User talk:Nsaa/User talk 2009

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is a Wikipedia user page.

This is not an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this page belongs may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original page is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Nsaa/User_talk_2009.

User talk 2009

Tamira Cole

You recently reverted this edit to Tamira Cole and issued a vandalism warning to User:Esterspirit. Esterspirit was the creator of that page and may have been attempting to request its deletion by blanking the page. (see User talk:Esterspirit) This might not have been apparent in Huggle because he/she made some edits without logging in.

I can't fault you for this because I made the same mistake while using Huggle a few times myself. Just try to be a little more careful. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:21, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for tagging Esterspirit edit as vandalism (blanking the page with valid content is in most cases considered vandalism, but not always as written in this essay User:Samuel Blanning/Blanking). Redirected it to Tamira A. Cole. Nsaa (talk) 20:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Your welcoming

Well thank. I have a question about Babel templates. I've seen all these accounts with templates and I'm wondering if Wikipedia has a full listing of these templates. Thanks! Gp user (talk) 04:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

This list should cover it? Nsaa (talk) 20:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Babel

How do you keep Babel in a neat section 'cause mine is just a mess. Thanks! Gp user (talk) 22:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi agian. Just place a {{userboxtop}} before your first babel box and a {{userboxbottom}} after the last one. Use {{userboxbreak}} to give a section header. Something like this (some of my code):
{{userboxtop
|align = right
|left =
|backgroundcolor = #FAF8CC;
|bordercolor =
|extra-css =
|textcolor =
|toptext = [[Wikipedia:Babel|Babel]]
}}

{{user no}}
{{user en-2}}
{{user da-2}}
{{user sv-1}}
{{user de-1}}

{{userboxbreak|toptext=Work}}
{{user wikipedia/RC Patrol}}

...

{{userboxbottom}}
Regards Nsaa (talk) 22:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

How do i?

How do i request for a cleanup or non-delete of Gpirate

Please do not delete Gpirate —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jinjajames (talk • contribs) 22:45, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

If you want to keep it, please try to add as good as possible secondary sources supporting the article content. You may look at Wikipedia:Cleanup for experienced editors doing cleanup Nsaa (talk) 18:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

thanks nsaa Jinjajames (talk) 07:01, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

BarnStar For You

The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
Another little something to add to your collection of barn stars. This is for your good quality AIV reports. Keep it up! ·Add§hore· Talk/Cont 17:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! Nsaa (talk) 18:08, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:AIV report

Hi, I wanted to let you know I declined your report of User:Worldtaekwondofederation. Those edits were IMO not vandalism, rather newbie edits. I didn't see on their talk page an attempt to discuss with them in your own words what you thought was wrong with the edits, did I miss it? It looked to me like they genuinely wanted to improve the article but maybe needed help getting familiar with policies etc. I think it's worth talking to them, since it would be a real shame if we turned away a potentially good editor who just needs some guidance, don't you? I'm happy to discuss it more if you like or to lend help myself. Peace, delldot ∇. 17:47, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes you're correct. It's always better to try incorporate new editors into all the WP policies. But on the other hand It looks like the person don't act on the messages received on the talk page and the it's difficult helping the user. Nsaa (talk) 18:07, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
How to handle this? The User still removes images, without any explanation or willingness to go into the messages given? I've try to ask the user directly again on the talk page. Nsaa (talk) 18:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply and for being cool about it. :) Yeah, it's a tough one when they won't talk back. It might be a case of a newbie getting so many bot and template messages right away that they've stopped reading their talk page! Obviously, if disruptive editing against consensus goes on, DR and then blocking would be necessary. I'll try to engage them on their talk page too, we'll see how it goes. Peace, delldot ∇. 20:07, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Death erection

Mr. Nsaa. The Reference About Our Holy Prophet Is Taken From A Western Literature So It Can Be Termed As Biased. Because There Are No Islamic Historical Background About This Reference So Remove It As Soon As Possible. It Is Very Insulting And Very Irrelivent To The Artical Itself And Clearly Shows A Prejudice And Hatred Towards Muslim. I am Starting A Email Compaign. aginst This Article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maleemk (talk • contribs) 21:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi I'm only removing discussion stuff in the article. Discussion should be done on the articles discussion page Talk:Death_erection. It looks like you want to remove the reference [1]. Please discuss it on the talk page, not remove it from the article or make comments on it in the article. Nsaa (talk) 20:31, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the invite, but...

