User talk:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington/Archive/Archive13

{| style="border-spacing:8px;margin:0px -8px"  Messages
 * width="100%" class="MainPageBG" style="border: 1px solid #FADA60; background-color: #ffffd5; vertical-align:top;"|

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

Archives: The Basement

>

"Roiter vandal"?
G'day. I noted you blocked User:Luxor99 (good job), with the comment "possible roiter vandal". What exactly is a roiter vandal? I can't find the term on WP, nor in my (albeit cursory) Google search, and I'm over 40 and an art student so my leet-speak (if that's what it is) is way below zero.

2nd - Should there not be a block tag on his talk page? I was about to reply to him that he wasn't blocked -- I had left a sweetly-worded warning) -- but on a hunch I checked block logs. Since the templates are "Admin Only", could I trouble you to add one on his page? Tks.

3rd - Do you have a shorter nickusername one can employ when addressing you, like "Sir Nick", "Heady", "SNiMP", or do I keep Ctrl-C'ing the page title and Ctrl-V'ing it here, Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington? :)


 * Thanks. -- Sig Pig  |SEND - OVER 22:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Greetings. Roiter vandals are those who leave subtle vandalism on Wikipedia articlespace which is hard to detect. I am not still sure if I am spelling it correctly (Reuter vandal doesn't exist :P).


 * sofixit - You can add the template
 * I prefer Sir Nicholas. :) &mdash; Nearly Headless Nick   {C}  07:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Islam and slavery
Please do not confuse this page with Dispute resolution Hi Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington,

I hope everything is going well with you. I was wondering if you can help with the Islam and slavery article. As you can see User:Arrow740 is removing a lot of sourced material without discussing them and reaching consensus on the talk page. . Just to point to one among many examples is removal of the quote from Seyyed Hossein Nasr. The user is further edit-warring rather than discussing the points one by one as it is expected from the one who initiates such a removal. IF you are not busy, I would be greatly appreciate if you could help us there. Thanks --Aminz 08:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know anything about the subject. If it escalates into an edit-war, please let me know. But please, don't revert more than once in a day. And you can call me Nick. Regards, &mdash; Nearly Headless Nick   {C}  08:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. Thanks anyways Nick! Cheers, --Aminz 08:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Aminz is being deceptive. Many of the issues have been discussed at length there and at other articles prior to today and yesterday. Moreover, another user began the removal, and was quite clear in his edit summaries. I largely put his edits back after Aminz's many reverts. In fact I have explained on the talk (for the second and third time in many cases) why I removed what I did. Arrow740 08:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * See Dispute resolution and assume good faith with everyone. Best, &mdash; Nearly Headless Nick   {C}  08:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, another user began. It is user KittyHawker and Arrow supported him. Please see User:KittyHawker's contribution. He usually starts editing an article for the first time and removes lots of stuff. Another example when this user edited Jihad article:. Here is when he touches Criticism of the Qur'an for the first time . Please note the mass removal of sourced material. The reaons he provides are vague, sometimes strange, edit summaries. --Aminz 09:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

User:BabyDweezil 3RR

 * I would ask that you look again at the most recent WP:3RR violation by User:BabyDweezil. It is a separate instance, in an unrelated article, that does not involve WP:BLP.  Smee 09:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC).
 * Nevermind. Thanks for your time.  Smee 09:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC).
 * Eww, I am so sorry. Messed it up. :P &mdash; Nearly Headless Nick   {C}  09:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * No worries. Smee 09:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC).

Re
Nothing much... Busy with RL these days so editing is greatly reduced... &mdash; Lost (talk) 10:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is failing
Why have you protected the deleted page so that no-one can find where the essay is now? Worldtraveller 11:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I did not delete it. But I did protect it to prevent recreation. That seems to have consenus on WP:AN. Best, &mdash; Nearly Headless Nick   {C}  11:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I see consensus there at all. Several people are arguing for it to be kept.  Worldtraveller 11:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * There is no consensus. (Caniago 13:26, 17 February 2007 (UTC))

