, I was hoping to get the opinions of the people there. This is getting rather out of hand with the episodes. It seems that he is certainly planning to keep it up. The discussion was sort of unneeded, but it still is a legitimate issue. It would be nice to just handle it without wasting time on an RfC. TTN 13:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

2 options
Hi Nick. Re. Whatever happened to WP:AGF and WP:CIV? This guy is a relatively new user who is doing lots of good work. I have seen no attempt by you or anyone else to explain to him why fair-use galleries might be a problem. At this time he's probably thinking WTF? How about helping a newbie? &mdash;Moondyne 13:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * There's nothing uncivil about asking the user to revert his changes. There's a lot of admins out there who would have him hung, drawn and quartered before now. It's also pretty hard to assume good faith when the user blindly reverts administrators without as much as questioning their edits or leaving an edit summary. Nick 13:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah well there's way of doing things and I hope we don't set our standards based on the way the worst of our admins communicate. But thanks for posting the note.  Cheers.  &mdash;Moondyne 13:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Block my user page
Hi, please, block my user page. I am administrator in pt.wiki, and my page here is vandalised by IP. Thanks Adailton 11:22, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Page now semi-protected. Best Wishes. Nick 11:25, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Sopranos
Was wondering if you could unprotect List of deaths in The Sopranos as the final episode has finally aired and there is no longer any reason to edit war. The Filmaker 03:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Kola Boof
Wondering if there's any special reason that this well-sourced article was moved and history deleted? Generally I've seen discussion or at least announcement on an article's Talk when something this drastic is undertaken. I'd be interested to know what's up, not least because even the stub remaining contains several dubious points unsourced except to the subject. Robertissimo 10:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * We have had a complaint from the subject regarding the article through OTRS. It didn't actually have a great deal of reliable sources. Nick 10:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

About User: Anubiz
Psst, you may have already noticed, but user Anubiz is VERY suspicious. I think he really does suffer from a bad case of inferiority complex and maybe even split-personality disorder. Sometimes on his own talk pages, or the talk pages of his sockpuppet accounts, he talks and replies to himself, maybe forgetting to log in under one of his other user accounts. I know one of his sockpuppets was blocked indefinitely, but his other likely sockpuppet, Anubis-Entei, is still active. Some admins should really look into him. Thanks. Nintenboy01 19:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

ECAIs
I noticed that you deleted the entry on External Credit Assessment Institutions because "the bulk of it" was lifted verbatim from the Basel Committee's capital framework. As you will notice from the Basel Committee's copyright notice, exerpts of the report may be republished, provided a reference is made. The Basel Committee is a multi-government organization, and its framework is used, verbatim, in many countries' national banking regulation. Therefore it is appropriate, when defining what ECAIs are, to cite, verbatim, the language that the Basel Committee uses in defining this term. Accordingly, could you please return the deleted entry? Please let me know if you have any questions about what the Basel Committee framework is and how its applicable copyright might function in this case. Thanks. Epstein&#39;s Mother 20:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * We can't accept contributions where the contributor is not in a position to licence their contribution under the GFDL licence. It seems from what you've told me that the Bazel Committee would be receptive to a request to licence their work under the GFDL licence. If you could contact them and if permission is forthcoming, forward it onto Wikipedia using the Contact us link to the left, this would facilitate the restoration of the deleted entry. Nick 23:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Even that is not necessary. If you notice the copyright on the BIS document, it states: "Bank for International Settlements 2005. All rights reserved. Brief excerpts may be reproduced or translated provided the source is stated."  Given that the Basel 2 Framework is 300 pages, the ECAI definition I used is brief, and the ECAI description is cited verbatim in numerous other government documents (for example, by the Committee of European Bank Supervisors (http://www.c-ebs.org/pdfs/GL07.pdf), and the State Bank of Pakistan (http://www.sbp.org.pk/press/2005/Criteria_of_ECAIs.pdf), the language included in the article most certainly fits the definition of fair use.  Keep in mind that the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision is a group of governments, not a private entity.  The "report" you note is not a private document such as an article, but rather a set of regulatory principles that member governments have agreed to incorporate into their own laws and regulations.  "External Credit Assessment Institution" is, therefore, a defined term.  In fact, it is term defined by the very language to which you object.  No entry on ECAIs could accurately define what it is without citing this language.  It would be a bit like defining what a security is under the US Securities Act of 1933 without actually being able to quote the Act itself.  An interesting exercise, but fundamentally flawed and legally unnecessary. Epstein&#39;s Mother 06:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You would be best to take your request to Wikipedia talk:Copyrights/Can I use... where someone will double check the licence and restrictions under which the BIS document can be reproduced, and if it's found to be suitable for incorporation, it would be included. I understand your point about the US Securities Act, but as a work of the US Federal Government, it is released into the public domain and thus ineligible for copyright protection. The Bazel Committee could, in future, change or restrict the terms of use for their work and we could unwittingly have a further copyright violation, which is why we need content to be released under the GFDL licence as it protects us from any impact of future licence changes. I've got quite a hefty work schedule over this weekend, so I can't promise I'll be able to assist further, though I will try and help if I have time. Nick 10:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't have access to a copy of what was originally written. You deleted it, so there's no way for me to raise this issue with Wiki.  (And the US gov't could always change its rules on copyright access to US gov't docs, too.  Since the US gov't is a member of Basel and BIS, the latter two couldn't change without the consent of the former.)  Epstein&#39;s Mother 14:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Your bot request
Hi Nick I wanted to let you know that is labeled as needing your comment. Please visit the above link to reply to the requests. Thanks! --ST47 Talk 21:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Community_sanction_noticeboard
I doubt that instituting a punitive method of behavior modification would have any positive effect. Creating an RFC would be a more productive and less reactionary way to go. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 23:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