Thanks for the invite, but I already have a user name. It's Fodient but I have been blocked by the wikibully MastCell. I have to use IP addresses until my incarcation time is complete.71.255.74.151 (talk) 21:16, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Ahh... Don't hesitate to ask for help here if you wonder about stuff. I will advise you not to calling other contributors here as "wikibully" or other negative descriptions of the person. Please discuss the case and not the person. If you want to complain on an admin see for an advise on how to do it Grievances by users ("Administrator abuse") (i.e. try to talk in an polite manner to the admin on his/her talk page as a first proposed step). I've not looked into your edits in detail, but you have got a lot of warnings before you got blocked (for one week this time). Please try to follow the advise people give, or give a reason for why you're disagree before doing edits as you did here [2]. Remember, we're writing an encyclopedia, not a place for citing rumors. The sourcing for such material must be extremely solid if it should be included. Nsaa (talk) 08:09, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
I know that random insignifcant rumors have no place here, but there are plenty of rumors and urban legends that possess a high level of notoriety that do belong. These articles are based on specific rumors Suicide_of_Vince_Foster, Bill_Clinton#Sexual_misconduct_allegations, George W. Bush military service controversy, September_11_attacks#Conspiracy_theories, Jennifer Fitzgerald. This article is devoted to board ranges of rumors and urban legends:List of conspiracy theoriesCategory:Urban legends.72.68.209.233 (talk) 09:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Fodient

superbowl ads

Dear Nsaa

I just put up a link to commercial-archive.com's superbowl collection. Commercial Archive / Adland is a huge resource for people who research into advertising and is used widely by scholars and advertising schools to study. Here is why I think you should reconsider:

- Commercial Archive is linked from the US Library of Congress.

- They have the worlds largest collection of superbowl ads (37 years)

- They have the 20 best ads before the SuperBowl.

- They adhere to copyright laws. all ads are posted with permission

_ They have been posting SuperBowl ads every year since 1999.

- You link to superbowl-ads.com who only have ten years, not 37 years.

Kind regards, Miklas Njor miklas /©/ miklasnjor.com (84.55.67.145 (talk) 14:43, 31 January 2009 (UTC))

Sorry if I removed a valid source. I see that the link was reinserted. Thanks for notifying me. Nsaa (talk) 17:28, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost, January 31, 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost
The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 5, Issue 5 31 January 2009 About the Signpost
Large portion of articles are orphans News and notes: Ogg support, Wikipedia Loves Art, Jimbo honored 
Wikipedia in the news: Flagged Revisions, Internet Explorer add-on Dispatches: In the news 
WikiProject Report: Motto of the Day Features and admins 
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News The Report on Lengthy Litigation 
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 20:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 21:50, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost, February 8, 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost
The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 5, Issue 6 8 February 2009 About the Signpost
News and notes: Elections, licensing update, and more Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia's future, WikiDashboard, and "wiki-snobs" 
Dispatches: April Fools 2009 mainpage WikiProject Report: WikiProject Music 
Features and admins The Report on Lengthy Litigation 
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 15:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 22:34, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

IP

Tanks.--190.173.200.220 (talk) 16:23, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Happy editing! Nsaa (talk) 17:13, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost — February 16, 2009

The Signpost
Volume 5, Issue 7
Weekly Delivery
2009-02-16

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist.
If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 07:17, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Huggle

Hi there, Please see the download page for the new release of huggle. It should work and should be the only version to work. Thank Xclamation point and if you have any questions please get to me on my talk page as I will not be checking back here. --·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 21:23, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the great job! It now works again. Nsaa (talk) 21:14, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Stanley Festus

you sent me a message about the page I emptied, article about Stanley Festus. I am trying to delete the article (I wrote it), because most of the information is invalid, as has come to my knowledge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Riikamaria (talk • contribs) 2009-02-22T20:39:27

Please use the articles talk page discussing a deletion. You may also request a deletion by adding {{db-author}} to the top of the Stanley Festus article (since you created the article and added most of the content, per 7. in Wikipedia:CSD#General). Nsaa (talk) 21:24, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost — February 23, 2009

This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 8, which includes these articles:

The kinks are still being worked out in a new design for these Signpost deliveries, and we apologize for the plain format for this week.