Thanks for dealing with this situation; it was getting out of hand. Just dropping a note to let you know s/he is demanding an explanation. Usually I'd just keep moving if the person hasn't added unblock, but s/he has added a legal threat to the demand as well. On a related note: great work on the 3RR violations. Some won't touch a malformed report; good to see some initiative.  auburn pilot   talk  17:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Could you please take a look at Silence-of-the-Wolves. It is an admitted sock of Benjiwolf, and is continuing the same disruption. A WP:SSP report was filed here, but I'm afraid we need more immediate attention. Thanks,  auburn pilot   talk  02:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Blocked indef. &mdash; Nearly Headless Nick   {C}  09:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration
I have initiated a Requests for arbitration, a matter in which I believe you to have been involved in the case history of. Your commentary may be appreciated. Balancer 13:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for notifying me. But it does not interest me at the moment. Thank you. &mdash; Nearly Headless Nick   {C}  17:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


 * In light of the proper order of steps to take, I have opened Requests for comment/Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington (2nd RfC), which you should also be informed of. Balancer 23:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Unblock request on one of your 3RR blocks
Please comment on the request for unblock at User talk:Wjhonson. Thanks, Newyorkbrad 00:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I suppose the block has already expired by now. &mdash; Nearly Headless Nick   {C}  13:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Support
Hey Nick. I can't say I've looked at much of the details of the recent RFAr's, but I've always considered you a talented and solid administrator and contributor, so I just wanted to offer you my support. Let me know if there's anything I can do. Eric (EWS23) 04:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yo. Thanks. I guess I will cabalise with you over email. See ya! &mdash; Nearly Headless Nick   {C}  13:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Concern
Hi Nick

I am getting concerned about user:Freedom skies edits. There are two areas of concern:


 * S/He has begun to remove material again that I have added to the Indian mathematics page. At first her/his complaint was that I was adding "Wikiquote material" (perhaps, since I was using "cquote").  I then began to paraphrase the quoted material and s/he complained that I had violated WP:NPOV and WP:NOR in my paraphrases.  See the discussion here, where s/he produced some exact quotes (which I had added earlier) and claimed that my paraphrases were not accurate.  So, I finally added the exact quotes (that s/he her/himself had quoted on the talk page)  here in addition to adding some technical material here (essentially all the material that doesn't have a "citation needed" tag on it).  Well, earlier today s/he made a number of edits, where s/he mostly removed material that was critical of the notion of Vedic mathematics.  (See here).  The material s/he has removed was all sourced and consists of text from articles in internationally known journals or well-known text-books published by Wiley and searchable on Amazon.  I have refrained from reverting anything as I had promised you, but I can't prepare the article for the RfC that I am planning on the mathematics portal, if material keeps getting removed.  Please advise.


 * What is troubling me more however, is a post on my talk page earlier today from user:IP198, who says that user: Freedom skies had stated in her/his edit summaries on some articles that IP198 is a sockpuppet of mine here and here. These are both articles that I have never edited, and hadn't even heard of the first, "Hindokowans."  Here are user IP198's posts on my page: InitialPost and here are: my replies to user IP198.  My only contact with user IP198 has been on the Talk: Salwar Kameez page, where as you can see, we have different points of view.  I don't know what game user:Freedom skies has in mind, but he seems to have scared user IP198, who apparently fears getting blocked by Freedom skies!  See their discussion here.  As I suggested to user IP198, I am happy to challenge user: Freedom skies or anyone else to a checkuser ID (for me and IP198) and with the condition that the loser in the challenge donate $200 to the Wikimedia foundation!  Anyway, please advise.  Thanks!   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  21:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I recommend that a closer look regarding the discussions on Talk:Indian mathematics is in order. Severe misrepresentations were made by Fowler and he attempted to present those misrepesentations as actual "critisisms." My understanding is that content disputes are resolved before actually being put in the articles in concern; as is being done by me and other editors on Talk:Zen. Fowler has gone on revert wars and has even indiscriminately removed the citations I procured after hours of research. His purpose of edits and assesments of mathematics are also given on the talk page, which not only is unethical but since it seperates geometry from mathematics, is also flawed. Since he has asked you for advice, I would recommend that you use your position to bring Fowler to the discussion table before he reverts again. His section, as inappropriate as it is, has still been allowed by me to stay in the article for the time being.

I have concerns that the user in question may have ben a sockpuppet of Fowler, given the nature of the editor involved it would not be improbable to assume that he would have an alternate account to aviod other users from checking on his contribs. The user IP198 reverted one of my edits to Fowler's version, shows unusual sophestication for a newcomer, has been known to "communicate" with fowler and has edits overlaping with Fowler. I will produce the overlaps on a future probable ocassion and will vigilantly watch for the activities of the editors involved. The response and allegations of the "user" of a "possible grudge" against fowler are also things I find extraordinary. Consider this section, here and here for details.

