User talk:Nsk92/Archive 7

Prod of Brooks-Iyengar Algorithm
I have removed the prod tag from Brooks-Iyengar Algorithm, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the prod template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Articles for deletion. Thanks! --RL0919 (talk) 02:21, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, I've listed it for an AfD. Nsk92 (talk) 03:22, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

"Importance" field
I will even agree that the concept of pseudo-Anosov map has high importance for low-dimensional topology. However, the purpose of the field "importance" is to record the priority of various articles for the Wiki Project Mathematics, so that people interested in systematically improving the coverage know where to best invest their effort (articles are sorted by fields and priorities on the corresponding technical pages). The apparent discrepancy had generated a lot of acrimony in the past, which is why it was eventually renamed "priority" in the visible rating (but not in the template itself). Not a big deal either way with me, but so that you know. Cheers! Arcfrk (talk) 04:13, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I must confess that I don't really see substantial difference here. Shouldn't the articles on concepts and results of high mathematical importance also have high priority for Wiki Project Mathematics in terms of working on improving them? Nsk92 (talk) 10:00, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Richard Tylman (4th nomination)
Hi, Nsk92. Because you participated in Deletion review/Log/2010 January 18, you may be interested in Articles for deletion/Richard Tylman (4th nomination). Cunard (talk) 02:07, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Phenotype
Nsk92, please take a look at the history of Phenomics and at Talk:Phenotype and at the bottom of my talk page. It's a mess, but I think we can sort it all out one way or another. Thanks! -- Nuujinn (talk) 19:57, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll keep an eye on these pages, but I am a mathematician, not a biologist, and my interest in these topics is rather incidental. Nsk92 (talk) 20:58, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer granted
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   01:30, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

No I Will Not
No, I will not stop deleting Russian/Cyrillic from English articles.

I own two Encyclopedias, and I have read many other encyclopedia editions, and foreign language insinuation is NOT, repeat NOT standard, and does NOT need to be a Wiki standard, either.

I hope you are enjoying your semi-retirement, and I urge you to proceed to full retirement if all you have to do is hector people like me whose revisions are fully in line with what should be Wiki SOP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NCDane (talk • contribs) 02:53, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

User:NCDane
I left a warning on this user's talk. They stopped after your final warning so I did not want to block them (other admins may feel differently due to NCDane's threat to continue and the user may be blocked anyway). I will keep watch and will follow up on my warning to them if necessary. See ya 'round  Tide  rolls  09:26, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks! Nsk92 (talk) 11:01, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Another Mises Inst. vanity page for deletion
There are a few other articles out there like the bio of Jeffrey_Herebener:Mises Institute vanity pages for non-notable academics with WP:PROF and WP:UNDUE problems. One more, that of Jörg Guido Hülsmann has been nominated for deletion. After having seen your constructive input in the Herebener discussion, I thought I'd post this message here.Bkalafut (talk) 01:31, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Gentlemen's agreement
I was wondering if you might like to take another look at Gentlemen's agreement/Articles for deletion/Gentlemen's agreement since I've added some content and references to the article. Thanks! Cheers! Location (talk) 06:15, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Dr. Kenneth K. Kim's Article