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 16:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Get it right control freaks.

I'm stating correct fact.

As an FP Member. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wrist Instability (talk • contribs) 08:26, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Please refrain from going after users by calling them things like "control freaks". You have been warned by many people again and again. Please try to read what people say. It may be that some of the information you want to add is correct. I propose that you use the articles talk page and propose changes to the article there (and take one thing at a time) after your short block is over. Remember to add references so its possible to verify the new info. If some information on the current page is not verifiable, please add a {{fact}} after the sentence in question and give a reason in the edit summary. Nsaa (talk) 09:11, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost — 2 March 2009

This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 9, which includes these articles:

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 08:29, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

ER

Hello Nsaa, your current ER has been open for over 60 days, it has gotten one review. Is it okay if I archive it, or would you like extra time?--₮RUCӨ 20:15, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Archive it. Thanks for the review! Nsaa (talk) 23:14, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Your welcome. Sorry for the lack of reviews. Feel free to nominate it another review in the future if needed. Best, --₮RUCӨ 23:46, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost — 9 March 2009

This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 10, which includes these articles:

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 00:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Cookie!

download has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!



-download | sign! 02:05, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Nam, nam! Nsaa (talk) 17:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for the note. Ignore the question on my talk page. I think I figured out what I did. I just needed to spend a minute with the way Wikipedia formats things. I saw the note that I had a message literally a second after I broke a redirect on Bordered and I thought I was in hot water. I am going through the links you gave me, and they are very helpful! Thanks! Guaranamania (talk) 19:50, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Ahh. I will respond on your talk page :-) Nsaa (talk) 19:57, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost — 16 March 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost  — 16 March 2009

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 23:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your welcome! Ballon845 (talk) 01:37, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Templates

Hi. I appreciate that you and I seem to be in agreement on this birth/death date template issue. I also know I tend to post rambling responses on it. When I first ran across Messerly, he downplayed what he was doing to such a degree, I was not aware of the ongoing discussion at MOSNUM about the actual templates. Like I outlined, he sort of had agreement from two people about a moratorium on "conversion" to the old templates, although there certainly was no effort to convert anything going on at the time. That made no sense. I have read the discussion they had in February many times, and there was never even a direct discussion about birth/death templates and also from what I can see, there was no consensus to change the MOS to include Messerly's templates. Yet, Messerly submitted the template for change based on consensus and it is already implemented in the MOS and he has put it into the infoboxes for biographies based on "recommended by the MOSNUM". He just did this, no one gave approval for the change and he's lied about having never changed to the template in the article. He has. I'm just reiterating this because when I disagreed with Messerly on [[Talk:WP:BIography]] and asked arbcom about it, he kept insisting it be taken back to MOSNUM. Now that it has, he's kept the discussion focused off what he did to get it in MOS, ignored addressing my direct questions about it, and has muddied the talk with discussion about why his template is superior. I knew this would happen. There is no agreement on the merits of his template, much less consensus, and yet, his endrun around the proper process for changing it isn't being mentioned, except by me. I'm just writing to ask you to notice this way too important detail. I think the first thing that needs to happen is that the template be removed from the MOS because it was never approved by community consensus to be put in. Thanks for your support on the rest of the issues. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:11, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I've made a request for changing the section back at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Change_the_MOSNUM_section_regarding_this. I've a feeling that people try to force non standard template parameters on the world. It's a bit like going for Pints and not liter (0.001 m3, a standard SI Unit) Nsaa (talk) 19:18, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
I added an endorsement of your editprotect request based on the false claim of consensus by J JMesserly to change it when it was made. I'm not sure where to take this next if that is denied, but I strongly feel it it has to go somewhere. I'm tired of trying to discuss the lack of consensus and a couple others refusing to discuss that. That's why I originally didn't want to bring it back to MOSNUM. The bottomline bad faith change would be ignored. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:40, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 23 March 2009