I, unlike, fowler and others am not keen on violation of WP ethics. All I ask is that Fowler discusses his edits and answers legitimate concerns before he reverts someone else's hard work.

Best Regards,

Freedom skies 07:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I have additional concerns regarding Fowler. He has initiated a revert war by maliciously stating that "reverting freedom skies' bogus reverts; have you added anything to this article yet, or do you only know how to revert.?" His new confidence may stem from his sucsess in involving a completely unrelated editor to help him out on Indian mathematics. The new editor has stated things like "oh dear, why cannot they just leave good enough alone." and "I suggest you sit back and watch F&f's work on the article, and maybe learn something."

Fowler's conduct on Indian mathematics has been extraordinary. I find this continuation of mailicious agenda surprising. Recruiting muscle to back him up up in revert warring and using semi-abusive online bullying does not amount to fair decent behaviour.

Kindly take appropriate action. There is bound to be trouble due to revert warring and semi-abusive bullying by the parties involved.

Freedom skies 10:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Response by a harried Sir Nicholas

 * I am not getting involved. I barely know anything about the topic.
 * I'd rather stick to those topics that are amply covered by sources over the internet.
 * Quibbling over hotly contested and disputed topics on Wikipedia, where the sources are not clear and unavailable is a major pain in the ass.
 * In case you did not notice, I have a second RfC on me. I guess, I am gaining notoriety faster than Darth Vader and Boba Fett, (you know what I mean).
 * And oh yeah, some one ask that dirty rouge admin to stop using rollback while reverting contentious edits.
 * Chao. &mdash; Nearly Headless Nick   {C}  12:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

A suggestion
I recommend that when closing AfDs against the numbers you give a better indication of your rationale. Some of these definitely need closing as delete, so it's worth the effort to avoid pain. An extensive rationale can forestall a lot of criticism. Guy (Help!) 23:37, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Roger, roger. &mdash; Nearly Headless Nick   {C}  13:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Question
Is this a 3RR violation by TJ Spyke:. All the reverts aren't 100 percent identical, but pretty close. It was reverting vandalism: but he could've easily reported the users instead of turning it into yet another wrestling article edit/revert war. RobJ1981 05:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Alan.ca
I appreciate the backup, but I think you might have missed part of the history. The "relist" comment was added by User:TigerShark while I was in the process of closing the AfD, although TigerShark did not actual relist the AfD other than add the relist comment. I completed the closure without noticing the relist notice. User:Alan.ca then reopened and relisted the AfD, completing what TigerShark started. Just letting you know since Alan seems intent on pushing this issue that he'll probably not be happy about your comment in light of this. Anyway, thanks all the same. —Doug Bell talk 14:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * That's ok. But it is well-within admin discretion to close the AfD if he feels that the community has put in it's opinion. In this case, there was a unanimous call to keep the article. Even if you ignored the template, no other user should revert back an administrator's edits. We have the WP:DRV process for that. &mdash; Nearly Headless Nick   {C}  14:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh I agree, just wanted to give you a heads up of how your comment to him might be taken. —Doug Bell talk 14:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Nevermind him. He has been blocked before. Doesn't take anything seriously. &mdash; Nearly Headless Nick   {C}  14:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

about civility
Hi Nick. Look, I don't want to be a dick about all of this but I do think you're being rude to me for no particular reason. You keep implying that since my RfA failed you understand policy better than I do: this is patently unfair and childish. I was in fact involved in the transformation of WP:N from an essay to a guideline and I have been one of the main architects of WP:BK. I've participated in probably hundreds of XfDs and have mostly used detailed constructive arguments to do so. Now we obviously don't quite agree on how policy should be interpreted and that's quite ok. But you should remain civil regardless of these disagreements. Cheers, Pascal.Tesson 15:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't spout WP:CIVIL at users whom you don't agree with. &mdash; Nearly Headless Nick   {C}  09:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Active RfC
I went ahead and weighed in on the active RfC concerning you, and have lent my support as I feel is appropriate. I am glad to see that Wikipedia still has some administrators left who are willing to fight the good fight against mob rule by the masses in favor of policy and encyclopedic standards. Be prepared for a rather heated RFC, as some of the people who didn't like your stand against voting blocs, canvassing, and policy-weak arguments will surely show up to accuse you of having some hidden agenda related to the complete abolishment of consensus on Wikipedia; just ignore those kooks - they belong on fan wikis and in chatrooms, and not on a place whose goal is intellectual writing of a meaningful nature. Keep fighting the good fight against fancruft and tribute pages! NetOracle 22:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