JGoldwater Blocked
I'd like to appeal your decision to block JGoldwater based on the fact that there is an ongoing discussion at Talk:Fred_Thompson in which a sysop has abused his power in order to prevent people from posting information he didn't like. JGoldwater was up against 4 people acting in concert to make unjustifiable deletions of content. He merely reverted the deletions of the information that he himself posted. No reasons were provided for the deletions. BigDT and the people he recruited to promote his candidate have been acting like tyrants.--216.193.201.64 01:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * That doesn't excuse your two 3RR breaches which is what you were blocked for. Now off you go, your supposed to be blocked for 48 hours. Heaven forbid I ask a checkuser to confirm you and JGoldwater are the same person and you find yourself blocked for another week. Nick 01:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Ty! W i i k i p e d i a n

Hey, I know you've blocked me, but can ya tell me how do ya add the online status to your page?
 * It relies on an IRC chat client to relay the users status to a piece of software which changes the template. It's really only good for those who are on IRC all the time they're on Wikipedia. Nick 15:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Mike Koplove
Thanks for blocking the page. But I believe that you blocked it in the wrong format.

I appealed to Wiki initially on June 15th, asking for page protection, after an anon's repeated deletions of properly sourced material, that is appropriate for the article (see the talk page for a discussion of that point. Below is some of the history.

The editor said that the anon was not changing the page enough for him to protect it (obviously, I was looking for him to protect it with the info in), so I might try another editor with new circumstances or try ANI.

I first tried another attempt for page protection, after the anon made more all cap reverts on the talk page. The second admin on that page also said that the anon had not yet made a sufficient number of reverts to semiprotect the page.

I then tried ANI, as suggested. If you look at the discussion below on the ANI page, you will see that I was encouraged to continue to RV the deletes, until the anon became tired or alternatively we had enough history to protect the page (presumably, including the properly sourced material).

I have followed all of the admins suggested steps. You have now protected the page, but not in accordance of all of the admin discussion as the page protection and ANI pages. Its deletion is not in accordance with Wiki guidelines, as I discuss on the Koplove talk page. As a second point, nor is there any consensus for deletion. Absent consensus, as with attempts to delete categories and articles, the Wiki approach is to not delete -- which you have done given the form that you have protected the article in.

Please look at the below discussion, and then I would appreciate it if you were to keep the page semi protected. Thanks.