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 04:20, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Nsaa. You have new messages at Garion96's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

do you have a life? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.11.0.118 (talk) 18:11, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

MOSNUM

Yay!! Finally. I wonder where Messerly disappeared to? In any event, thanks for sticking in there with me. I realize this isn't the last we'll hear of it, but hopefully, whatever happens in the future will be easier to discuss!! Wildhartlivie (talk) 18:13, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

It was good that the administrator who did the change in the first place restored back to an acceptable form. Hopefully arguments like [3] [4] will not let them press it through again like this. But we all should address the other parts consern on how to make Wikipedia easier to edit and contributing at Wikipedia:WikiProject Usability. Nsaa (talk) 18:46, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

AMS

The reason that I have removed it that it was decided at WP:AIRPORTS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Airports#Destinations_by_Region) that "Destinations by Region" are to be removed. Charmedaddict (talk) 18:06, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation! Also remove the header then. Nsaa (talk) 18:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
No problem. Charmedaddict (talk) 18:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Maybe it's an good idea to take it on the talk page, since not very many has voiced at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Airports#Destinations_by_Region. Nsaa (talk) 18:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
yes but however many editors have removed the section based on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Airports#Destinations_by_Region. It would be a good idea to let the editors who were involved in the discussion know. Cheers! Charmedaddict (talk) 18:17, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Ok. An advise would be to add this sentence to your edit summary like "Removed per [[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Airports#Destinations_by_Region]]" and remove the hole section including the header. I'm a bit worried that for some big airports at least this removal should have been discussed before on the airport talk page, so more people can voice their opinion on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Airports#Destinations_by_Region. Nsaa (talk) 18:26, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 30 March 2009

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 20:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Be careful with rollback/revert

Hi there. I noticed you did this revert using Huggle. Please remember that reverts/rollback are only for vandalism/bad-faith edits and not good faith edits. If the editor in question has given a good-faith reason for their actions, you should always use undo instead. Regards SoWhy 06:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Unhappily I did it. Tried to clean it up. Nsaa (talk) 19:32, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for reverting vandalism to my user pages Maen. K. A. (talk)

Thanks! Nsaa (talk) 16:16, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Rand Paul

Rand Paul has been overhauled. This may affect your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rand Paul. This message is being copied to 8 people. JJB 07:50, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. Now a clear keep. Good work on adding sources! I will create a norwegian language version at no:Rand Paul. Nsaa (talk) 19:48, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Created as an stub. Nsaa (talk) 14:30, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 6 April 2009

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 19:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