GamePro
The ignorance evident in your characterization of this magazine is shameful. Please be more careful in the future when it comes to evaluating sources. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 03:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * What kind of argument is that? &mdash; Nearly Headless Nick   {C}  08:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Repeated Vandalism by User:NanthanM on article Sengunthar
Hello Nick,

User: NanthanM (socket puppet of [User:Venki123] has been repeatedly vandalising the Sengunthar article. I suggest you block his ip and both the user ids for a while.

Vandalism 1: [Revision as of 11:06, 19 February 2007]

Vandalism 2: [Revision as of 11:11, 19 February 2007]

Vandalism 3: [Revision as of 18:25, 19 February 2007]

Vandalism 4: [Revision as of 17:00, 20 February 2007]

Vandalism 5: [Current revision (17:04, 20 February 2007)]

Thanks, Trinkle 21:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Asia Paranormal Investigators DRV
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Asia_Paranormal_Investigators. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Firet 06:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Better Badges
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Better Badges. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Wwwhatsup 22:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
 It's been a week since my recent request for adminship passed, and since I haven't managed to delete the Main Page - yet - I figure it's safe to send these out. Thanks a lot for participating in my RfA; I hope to do a good job. If you see me doing something wrong, need help, or just want to have a chat, please don't hesitate to drop by :) – riana_dzasta 07:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC) Thanks also for answering questions from a noob admin. 'Preciate it :) – riana_dzasta 07:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Articles_for_deletion/The_noob_%28Second_nomination%29
I must admit to being a little confused as to the result on this deletion vote, as there's 27 keeps and 14 deletes, if I count correctly. Was the article that bad? Just ask because I'm interested in webcomics, and was looking around the incidents page for administrators, and saw this deletion vote linked, and couldn't quite follow why it was. Adam Cuerden talk 14:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Your chance to show you have some aptitude after all
The camel that broke the straw's back - destroying several improvements, the last deed in a long line of edit-wars on this article. RCS 07:38, 24 February 2007 (UTC
 * That is content dispute. Try Dispute resolution. If this user is under certain restrictions from the Arbitration Committee, kindly let me know and I shall do the needful. Regards, &mdash; Nearly Headless Nick   {C}  13:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

INCOTW
You voted for Tata Steel, this week's Indian Collaboration of the Week. Please come and help it become a featured-standard article. - Aksi_great (talk) 19:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I only !vote, I never intend to edit. :) &mdash; Nearly Headless Nick   {C}  13:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Unblock ip
Kindly unblock ip 202.41.72.100 you had blocked this ip for requesting unprotection of your user discussion page, in your user page. This is not a valid reason for blocking an ip. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vinay412 (talk • contribs) 06:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC). Vinay412 06:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/202.41.72.100 Vinay412 09:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

my suggestion: you fully protect your user page. Vinay412 11:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The IP has been currently used by an indefinitely banned user. I will block as the IP is abused. Thanks for letting me know. In case, the users are unable to edit from your college, ask your network administrator to contact me via email. &mdash;  Nearly Headless Nick   {C}  12:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * indefinitely banned user is not at all related to this ip. pls go through contribs of ip. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/202.41.72.100. and there u see no abuse. Vinay412 10:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, Welcome to Wikipedia and have fun! (even if you're kuntan) ;) &mdash; Nearly Headless Nick   {C}  10:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * ip is not unblocked yet fyi. i think you are confused with some other ip of kuntan. try forgetting kuntan ;) Vinay412 05:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Dancing puppets trick listed for deletion
Just thought you might want to weigh in if you have time. According to the page history, you apparently removed a video (appropriately) that was the only external source validating the page. Just in case you have any other input, I thought I'd let you know. Thanks. Carolfrog 02:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Advice Me
This is regarding edit reversions by Vinay412 on wikipedia. He added something related to alexa and I reverted it back since I thought that it was not relevant. He reverted my edits without any reason given. So I did what I thought was the policy i.e., adding to show content that particular section is disputed and started a discussion on the talk page. He removed the tag without resolving the issue and reposted his original content. He even went to the length of starting a personal attack against me on the wikipedia talk page. I already crossed 2 reverts and do not wish to make myself eligible for blocking by going against 3RR. I sincerely wish you could advice me as to what do more on this matter. I have seen him requesting some IP unblocking on your talk page so I thought you could help me out regarding his authenticity.