 * 16:00, June 20, 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (mike koplove -- the problem continues)
 * 07:05, June 19, 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (→Mike Koplove; Persistent vandalism)
 * 19:35, June 18, 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (→Mike Koplove; Persistent vandalsim)
 * 19:10, June 18, 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (Mike Koplove; Persistent vandalsim)
 * 18:24, June 18, 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Requests for page protection (→)
 * 18:23, June 18, 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Requests for page protection (→)
 * 15:59, June 15, 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Requests for page protection (→)
 * 15:43, June 15, 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Requests for page protection (→)

Thanks. --Epeefleche 17:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * It's always going to be the wrong version. This guy's religion has no place on Wikipedia - get a grip and write an article that is relevant and focuses on his sport. Nick 12:13, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Hkelkar
The IP that keeps posting on Hkelkar's page redirects to New York. Hkelkar lives in Austin, Texas. The user (Hkelkar's nemesis) lives in New York. Can you look into that, I'm afraid BhaiSaab may be socking again. Baka man 


 * Actually it may be his excellency. The is from an IP shared by Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_His_excellency. Baka  man  21:27, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Jreferee's RfA
Yes, I accept that he can't see the deleted material - hence why I have since voted Support on his RfA, after reading the answer. Personally I don't believe it's always necessary, or indeed productive, for a closing admin to look at the article itself when closing an AfD of that nature - if there are, say, 50 Keep !votes and 50 Delete !votes, all coherently argued by good-faith users, then the result ought to be No consensus, regardless of what the closing admin personally thinks. But I'm not going to make an issue out of this. Waltontalk 19:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Are your ears burning?
the above link will probably be of interest. Spartaz Humbug! 11:33, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

TheManWhoLaughs
I was just about to revert myself when we edit warred. I didn't realized he was banned until after I gave him a final warning. Lord Sesshomaru

Tony Sidaway
If experienced editors act like new contributors and continue to violate WP:FORUM, despite friendly low key warnings, and do not comment when such warnings are altered like this, then they will get boilerplate warnings. LessHeard vanU 21:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Skyring/Wikistalking
I've deleted this page as it's not appropriate for Wikipedia. Please don't recreate material such as this on Wikipedia. If you have concerns over another editors behaviour, there are several avenues available to you - Mediation, Dispute Resolution, a Request for Comment or an Arbitartion Request. Best Wishes. Nick 00:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll thank you to restore it, please. I checked the policy on subpages before commencing it. I don't want to make this matter official just yet, because I'm hoping that Alec's attitude might change, but I do want to get the facts down while it is all fresh in my mind, in case he continues his behaviour. I've put an hour of careful work into this - please don't waste my effort. --Pete 00:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I can make the material available for you to copy to your local computer, but until such a time as you start any type of formal proceedings, the material doesn't really have a place on Wikipedia. Such pages only ever serve to inflame tensions and make matters worse for all concerned. Nick 01:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * . Please do so.
 * . Please provide a reference for what seems like your personal opinion. Looking at the user subpages of other editors, including admins, I can find several instances of similar compilations in preparation for formal proceedings. --Pete 01:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Done via e-mail. Nick 01:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

FAQ
Sure, if you'd prefer that. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Gordon Brown
Can you please change the wording of the intro. "Prime minister-designate of Britain" is an awful and incorrect phrase. Can it please read something like "soon to be Prime Minister of the United Kingdom" instead.

Boo!
Archive your page!  Mi r a n da   17:32, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Crap, I broke my rule...:-( No socializing. Darn. Thanks, Nick!   Mi r a n da   18:00, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Malicious Wikimedia exploit
Hi,

The purpose of the recently-deleted User:Silly rabbit/Sandbox/Malicious Wikimedia exploit was to illustrate the problem with the "printfooter" CSS class. I was going to bring this up at the pump, once I established the viability of the concept. Presumably depending on the browser, it is possible for malicious editors to insert text into a Wikipedia page which does not render in any screen version of the page, but shows up in the printed version. Actually, I have considered using this "exploit" as a work-around for problems with the template, since this template breaks certain accessibility features. However, I noticed that the printfooter didn't show up in the screen-printable version. Only after printing the page did the missing text appear. I can't think of any reason that the printfooter should be invisible in the screen preview. Anyway, I will change the title of the sandbox article so that it doesn't show up to would-be crackers and vandals. Silly rabbit 14:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Incidentally, after testing in non-CSS browsers, I have decided against the workaround since part of the reason for it was to not break accessibility features &mdash; including the use of non-standard browsers. I believe that the exploit should still be fixed, since it does pose a potential for abuse.  I am going to raise the issue at the pump shorly. Silly rabbit 14:42, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Untitled random complaint
Nick... why did you assist in blocking the article on "THE WRINKLE - casino news publication". Just because you are not close enough to the Atlantic City Casino scene to be aware of a popular news source does not mean it is not valid as information. If I am wrong, please explain... I can have a petition signed by WRINKLE readers or send you back issues to validate its existance.