New plain text proposal

You have been quiet on the MOSNUM page, and there is a topic I think you should be aware of. Wjemather has a proposal regarding plain text date support. You have raised objections to plain text dates in any template in the past, so in fairness to your point of view and to avoid a repetition of the past episode I'd like to know if you'd go along with his proposal. If so, perhaps there is a path to consensus on this issue. Thanks -J JMesserly (talk) 17:26, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying me. I've been on estern vacation (skiing in the mountains) so I havn't checked wikipedia for the last week. I've made a comment and this may be a good compromise. Nsaa (talk) 21:21, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Nsaa, would you please explain to me exactly what this compromise would mean without all the coding jargon? Does this mean you and Wjemather are considering supporting a change to a template using plain text data? If not, what exactly is this proposal? Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:47, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Apparently my assumption that Wjemather was making a proposal he supported was incorrect. Sorry for the bad information. There apparently was no offer of compromise. I realize you probably oppose the following proposal I have made and I obviously do not believe your main arguments have merit, but you have a principled position and it seems like everyone benefits if everyone participates. Proposal here. Regards, -J JMesserly (talk) 03:20, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
As you know there's been an vacation (and I've been on it for over a week - we Norwegians love taking days off :-). Since I mainly have only accesses Wikipedia by my mobile it's impossible for me to edit lengthy discussion (some stupid edit windows limit on my Sony Ericsson). I think this is a great compromise (date parameters in the same templates). Nsaa (talk) 05:52, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't think there was a proposal. You should note that the proposal J JMesserly has made is to strike any language in the MOSNUM regarding any particular birth or death template, which would open the door to allowing the use of the plain text template with no restriction. There is no consensus in any way whatsoever to support this proposal. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:00, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Sorry to bug you on your vacation. Wildharlivie is correct- the situations changed. I misunderstood Wjemather's statement. He didn't support it as a proposal and so the compromise collapsed. I'll still try to do the merge idea but I doubt there will be consensus for it, so we are back to separate templates. My new proposal is that since there is no consensus for either passage or any solution at this point, MOSNUM should reflect this community sentiment. Like I said, I doubt you will support it, but I'd hate for anything to that you disagree with happen without your input while you are on vacation as happened to me. Wildharlivie points out that it will open the door to edit warring, which once again assumes bad faith. It is not my style at all. Currently anyone can delete the age templates using plain text templates with impunity. My situation is that since MOSNUM endorses the old templates and there is effectively a no consensus coalition blocking plain text upgrade of the old templates, there is a defacto ban on plain text with the birth and death templates- an outcome that there was never a community consensus for. Anyway, it is an unusual situation that is generic to any innovation that undercuts prior approaches that have guideline support so there may be a prolonged deliberation before any admin action is taken. Not all innovations are good, and you have said as much about the plain text algorithms, but on the other hand it only takes a small minority to also block good innovations. Essentially, with MOSNUM as it is anyone can remove the plain text templates with impunity and will not lose any ANI battle due to the MOSNUM passage. So even if I had the best thing since sliced bread, I'd be screwed. A somewhat perverse outcome from the letter of the law of concensus, but we'll work it out. Interesting process implication for Wikipedia. Anyway, my bet is nothing will happen on this particular issue for a week. -J JMesserly (talk) 06:29, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't believe I have expressed an opinion either way with regard to plain text input, so please do not assume opposition or support. I simply want to get back to a situation where we have just one set of templates. I consider the discussion at MOSNUM to be concerned primarily with the statement regarding templates, not the merits or otherwise of the differences between the two sets. As I have stated many times, a new discussion with as wide an audience as possible should be started to thrash out if and how the "improvements", including plain text syntax (which I think I have shown could be easily integrated), can be worked into the established templates. wjematherbigissue 11:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

The WikiProject Greece April 2009 newsletter

The April 2009 issue of the WikiProject Greece newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.--Yannismarou (talk) 02:29, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 13 April 2009

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 16:39, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Request

Just wanted to see if it was ok if I use your status icon that is on top of your user page. Dont know if it even belongs to you but its the first time I have seen it. Sanders (talk) 00:37, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

See WP:QUI on how to use the status symbols. You are free to use them as described at their page. Nsaa (talk) 04:39, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 20 April 2009

Delivered by SoxBot II (talk) at 19:00, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

WikiBirthday

I saw from here that it's been exactly four years since you joined the project. Happy WikiBirthday! Keep up the good work, rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 17:28, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! 80.202.161.194 (talk) 17:54, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 27 April 2009

Delivered by SoxBot II (talk) at 04:35, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Nsaa. You have new messages at Mbinebri's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Speedy deletion of ScientificMatch.com

A tag has been placed on ScientificMatch.com requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for web content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Passportguy (talk) 14:10, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 11 May 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 22:10, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 18 May 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 13:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 25 May 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:56, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Question from 69.176.153.171

Can you explain why I cannot ask him a question. I have provided facts that Fleury scores on himself and since he does it multiple times he must enjoy it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.176.153.171 (talk) 19:29, 31 May 2009 (UTC) (— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.176.153.171 (talk • contribs) 2009-05-31T19:29:01)