The following user is continuing the edit-war mindlessly without any regard for the Wikipedia's policies: User:Vinay412

Check the history of orkut for further info: Orkut's History

&mdash; 17:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Alexa data i added extra and did not delete any of his content, which is different data than given in orkut. for details visit orkut discussionVinay412 04:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * i given proper reason for my addition(both in my talk and discussion in orkut). instead of replying to the reason i gave, user:huntscorpio is talking only about revert, ban, policy etc etc. kindly advice him to reply to point.

unblock request from freakdomination
Kindly unblock Freakdomination its been over a month and he has promised per his talk page not to insert any spam links. Accoring to his contributions he was blocked for 1 link in 1 article and I really don't see a history of him inserting links in multiple articles. thanks BigTimeGamer 02:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Happy Anniversary!
'''Wishing User: a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Birthday Committee! Anna512 (talk) 15:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Happy adminship day bro. ~ Arjun 01:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

'''Wishing User: a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Birthday Committee! Extranet (Talk 03:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Survey Invitation
Hi there, I am a research student from the National University of Singapore and I wish to invite you to do an online survey about Wikipedia. To compensate you for your time, I am offering a reward of USD$10, either to you or as a donation to the Wikimedia Foundation. For more information, please go to the research home page. Thank you. --WikiInquirer 22:05, 3 March 2007 (UTC)talk to me

Requests for arbitration/Philwelch
The above entitled arbitration case has closed, and the final decision has been published at the link shown. The Arbitration Committee has found that Philwelch misused his administrative tools. Because he gave up his status as an administrator in the face of controversy concerning his administrator actions and after an arbitration case was filed against him, he may not be automatically re-granted adminship. However, he is free to seek readminship, should he choose to do so, at any time by a request for adminship at WP:RfA. For the Arbitration Committee, Thatcher131 12:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The noob
An editor has asked for a deletion review of The noob. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Adam Cuerden talk 03:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: User:161.200.255.162
hi! i've read your last warning to 161.200.255.162 and i would like to put some warnings to him too regarding Chulalongkorn University too but i don't know how. i'm not also sure if the edits he did in the university's article is legitimate or not. would it be okay for you to check the article and revert if possible? thanks! Fddfred 10:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

195.188.173.233
Thanks for banning the above IP, its my school, and really it deserves a perm block, ther vandalism will start again as soon as the block ends - its a group of 13-18 year olds - what will happen. Thanks Willow177 15:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Award of a Barnstar

 * Thanks for the barnstar, man. I am back, briefly. Best wishes. &mdash; Nearly Headless Nick   {C}  14:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Request
When editors lie in the AFD there vote should be crossed out and be banned for at least one month from voting in AFD, DRV, and MFD. I created an article that the text of the article substantially changed and put it in mainspace and it was speedily deleted because of lies it was largely a recreation of the same article. If you can take a look at my contributions and see what really happenend and restore that article back to mainspace it would be most appreciated. In final, if you do restore it back in mainspace, please get and paste the current version from projectspace and put in the heart of articlespace. Or if you give me permission after you have investigated I will put it back where it belongs -- at home in mainspace. Just leave a message on the talk page about, it was most certainly not a recreation of the same article. It was a logical fallicy and lies. When you get a chance please return this article back to mainspace. We should not reward people who make false and misleading statements on Wikipedia. I am still mystified by this whole thing. I opened a deletion review to no avail. I was shocked. I am puzzled by how people can lie and their vote can be counted in the AFD as well as the DRV. Thank you very much for all your help. Q uack  G uru   TALK 20:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Arnon Katz
I should be grateful if you would explain to me - purely for my info as a relative newcomer - why you have already deleted this article. I had understood that AfDs should last for 7 days, yet this one lasted less than five.--R613vlu 22:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * AfDs last for five days. You can review these pages on Wikipedia's policies of verifiability and reliability to understand why the page was deleted. Best wishes. &mdash; Nearly Headless Nick   {C}  10:07, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Please act on concensus, and do not simply override it to impose your own wishes
You illegitimately closed Articles for deletion/Central-Hower High School even though there was nothing remotely close to a consensus to delete and it is well known that high school articles are considered legitimate by a large part of the community. This is abuse of process, abuse of your admin privileges and serious misconduct. If you are not willing to follow the consensus policy, I suggest you should ask to be relieved of your duties as an admin. Cloachland 14:55, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