Dan


 * Your news paper isn't notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia. Please read our Notability policy. Nick 18:56, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism by 71.211.63.113
71.211.63.113 has continued to vandalize several articles since the block you placed on him expired. Please take appropriate action. Fullmetal2887 (discuss me) 04:33, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Sandworms of Dune/m:OTRS edit
User talk:David Gerard: Hi, I'd like someone to look into a recent edit with OTRS as the reason just to get confirmation that the edit was appropriate. The ticket is here. The edit was to Sandworms of Dune; the quoted text was properly cited, is only 197 words and "is not used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media," so it doesn't seem like a copyright violation to me. Of course, I obviously have no idea what is contained in the m:OTRS file. Thanks in advance. TAnthony 17:31, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Looks like a good call to me. The text appears to be a copyright violation but substantially more serious is the concerns expressed in the e-mail we have received that the information presented could negatively effect the ability of the copyright holders to profit from their work. As such, it's not going to fall under our non free media policy and it's removal is quite proper. Nick 22:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your prompt response and taking the time to look into this, but ... I think there's some confusion here. It seems to me that the pre-release plot summary rightfully deleted on 30 June would definitely interfere with copyright holders' right to profit from the book, however the book jacket text removed per m:OTRS on 1 July is from the authors' own free website (which was referenced) and is more promotional than anything else. Is it possible that the email received was referring to the summary and that the jacket text was removed in error? TAnthony 00:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It's possible the complaint is regarding the complete spoilers which were removed on 30th June. I'm not entirely happy with the book jacket text also being used. It's still a copyright violation regardless of whether or not there's been a complaint about it and I'm pretty unconvinced the text could fall under our non free media policy. We've clearly touched a raw nerve so it's probably best for all concerned just to leave off adding back any further text taken from other websites. Nick 10:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

My recent RfB
Thank you so much for your participation in my recent RfB. Though it closed with 72% support (below the required 90%), I'm still quite pleased at the outpouring of support shown by a fair percentage of the community.

I'm currently tabulating and calculating all opposing and neutral arguments to help me better address the community's concerns about my abilities as a bureaucrat. If you'd like, you can follow my progress (and/or provide additional suggestions) at User:EVula/admin/RfB notes. Thanks again! EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 04:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Block of Kosmo7895
You missed Kosmo The Fighter, another one of his sockpuppets. Cheers! P3net 23:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:MG Rover Corporate Logo.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:MG Rover Corporate Logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 01:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Felicity-serious-rgp.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Felicity-serious-rgp.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 02:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Sonja McCaskie
Hey, thanks for addressing my concerns with this article. --Haemo 23:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Delta Sigma Theta
Please use User talk:Nick/Delta Sigma Theta Nick 19:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Al Gore III
Please stop whitewashing the Al Gore III article. You are removing sourced material that meets WP:V and is notable. Robert K S 14:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You have directed me to the Wikipedia policy on biographies of living people. Please kindly point me to the relevant passages.  The material you have whitewashed meets Neutral point of view (NPOV) (it only presents the facts as reported, and does not devote undue space to them), Verifiability (the threshold for inclusion on Wikipedia is met), and No original research.  Please also do not revert this message on your talk page. Robert K S 14:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Firstly, I do not appreciate being warned for simply doing my job. Secondly, I suggest you read the entire policy, thoroughly. I draw your attention to the words of Jimmy Wales "Real people are involved, and they can be hurt by your words. We are not tabloid journalism, we are an encyclopedia." so we most certainly do not place undue weight on a single incident as your preferred version of the page does, we do not need details of the car, drugs used or any other completely irrelevant information, such as the brand of shoes he was wearing, only concise, relevant and verifiable material, we only need to mention that he was arrested, we need no real details about what they found on him, that's something much more suitable for Wikinews or a blog site. Nick 15:00, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I am sorry you do not appreciate being warned. Your persistent deletion of my message on your talk page, however, alters the context of this conversation.  I stand by and do not retract my original message, so please do not continue to revert it.
 * I have read the entire policy, and thoroughly. Indeed, Wikipedia is a place to present factually reported information, and not tabloid journalism.  The Wales quote you present is intended to exclude hurtful, false information from inclusion on the Wikipedia: rumors, libel.  The material you have removed is neither rumor nor libel; it is not a single incident but rather history repeating itself a number of documented times.  The "Legal trouble" section you have removed does not constitute undue weight but is instead a succint, factual summary.
 * I would like to understand why you feel it is important to specifically exclude certain reported details of events.
 * Are you a Wikipedia administrator? Robert K S 15:12, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, which is why I'm taking an interest in your continued edits to the Al Gore III article. Nick 15:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * What continued edits would those be? I haven't edited the article since your substantial pruning of it, which started this conversation. Robert K S 16:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Why is this article locked again? Is this how we deal with things on Wikipedia now? We edit articles until we agree with them and then lock them out so no further changes can be made? I do not mean to be rude, but I really would like an explanation on this. &mdash; Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 17:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It's locked because of biographies of living persons disputes.  Mi r a n da   17:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That is kind of a non-answer. &mdash; Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 17:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Which is kind of a non-surprise.David in DC 02:35, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Me and You both need this right now
 Mi r a n da   17:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