 * A few things. First, stop posting so much to my talk page; if you have more to say, post it to the AfD page, not here. Second, read WP:AGF and stop trying to accuse people who disagree with you of some sort of underhanded motives. Third, "I thought the criteria for making it into wikipedia was based on being noteworthy by one or two secondary secondary sources that were considered reliable" is very far from the mark. If a source like that happens to be a book specifically about the person in question, then even a single source may be sufficient for establishing notability. For sources like newspaper articles, one typically needs quite a few sources to prove notability, certainly something in double digits.  Nsk92 (talk) 19:14, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * First of all, I'm really sorry. I wasn't trying to accuse you of any underhanded motive, and I thought I was making that clear but I realize now that I was not. I was just trying to get an explanation and looking for an answer. I also have a lot of respect for your opinion because you've actually been very supportive in terms of responding and providing a logical explanation. My logic is a bit off right now due to my lack of sleep and rest thanks to my most recent obsession, but I was only trying to get a logical answer to a question because (believe it or not) I thrive on logic. Also, I wasn't trying to bombard your talk page with accusatory remarks. Finally, I am truly apologetic, but I really just don't know where exactly it says that newspaper articles need to have quite a few sources in the "double digits". I am really confused because I am getting so many different wikipedia rules, policies, and requirements thrown at me at the same time, with some of these issues appearing to be still hotly debated.People bios (talk) 19:27, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I will stop leaving you posts here.People bios (talk) 19:27, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Ratinator
whatever. I am done with wikipiedia for now anyway. I was just making a point. And I dont really think he made it clear he doesnt want to communicate with me. He actually didnt delete my trout slap and hinstead decided to use it himself.24.45.87.159 (talk) 19:46, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, it is still a good idea to leave him alone. Regarding making a point, I am pretty sure you made it, but you may want to look up WP:POINT. Nsk92 (talk) 19:51, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * And by the way, the point I was making is that he clears all of the warnings from his talk page and yet he yelled at another user for doing the samething.24.45.87.159 (talk) 19:52, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Template_talk:Did_you_know
Please check. I have modified the hook. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 12:38, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll take a look. Nsk92 (talk) 12:40, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Quoted the sentences, please check. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 13:09, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Have replied. Also, the reference is for the entire account. Is adding the ref after every sentence necessary? I request to copy-paste the ref wherever/if needed. Thanks. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 13:28, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Followed your other suggestion. Please check the lead. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 13:52, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Perfect, thanks. The simplest solution is often the best. I'll mark the entry as verified. Nsk92 (talk) 13:54, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 14:21, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Robert Dorman
Thanks for your message. I've now added a proper reference to the statement. Warofdreams talk 13:27, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. I've marked the entry as verified. Nsk92 (talk) 13:50, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination for Richie Castellano
(or you can check my nomination's entry) DiverDave (talk) 02:38, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: Hook
May I suggest you ask the article's creator about it? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 09:40, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, will do. Nsk92 (talk) 11:38, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, OK, any suggestions?
I chose it completely on a lark. (I'm big on biographies and I had just finished one about Frances Hodgson Burnett when I needed to come up with a user name to edit a restricted area. I typed in "secret garden" or something and it was taken so I typed in--well, the one I have, and it wasn't taken.) What would you suggest?--FrancesHodgsonBurnett&#39;sTheSecretGarden (talk) 20:45, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Err, sorry, but I don't think it is my place to suggest a specific username. Choosing a username is a rather personal decision. I am sure you'll think of something. Nsk92 (talk) 20:50, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't say you had to. In any case, I've started a discussion here.--FrancesHodgsonBurnett&#39;sTheSecretGarden (talk) 20:54, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Whadya think: 22:00, 12 July 2010 (UTC)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk • contribs)
 * Yes, that certainly looks better. Nsk92 (talk) 04:06, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Happy Nsk92's Day!
For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk  • 00:51, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Nsk92 (talk) 04:04, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al Fand training camp (4th nomination)
They must be kidding. :)) You want to start the DRV or shall i do? Articles for deletion/Al Fand training camp (4th nomination) IQinn (talk) 06:24, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I have left a note at the closing admin's page. Let's see what he says first. Nsk92 (talk) 06:49, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I also just left a note at the same time. (edit conflict) Yeah let's see what he says. IQinn (talk) 06:57, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I saw your note. I have to say, you are not helping your case by coming off sounding so aggressive towards the closing admin (the stuff about misuse of power in the header in particular). Nsk92 (talk) 07:06, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You are right again. I <:s> it, said sorry, and will see what comes. Thank's for telling me. IQinn (talk) 07:31, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Template_talk:Did_you_know
Replied. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 16:31, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. I've marked the hook as verified. Nsk92 (talk) 16:35, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Template talk:Did you know
Hi, I notice you're doing a lot of reviewing lately. I was wondering if you could review my article, too? When I posted it on July 10, someone asked me on my talk page to help them clean up the backlog, and I've reviewed dozens of articles since, but somehow my article has been overlooked. Thanks so much, Yoninah (talk) 21:19, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I was just about to go to bed, but I'll take a look. Nsk92 (talk) 21:25, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Communiqué "Geochange"
hi.i want to restore the article and edit. tell me please what i must do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ismail Valiyev (talk • contribs) 09:51, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "I want to restore the article and edit" is not a good enough reason. The article has been deleted after an AfD and you need to respect the result. You may work on improving the article in your user-space, by creating a subpage of your user-page. If, after improving the article, you believe that you have addressed the notability issues raised in the AfD, it may be appropriate to move it back into the mainspace. Before moving it the mainspace (and only after substantively addressing issues raised in the AfD), I suggest that you post a request at WP:DRV to see if there is consensus that the article has been sufficiently improved. You may also want to look into using WP:INCUBATOR to work on the article. Nsk92 (talk) 10:19, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, you should really read up on WP:SOCK and, in particular, WP:MEAT, as well as WP:CANVASSING. What you did in the AfD, Articles for deletion/Communiqué "Geochange" was quite a transparent violation of these policies. You can be blocked for this type of behaviour, especially if it repeats. Nsk92 (talk) 10:45, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Request for Adminship
 Hello , thank you for participating in my recent RFA. I have taken all your comments into consideration and will make sure that I do it right if I plan on doing another RFA. Also, please do have a look at the comments made by other editors and myself, regarding this RFA. Thank you again, and have a nice day! Rehman(+) 02:55, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