My RfA
Thank you for your support during my recent RfA. I'm glad to say it was successful, and I hope I'll make good use of the admin tools. Shimeru 16:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

The Noob
Just wondering why the article on The Noob was permenantly deleted? I can't seem to find anything that says why. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Noob (talk • contribs) 19:23, 17 March 2007
 * If you go to that page, you're presented with a number of links which you can check yourself, one of which is its entry over at Deletion Review. You can also visit both AFDs and assess for yourself. The general consensus (in both AFDs and the Deletion Review) was that it's not notable enough to merit its own page. Some of the tools which are used in such decisions are Google and Alexa. To illustrate, only 290 pages link to that site and it has an Alexa rating of 30,724. Skult of Caro (talk) 20:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Before I go and whip up some whiz-bang template to thank users for their support, I'd like to thank you for nominating me. The RFA passed at 89/1/1, which means I am now an administrator. Now, if it weren't for the time zone difference, I wouldn't have been trying out these 'shiny' buttons in the early hours of this morning. (It's now 7:30am and I'm up for round 2 of Mike v CSD :D) Just leave me a note if I do something really silly, ok? Cheers and have a nice day. --Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 21:30, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, now that I have time to do this, you can have one of the above-mentioned whiz-bang templates to thank you again:

5 minutes of fame
I expect you've had this pointed out 1,000 times already by now, but just in case - did you know that you were mentioned on the radio? fraggle 14:37, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * He knows. In fact, he was the one who pointed that out to me. Skult of Caro (talk) 03:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Heya
Oh, that sucks! I'll see you around then, I'll try to do the gtalk thing sometime. :) – Riana talk 15:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I meant - I'll get on Gtalk once in a while, and maybe our wires will cross. Yeah, I can't really imagine life without the interwebz. *shudder* – Riana talk 15:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Oversighted
I've oversighted the edits. :) =Nichalp   «Talk»=  14:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Narendra Modi
Smart move. Baka man  16:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Death of Bob Woolmer
I have moved this page back to it's original heading - if you wish it to move moved, can you please discuss it on the talkpage. Many thanks, Davnel03 16:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Started discussion on the relevant talk page. Thanks for letting me know. Best, &mdash; Nearly Headless Nick   {C}  11:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

My RfA
Thank you for your support in my recent successful RfA. As I have now gone 36 hours without either deleting the main page or blocking Jimbo, all should be well. --Anthony.bradbury 15:01, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

My RfB
I'm confused by your opposition on my RfB. Is there any reason why you don't want me to be a bureaucrat? You say "I'd rather see you continue your work as a dirty rouge admin than a diplomat or a politician." Well, if I was promoted, I would definitely continue my admin work. A bureaucrat, is however a job I feel I could do well, and to oppose because you'd rather I worked as an admin confused me. Will you please explain? Thanks.  Majorly  (o rly?) 11:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Dear Majorly, I did that only to keep a very competent admin from becoming timid and meek in the light of extreme pressure from the community. Being a bureaucrat is an extremely demanding job, and you would be held responsible for each and every action that they take. I think it would become highly improbable for you to take controversial decisions, even admin actions. After all, bureaucrats are supposed to be the epitome of due process. You are a strong administrator, and I would like to see you continue as one. Best, &mdash; Nearly Headless Nick   {C}  11:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Dear Nick, I know I want the job, I fully understand the demands of it or else I wouldn't have applied. I assure you I will always continue as a strong administrator, but I wish to be trusted with further tools. The question is "do you trust me as a bureaucrat?" If not, that's absolutely fine, I've not been here an incredibly long time, and I can always try again. But to oppose because you think I will "burn out" (that's what I think you are getting at) isn't exactly a fair oppose. Please do reconsider, I have thought this through long and hard and I know what I am getting myself in for. Thank you.  Majorly  (o rly?) 11:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * On your head, so be it! :) &mdash; Nearly Headless Nick   {C}  11:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)