"You chose an edit war"
Nick, again, respectfully, this characterization is untrue and unfair. While I have spoken out against the premature, one-sided administrative action on the article (conducted under the unjustified aegis of BLP), I did not edit the article following your substantial pruning; instead, I placed a warning on your talk page and expected to be able to talk through the issue. I trust you will review the article's edit history and offer an apology. Robert K S 02:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Please Rob, Don't template the regulars. Speculation on a biography of a living person is considered libelous. Wikipedia can get sued for such unconfirmed information. Cheers.    Mi r a n da   02:20, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You chose to revert me (despite having read my comments on the admin noticeboard) with the edit summary "Revert to last good..." despite it being made perfectly clear both on the article and on the admin noticeboard that I (and other administrators) regarded that version of the page as unsuitable. You then edited away and reverted another editor. You don't need to be making dozens of edits to be edit warring. I especially dislike being warned for doing my duty here, to make sure an article complies with the BLP policies. Anyway, I consider this matter closed for the time being. Nick 10:57, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I appreciate you think you were doing the right thing by deleting material in a BLP. However, you must understand that the point is not moot and that there were bound to be those who saw your deletions--which, I maintain, were unmotivated by actual policy--as a removal of material for the sole reason that you judged it to be a negative reflection of the article's subject.  The material was sourced from major news sources, and/or was properly attributed, and was not libelous.
 * According to WP:EW, "An edit war is when two or more contributors repeatedly revert one another's edits to an article." Is not accusing a long-term editor in good standing of edit warring is a pretty serious accusation?  (It seemed to be enough for you to threaten me with banning.)  I made exactly one reversion following your pruning of Al Gore III.  (I also later reverted another user's deletion of one particular detail, the mention of the Prius, and I provided notability rationale in the edit summary.)  When you pruned the article again, I posted to your talk page.  I have not edited the article since then.  I apologize for "templating" you (I've never seen WP:TEMPLAR before, didn't know you were a regular, and there has been nothing to indicate you are an administrator, either in writing on your user page or in your comportment in the handlingof this issue.  But you have made accusations of me that are unfair, and I the record shows this to be the case.  Cheers, Robert K S 13:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It quite clearly states I'm an administrator on my userpage. You quite clearly should have known this, as I unprotected the page, or if you didn't, it shows you never looked at the history of the page before reverting, which is negligent in the extreme, that you did not read through my comment on WP:AN, which is also negligent in the extreme, and finally, that you didn't look at my userpage, which is pretty sloppy. The other option is that you don't understand page protection and biography of living persons policy, which would make your edits exceptionally inappropriate. I'd suggest moving on from this, I honestly can't be annoyed suffering more of you're little conspiracy theories. Go edit something else for the moment, please. Nick 13:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * A dismissive and inappropriate response. I'll kindly leave you alone, but I wonder how you have administration tools.  Your behavior is beneath that of an administrator. Robert K S 13:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You've already implied that dozens of times over the past couple of days, it's good you've finally come out and said what you really think. How do I have admin tools - overwhelming support of fellow editors and administrators, that's how. The same overwhelming support that backs up my edits to Al Gore III. Nick 14:02, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

