User talk:NiggardlyNorm

Netsnipe

 * I have to hand it to you. Your username is very creative trolling of our Username policy. Per the consensus of myself and two other administrators on #wikipedia-en-admin, we've decided to accept your use of the word "Niggardly" as defined. However, please be aware that just because you've gotten away with a username that would be offensive to those less-versed in the English vocabulary, don't think that we'll be forgiving at all if your sole purpose is to disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. --  Netsnipe  ►  16:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

iPod article
The entire iPod article (the non-grammatical meaning of article) is a pool of inconsistency. No one has raised any objections after a consensus was established for the using the zero article. You may as well go through the entire article fixing the article inconsistencies. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 16:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm going to refer you again to the bold, revert, discuss cycle. When a change like this is disputed, it needs to gain consensus on the talk page before it can be reinstated.  There's no deadline.  The article's been this way for months at least, and a few more days isn't going to hurt no matter what the outcome of the discussion.
 * Please be aware that you're in danger of violating the three revert rule, a wikipedia policy intended to prevent edit warring. Please let the discussion run its course before making any more reverts to iPod.  Thanks.  -- Vary | Talk 21:20, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Response
I have no idea how full WP's servers are. I'll let the community decide what to do with that article. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Major Garrett
An editor has nominated Major Garrett, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 00:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

warning
This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive comments. If you continue to make personal attacks on other people, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text below. You have been abusive, you should take time and cool down: calling me a bot and not a human being combined with your on-the-edge user name seems to me that you're trying to create disruption. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:13, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Major Garrett

 * Working on it while you wait is fine, but please don't add your user page to categories. Also, linking to an Amazon product page is probably a bad thing ... as is linking to blogs unless it is the blog itself that you are reporting on (ie, Begala's own blog is a reliable source for Begala's own comments/plans in life). --B (talk) 04:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Apologies for adding my user page to a category. I certainly didn't intend for my talk page to be construed as a journalist stub, just trying to put some more information somewhere. I am still amazed that this block could be considered justified. NiggardlyNorm (talk) 04:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It's obviously not justifiable. See Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents.  If other admins agree, the block will be removed. --B (talk) 05:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

What is going on here?
From Articles_for_deletion/Major_Garrett

''*Delete. Not sure why an article that short needed to be posted; it's obvious that only minimal effort went into its creation. There's reams of data available about Garrett and his career; an hour or so with Google (at the very least) would have created the basis for a pretty good article, so this one doesn't have any justification for existence. Duncan1800 (talk) 04:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)''


 * In other words, there are reams of information about this person. It has the potential to be a "pretty good article" with about an hour's work. Therefore, it doesn't have any justification for existence. Is this type of thought process the norm on Wikipedia these days?

''*By the way, that's a speedy delete vote for me under A7, especially after reading the user's talk page and his rather clever way of skirting the username issue. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)''


 * How does it ever make sense to delete an article because of the username of the person who created it?

''*Delete unless sources and some content are added. Torc2 (talk) 01:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC)''


 * Well, isn't that what the "unsourced" and "stub" templates are for? How would any article ever be created under these rules, unless it instantly sprang into being?

NiggardlyNorm (talk) 05:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Unblock

 * I don't see how this block is appropriate unless there's something more. I will ask the blocking admin. --B (talk) 04:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * In reply to your question about why I don't make the unblock myself, unilaterally undoing an admin action (except in a case where it was obviously accidental or bad faith) is usually frowned upon. CAT:RFU is frequently patrolled and if another admin or two endorse the unblock, I'll do it. --B (talk) 04:51, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Given the interaction between the admin and the user, this was an inappropriate block. The admin was involved, and it was hardly a personal attack. --Stephen 05:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

BIG apology
Sorry about all the mess over the Major Garrett flap. Equally sorry about the message I left on your IP page. I didn't know it was you. I've had experience with trolls who monitor AfD discussions and try and disrupt them. I had now way of knowing it was you until I saw the message you left on the AfD page which you resigned under your username. Here's hoping your weekend is a nice one! Very truly yours, --PMDrive1061 (talk) 04:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)



PMDrive1061 (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

April 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. Please remember to observe our core policies. Onorem♠Dil 19:36, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

JtP
Saw your addition - be prepared for a battle on WP:RS from certain elements who will try to strip it out.Mattnad (talk) 19:05, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

File problem Boy_with_duplo_blocks.jpg
There is a problem with the file you added. Can you help? They cannot find it on Flickr. Macuser (talk) 23:03, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Circle contact lens.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Circle contact lens.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 22:03, 29 December 2015 (UTC)