You're vandalizing the User page. Please don't be rude. Please do not yell (CAPITAL LETTERS). You're of course welcome to ask questions on the users discussion page. Nsaa (talk) 19:34, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Nsaa. You accidentally took your shouting friend's comments off the talk page as well. I've put 'em back - JordanITP is perfectly capable of blanking them hisself. Ta.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:56, 31 May 2009 (UTC) And I'm sure you'll deal with his shouting majesty below as well--Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:56, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Nsaa (talk) 19:58, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
No worries, just didn't want you getting called on it.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:00, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes but he does enjoy scoring on himself. How is that vandalism? I provided proof to support my statement. So, can you provide proof to show that it is false making it illegal to post on wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.176.153.171 (talk) 21:55, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

your revert

Why did you revert my edit. That was happends at the school. Get it right you fucking BITCH.71.149.165.244 (talk) 19:50, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
I will continue revert edits like this. You may not get any further by using language like "you fucking BITCH" as you do above. It may be reason for blocking your access to Wikipedia if it not stop. Nsaa (talk) 19:55, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Reverted my totally legit edit on a discussion page as well of all places. What a jerk! get a life!

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 1 June 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 22:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Your HG reverts

Hello,

Please be careful when reverting vandalism that you are reverting to a good version. In this revert of Harlem Renaissance (see diff), you unfortunately reverted to a vandalized version. Cheers,  JGHowes  talk 16:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I've noticed it. But it was reverted before I could revert to an earlier version. Nsaa (talk) 17:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for Template:IPAEng

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Template:IPAEng. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Nsaa (talk) 18:30, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 15 June 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 11:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: June 2009

Nothing was removed from the Cornell University page I made improvements that were suggested in the former featured article discussion. I changed the box with information on the colleges so that it was improved and more in line with FA guidelines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.107.245.248 (talk) 15:22, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

This is removal of a big section. When you didn't give any Edit summary, and you're not logged in it looked like unexplained removal of a lot of content. You are not required to do so but I suggest that you 1. give an Help:Edit summary and that you create an account and log in (see Help:Logging in). Happy editing. Nsaa (talk) 16:06, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello

Stop reverting. The article needs attention, there is something wrong with it. If you are not interested or do not know much about the subject, feel free to stay away from it. Please Read ther article for yourself. You will understand its problem. Thank you. Talk to Magibon 16:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't know which article you're refering to, but assumes one with edits like this? Nsaa (talk) 16:09, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Both. The biographic one suffers from vandalism. It is very plain. read it and you might get a laugh. The other is a promotion of some service. it should be deleted.Talk to Magibon 16:12, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Ok, tag the page you want to delete with Template:AfDM (i.e. {{subst:afd}}). A full description can be found here Template:AfD_footer on how to list a article for deletion. Nsaa (talk) 16:19, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Don't comment like this on the page. If you have objection, you can mark the page with {{Cleanup}} or another maintenance tag (See Wikipedia:Template messages/Maintenance). Nsaa (talk) 16:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you I will try them now.Talk to Magibon 16:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Great! Also remember to give a reason for the templates at the talk page at Talk:Tunku_Abdul_Rahman so people easier can see what's wrong. Nsaa (talk) 16:43, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
I've now read through the article and can't find why you want to tag it. It looks ok as far as I can see, so please give a reason for the tagging. Nsaa (talk) 16:50, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, Some of the stories seem like vandalism. The story of how he was born for instance or his early life. I can't really tell them apart myself. It reminded me of uncyclopedia... Anyways I removed the whole body including most of the seemingly reasonable uncited material (which is almost everything),

Hopefully, this would entice new editors to edit. Plain vandalism has been scaring away prospective editors. Talk to Magibon 17:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for the revert of vandalism on Untangle - its much appreciated! Boochaka (talk) 00:53, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 22 June 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:09, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 29 June 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 02:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 6 July 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:13, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

user warning

You recently posted a warning on my IP user page (129.128.67.22). You should be informed that this is a shared IP address registered to University of Alberta (libraries), and that IP blocks may be inappropriate. I've seen some IP addresses have little notes indicating that they are shared computers, and that may be appropriate in this case. 129.128.67.22 (talk) 21:06, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the encouragement ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Enfer (talk • contribs) 08:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

PERM BAN?