TheTruth85
Hey Nick...it seems this guy is getting quite upset about his block, and I have reviewed one unblock request and declined based upon what contributions I saw. I'm asking for your help/guidance on what you think should happen next, if anything at all. I'm not worried about any legal action(s) as they claim, but as the blocking admin, I thought you should have this brought to your attention, aspecially since I am a relatively new admin, and am not as familiar with what to do in these situations. Any help, guidance, or advice would be greatly appreciated. Jmlk 1  7  05:46, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * He was editing as an IP (forgive me, I can't recall which) before he registered an account to generally upset people and make meaningless legal threats. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Undelete/User:Jmapper is worth a look too, btw. At this point, I'd be blanking and protecting his talk page since he's obviously not going to give up without making a lot of noise first. Nick 11:46, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Done. Thank you for the advice!  Jmlk  1  7  04:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

My RfA
Thank you for your comments in my recent RfA. However, it was unsuccessful. I am in no way disheartened, and I am working on all the constructive critisism I have received. If you have any further suggestions or comments, feel free to drop me a line on my talk page, and I will be happy to respond. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 04:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Ced Diggory


Please explain why you reverted and protected User talk:Ced Diggory? It seems to me that was actually telling the truth in the edit you reverted. Od Mishehu 07:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * A cursory glance at the history of the page would have revealed the reason it was protected. Nick 09:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, a glance at the actual edits, rather than the edit summeries, would confirm that the vandal was actually admitting to being, and looking through Requests for checkuser/Case/Hel Hufflepuff should then explain the edit summeries. I believe that and you were wrong in reverting him. Od Mishehu 11:02, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Re:Unblock on Open Proxy for Account Creation
Tnx for the info, I didn't know that. He sounded quite sincere on the IM, so I don't expect any problems though.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

ANI
Commented on about this mess. Qst (Userspace) 11:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Your deletion of Alfian Sa'at
Hello, I am the editor who originally created the article Alfian Sa'at, which you deleted three days ago due to "BLP concerns". I have been away from Wikipedia for several months now, so I haven't been monitoring any of the pages on my watchlist, and the deletion came as quite a surprise to me, especially as I don't recall anything particularly controversial about the information that was on the article. I would like to seek clarification on why the said article was deleted, and (in the scenario that the original deletion was done in good faith but with lack of contextual knowledge) possibly give my insights on the matter. - ryan  d  05:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The entire article lacked detailed sources and there were many many claims which could potentially cause Wikipedia serious legal problems. It's open for re-creation with full sourcing, however. I'm also afraid I can't provide you with the text because of the legal problems, but as long as any new article is fully sourced, I don't have any problem with the actual subject being covered on Wikipedia. I should also mention there were other, rather exceptional circumstances, which would also have warranted the article being deleted. Nick 10:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but you've barely answered my question. First of all, why deletion instead of tagging and/or an attempt to contact the article editors? Lack of detailed sources is hardly a reason for an action as drastic as deletion. Secondly, what claims, what legal problems and what other, rather exceptional circumstances are we talking about here? - ryan  d  17:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid I am unable to divulge the nature of the complaint I received, but please be assured if there was any other option but deletion of the article, it would have been taken. Nick 17:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * How then should I go about recreating the article, given that I have no idea what was wrong with it in the first place? - ryan  d  14:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * As long as any new article is fully sourced and doesn't contravene our policy on the biographies of living people you should be fine. Nick 16:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * To the best of my knowledge, I wrote the previous version of the article trying to conform to those exact same standards. I'm sorry, but you're asking me to take the risk of rewriting several days' work and having it deleted again because I don't know what top-secret legal policies I unknowingly contravened - an explanation I find hard to swallow because in my work on the article, I corresponded with the subject himself, and he gave the article his blessings. As far as I know, there were no claims in the article that could have possibly been construed as libelous - and even if there was unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material in the article, it could hardly have warranted a deletion. I am willing to accept the fact that I am mistaken and the original article had problems, but without the knowledge of what those problems were, I risk making the same mistakes again. As such, I will be taking this issue to WP:DRV - not to go over your head or anything, but I would really like an explanation for the deletion. - ryan  d  11:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Alfian Sa'at. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. - ryan  d  11:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