timing
of course it does not refer to you--you made the appeal--how could it--it refers to the timing of the comments afterwards. I have always had full confidence in your integrity.  DGG ( talk ) 03:57, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. However, in my experience, when a possibility of canvassing is brought up, it is usually (or at least often) directed at the initiator of a particular thread; at least where the comments being questioned were in support of the initiator's position. That is how I interpreted your comment at the time. I am still now sure which three users you meant in your comment, but User:Tarc is a regular at DRV; he hangs out there all the time so it is perfectly natural that he would have seen a new thread and commented in it. User:Hobit, whom, I believe you are well familiar with, is also a DRV regular, a rather experienced user and is a fairly well known inclusionist. It is rather unlikely that anyone would canvass him for a "delete" opinion. Nsk92 (talk) 04:25, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Northern Utina
Please see my comment re your recommendation at DYK for Northern Utina. The article was created in user space but not moved into the main space until July 13. Thanks.--Cúchullain t/ c 14:19, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I see it now; you used a page-move rather than cut&paste. I've marked the entry as verified. Nsk92 (talk) 14:31, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Nsk.--Cúchullain t/ c 14:54, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Could you please explain...
WRT this comment, for the record, did you mean to imply bad faith on my part? I am asking because I can't tell.

Article standards were looser when I started those articles, in 2006. There was, for instance, no WP:BLP. Contributors were only beginning to use pairs.

I think it was entirely appropriate to raise the proposal in all those fora. I think it was inappropriate of the wiki-id who nominated many of these articles for deletion to have failed to advise those participating in those afd of the proposal. The proposal also refutes the claim that the articles had been abandoned.

I have personal standards. I aim to own up when I make mistakes. I aim to do my best to clean up after my own mistakes. In my proposal I owned up to a mistake, and I suggested a plan to clean up after it. As I said in my answer to User:Sphilbrick, on User talk:Geo Swan, I wasn't expecting anyone else to have to do any work on the merges I suggested. I don't know where you got this idea.

I don't understand why you assert "By creating this multitude of extremely non-notable 'traning camp' articles in mainspace, Geo Swan has created a problem of significant magnitude..."

WP:NOT says wikipedia is not a battleground. The deletion policies say deletion should generally be a last resort, to be used if discussion fails. I think that since the wiki-id who nominated most of these articles for deletion (but not the one on the Moroccan camp) was aware of the proposal they really should have tried voicing their concern first, at the proposal, and their choice not to do so was a lapse from WP:BATTLEGROUND.