User:TREYWiki Block
I think the block on Trey is a tad excessive. An apology is in order, possibly even a 24 hour block, but indefinite, that is beyond harsh. Trey has only been blocked once before and that was something that I got him into and we both apologized to the user after our blocks expired. I would request that you rethink this block, knock it down to 12 or 24 hours and request an apology issued afterwards and let all be forgotten. Since this is an oversight, indefinite in too harsh. Trey is a very hard-working editor who keeps his nose clean and has a track record to back it up. Please reconsider.

Full disclosure, I am a friend of Trey's (online) but I was not asked by him to post this. - NeutralHomer  T:C 20:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * We're going to ask Arbcom to look at this. As I said to Trey on IRC, the block doesn't need to be permanent, he can be unblocked as soon as we get the situation straightened out. Nick 20:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * If you have made the ArbCom request, could I have the link for it, please? Thanks. -  NeutralHomer  T:C 20:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * At the moment, I've only submitted a summary of the situation to ArbCom via e-mail, there's no case open as yet, and indeed, there may not even be a case. Nick 20:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Okie Dokie...either way, would you please let me know. I would appericate it. -  NeutralHomer  T:C 20:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Everybody will be kept informed of what is happening. Nick 20:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. - NeutralHomer  T:C 20:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you!
Thanks in part to your support, I am Wikipedia's newest bureaucrat. I will do my best to live up to your confidence and kind words. Andre (talk) 09:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

In all fairness
In all fairness I should be able to see this apparent "daming evidence" against me. It is rather apparent that you side on JzG on this one, maybe you even see me as a troll or vandal (two things I am not). But if you are to warrant yourself as a fair and impartial admin or wikipedian, then please play fair, and I'm asking you very nicely, please won't you show me what that link went to? Rfwoolf 19:23, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It happens to show every single edit you have made to Wikipedia that has been deleted. Nick 19:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Sputnikmusic
With regard to the e-mail I sent you about Sputnikmusic's "professional" status. We have a staff that has been approved. Non-staff only should be deleted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums/Archive_17#Sputnikmusic.27s_placing_on_non-professional_list

-Nick


 * This really isn't anything to do with me, you need to take the issue up with the operator of ShadowBot. It issues the warnings and after your 4 strikes, any administrator is likely to block you, much as I did. Nick 21:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