When you write: "The only reasonable, the only sane solution..." -- was it your intention to question someone's sanity? Geo Swan (talk) 00:15, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I did not imply bad faith on your part, but I believe your actions are very much misguided. You are, of course, free to raise your proposal anywhere you want. But you are not in a position to blame other people for not participating in this proposal even after they have seen it. The multiple articles you created are on rather obscure topics and it is apparent that nobody, except for you, is particularly interested in those topics. The fact that nobody, except for one comment from DGG, has responded to your proposal since it was created in March, is proof of that. Yes, acting much in good faith, I am sure, but you have created dozens of articles on manifestly non-notable subjects (each one based on one-two sentences mentioning a particular "training camp" in Guantanamo documents), which have been sitting in mainspace for years. The primary responsibility for cleaning up the situation lies with you, no-one else. Nobody, whether or not they have seen your proposal, has any moral obligation to participate in it, particularly given the significant scale of the problem that you created. (The problem, to answer your question, is the long-term presence in mainspace of a plethora of articles on clearly non-notable subjects). Regarding deletion, in cases where it is obvious to a particular user that a particular article does not satisfy the inclusion criteria, the proper course of action is to nominate that article for deletion. This is how the deletion process works, and there is no obligation on the part of the nominator to discuss the deletion with anyone else beforehand. As a matter of practice, such prior discussions almost never occur and they are not perceived by the community as either required or expected. You are completely wrong in assuming bad faith on Iquinn's part and constantly blaming him in your posts. It is just that until recently he has been the only one who has noticed just how very far from satisfying the notability requirements these "training camp" articles are. He is not the most experienced user and his actions, at times, have been abrupt and clumsy. But on the basic underlying content issue he is absolutely correct. Now that more people noticed these articles, others have started listing them for AfD. The bottom line is that the "training camp" topics are too obscure and your "training camp" articles are too many for anyone else to be reasonably expected to invest a great deal of their time in sifting through this stuff and deciding what should go where. The responsibility to do that is yours. The correct thing to do here, in my strong opinion, is to delete essentially all of these articles and userfy them to your userspace. Then, on your own time and at your own speed, you can figure out what to do with them. You cannot and should not ask the community for more in this situation. Regarding "the only sane thing to do" comment,  I cannot believe that you can seriously interpret it as questioning anyone's sanity. When you make such accusations, you yourself are violating AGF and you are not going to convince anyone of validity of your positions by continuously trying to ascribe sinister motives to people advocating deletion of your articles. Nsk92 (talk) 04:29, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Jaeson Ma
Thank you for declining the speedy deletion of Jaeson Ma's page. My students have been bugging me to write an article on this guy. Ƥ Ɓ ❤  ʗ Һ ɑ ﾋ   09:11, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, sure. As far as I can tell, the subject appears notable, based on GoogleNews results. However, I suggest that you add a few more refs to it, if you want to avoid a potential AfD. Nsk92 (talk) 09:19, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thank you for the suggestion. I most definitely will. I am planning on having my students look for some articles today since 1) it teaches them to discern between reliable and unreliable sources and 2) they admire this guy so much. My wiki obsession has been passing over to them. Ƥ Ɓ ❤  ʗ Һ ɑ ﾋ   14:55, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Glyn Pardoe DYK
Hi. In this edit I removed a "verified icon" from before the hook, assuming it was placed there by mistake. I then noticed in the discussion that you stated you "marked the original hook as verified." There is no verification icon at the discussion besides for the one I removed, so I suspect that I removed the icon that you placed at the discussion. Letting you know in case you want to correct it. Thanks, -- Pink Bull  16:34, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Kirishima DYK
I think I've fixed the issues with the DYK hook for Japanese battleship Kirishima. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 17:57, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Logan Lerman
I edited the Logan Lerman article at about the same time you reverted the edit by Houseof.black...That's why my edit, which should just improve the style of the article, reverted yours. TRBP (talk) 13:10, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Revert on User:AnOddName
Thank you for the [ revert]. I appreciate it! --an odd name 21:18, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, sure. This IP was on a bit of a vandalism spree and I reverted several of similar edits before the IP got blocked. Rollback does come in handy sometimes. Nsk92 (talk) 21:25, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you
Hey there, Nsk92, I appreciated your comments at Articles for deletion/Daryl Wine Bar and Restaurant. Particularly your (specific) suggestions on how to improve the page and a specific subsection of the article. Not sure whether I should address that point during the AFD itself, or let it close first, but will think that over. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 21:30, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure, you are welcome. Nsk92 (talk) 21:36, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * An update: With regard to your suggestion and that of other comments at the AFD and the article's talk page, I was able to find a source that gave some critical commentary, and I have added that into the Reception subsection of the article . I have also managed to trim down the overall size of the Reception subsection (made a note about that at the AFD page), and it now is more concise and succinct. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 06:00, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

re: Revolutionary Left Front
Hi. I replied to your query on T:TDYK. Thanks, --Soman (talk) 14:06, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I had already replied to your comment there, before you left this message here. Basically, I'd like to see a few more publication details added to the ref (such as English translation of the title, and the year of the study, if available). Nsk92 (talk) 14:15, 28 July 2010 (UTC)