"Walked away"
Of course he walked away! He's the target of the compaint! Seriously, do you approve of calling someone (ANYONE) a whining twat? Don't we have rules here? ATren 22:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I am asking you for the last time to please drop this complaint. Nick 22:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * And I am asking you why? Why are personal attacks justified here? ATren 22:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I wasn't immediately aware you have held a grudge against JzG for some considerable period of time. Please drop this whole crusade now please. JzG treats editors with a level of respect that's appropriate. Editors that go around creating vastly offensive pages can expect to be treated in a similar fashion. Nick 22:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * A grudge? First of all, there's no grudge (JzG is the one who constantly insists on personalizing everything I do) but even if it were a grudge - what does that have to do with his behavior here? I happened upon personal attacks from a user who has a history of them, I tried reporting it and I'm threatened. I don't get it. If JzG found me violating some pillar policy and reported me, could I get out of it by claiming he has a grudge against me? ATren 22:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I've sent you email. Please respond. ATren 22:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Talk page blanking
I'm rather concerned to see that you made this edit. The original post was not vandalism. If you disagree with the poster please rebut the statement rather than blank it, particularly since the post was made to my own user talk page. Durova Charge! 18:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Nothing but inconsequential forum shopping on the part of the editor in question which has been and is still going on in a number of different venues (none of them being the correct venues either). Nick 18:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Your action was unduly aggressive. No one is welcome to censor civil discussion at my user talk page.  Durova Charge! 00:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Why would you find it appropriate to censor another user's talk page? Your actions and your tone are uncivil and unwarranted. It's unclear why you feel that your position is more relevant than any other editors. Shame on you for your actions and words. Drew30319 15:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Please recognize that this now reflects that "... at least two editors must have contacted the user on their talk page, or the talk pages involved in the dispute ..." The ball is now in your court to work with us to resolve this issue in order to avoid community comment. It is in all of our best interests to resolve this amicably prior to that. Drew30319 15:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Work amicably to acheive what ? I reverted what I consider forum shopping, Durova didn't see it the same, case closed. Nick 20:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Concerning David in DC
David in DC seems to be having a legitimate problem with another user. He asked for advice and I suggest he take his dispute to the administrator notice board, but apparently you blocked him for an hour for doing so. I thought posting it on the administrator notice board would get the attention of some administrators to comment on it but I guess you didn't see it that way. I'm only posting this because I'm trying to find a solution to this problem. You suggested a WP:RFC but I think his request for help got several comments. Would you suggest an actual RFC? What do you think that would accomplish? Should he, if the RFC fails to solve the problem, go through a formal mediation? I'm just wondering what you would do in his situation. Thanks.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 12:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Blocking User:David in DC appears wholly inappropriate for a user that was requesting feedback through ANI which states "If you want to make an open informal complaint about misuse of administrative powers, you can do so here.". Thirty minutes after he requested feedback you blocked him - as you stated for "... disruption by listing this here. He's clearly well aware of the situation in order to be quoting text so he knows that's the same ultimatum other users involved have received." This is unacceptable behavior and egregious abuse of your admin position. I would appreciate a formal (and civil) response to these concerns. Thanks. Drew30319 15:52, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I am requesting, for a second time, a civil response to the concerns outlined above. Thanks Drew30319 16:08, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * See the note at the top of this page... ATren 16:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


 * There's no abuse of my administrator position in this case. I was not the subject of the complaint so there could be no abuse of my tools in blocking the user. I am completely pissed off telling people only for them not to listen, but I'll say this one more time, just to be perfectly clear. Take the matter to RfC or drop it. That's the same advice I have for you and for anybody else still complaining about the JzG case. Having multiple discussions going on all over Wikipedia isn't helpful, one central discussion taking place in the correct place might well be. I and I think everybody else considers this discussion over. Nick 20:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

TREYWiki
As you probably know, ArbCom didn't take up the appeal for Trey. So, what's next? You said we would cross that bridge when we got there, well we are here. I can't tell you how upset I am about this. Trey was an editor, who had one other blemish on his record, and he was blocked as a "precaution". Complete violation of admin rules, as far as I know. Bad faith was thrown about throughout the whole thing and an editor who screwed up and apologized, was not only shown bad faith by admins who are supposed to show nothing but good faith, but he was not given a second chance. Second chances that are passed around like pennies, second chances that common vandals are given on a daily basis. Trey didn't get one of those.

So, I ask again and for the last time (as I am disgusted with the whole thing) that his block be lifted and he be given that second chance and an apology be issued from all involved. I think we owe him that. - NeutralHomer  T:C 15:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * That's now a matter for the ArbCom. From what I've been told (not much, admittedly) it seems they looked at and refused Trey's appeal. They also suggest further requests can be e-mailed to the ArbCom. Given their endorsement of the block, and the potential repercussions of unblocking, it is not something I am prepared to consider. Nick 20:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Pulse_LED.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Pulse_LED.jpg, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. DieInquisitor 19:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:AAMilne_Myfarmpic.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:AAMilne_Myfarmpic.jpg, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. DieInquisitor 20:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:27507849_bd736cb2ab_b.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:27507849_bd736cb2ab_b.jpg, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. DieInquisitor 20:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Mason_Williams_-_Classical_Gas.ogg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Mason_Williams_-_Classical_Gas.ogg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. DieInquisitor 20:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Heligoland_RfA_Voting.png listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Heligoland_RfA_Voting.png, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. DieInquisitor 20:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Three_promo_poster.jpg
I have tagged Image:Three_promo_poster.jpg as orphaned fairuse. In order for the image to be kept at Wikipedia, it must be included in at least one article. If this image is being used as a link target instead of displayed inline, please add article name to the image description page to prevent it being accidentally marked as orphaned again. DieInquisitor 20:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)