Will I get perm ban? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.220.109.15 (talk) 08:15, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

No if you stop vandalizing. Thanks! Nsaa (talk) 18:40, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Article: Mark Ludwig - permission to keep

Hello, Nsaa. You have new messages at Hunan131's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

DIRECT article

I have now logged on as fotoguzzi. Trying to determine what was reverted and why. Thank you. Fotoguzzi (talk) 18:13, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I reverted your edits because you removed a reference without explanation. Nsaa (talk) 18:35, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 27 July 2009

Delivered by -- Tinu Cherian BOT - 12:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 3 August 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 05:27, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 10 August 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 04:49, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks (2)

Just testing the edit filter, that seemed to be a very low profile article to test it on.--Otterathome (talk) 18:45, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi i'm not sure what you try to tell? Regards Nsaa (talk) 18:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)?
I was testing the Wikipedia:Edit filter.--Otterathome (talk) 18:55, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 17 August 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:23, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I will leave notes

Thanks. Was unsure of what to write. Wrote "fixing links" but got sloppy when I messed up on the Captcha a few times and forgot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.55.67.145 (talk) 09:19, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 24 August 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:29, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi

Hi. Thanks for inviting me. I mainly use the English Wikipedia to add links or grab articles and translate. I 'm quite busy on the Breton Wikipedia [5] and I'm not a native English speaker, so I don't think I'll write on your own wiki. Best regards.--90.1.196.52 (talk) 18:03, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

That's fine. I'm myself mostly active on the Norwegian Wikipedia and I hope you can find some of the welcoming links usefull if you ever wonder how things are sorted out here at the en-wp. Nsaa (talk) 22:50, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Bernard Hopkins

Err... I didn't attack another contributor, I simply stated that Bernard Hopkins made a well publicised racist statement.

Is there a reliable, verifiable source for Hopkins' statement? Alan (talk) 12:18, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
In bios about living persons unsourced claims should immedately be removed. Should claims like the one I removed in the Bernard Hopkins article be present they should be backed by well reknown sources per wp:blp. Nsaa (talk) 21:49, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 September 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:46, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 September 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Michelle Schumann

I have nominated Michelle Schumann, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michelle Schumann. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Nsaa (talk) 15:34, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 October 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 05:16, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

User Talk Revert

Thanks for catching my talk page! Keep up the reverting. --Sidonuke (talk :: contribs) 13:27, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 October 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 04:12, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 October 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 03:24, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

October 2009, Halloween

Very sorry. My bad. Mistook you for the vandalising IP you correctly reverted. All pompous and erroneous nonsense on my part humbly withdrawn. Keep up the good work. RashersTierney (talk) 23:04, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Capitalism

An editor is questioning the lack of sources in the lead for Capitalism. If you would like to discuss this please reply on the talk page. The Four Deuces (talk) 03:59, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

1990

Hi - you just changed my wiki entry. I fail to see how it lacks use. Being from the trafford constituency, I am offended you have removed information about a key event in its history. The birth marked 700th year of the altrincham charter - when it was granted status as a free borough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.137.55.174 (talk) 20:57, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

You don't have the right to warn me over something that has been discussed!

You can't warn me over editing Gaga discography when I removed The Fame Monster. It has been discussed THOUSAND times on her album pages that The Fame Monster isn't a new album and therefore should not be included in her discography as a new one. I'm not removing the "warn" you did to me and you are the unconstructive person to that page. Another user has already reverted the shit you did! --Zefron12 (talk) 00:28, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 October 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:31, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Your reverts

Hey, just to let you know that you restored the wrong version here. I don't know how you managed it, but did you get an alert box saying that the edit was already being reverted? Or that you were undoing a revert by another editor? I think another person got there just before you, something to watch out for! Best Regards, Captain n00dle T/C 21:51, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm... strange. Thanks for notifying me. I obviously did a wrong revert. Thanks! Nsaa (talk) 21:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC)



Reverting on The Legend of T

Please note that a user blanking a page they've created is not vandalism. Generally, that's interpreted as a request for G7 speedy deletion. Tag it as such and an admin will delete (of course, if the creator keeps reverting, talk to an admin in person). Thank you! Cheers, Master of Puppets 22:51, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Totally agree. As far as I remember (I don't have access to the deleted content since I'm not an admin here) I only reverted partially removing of content (I didn't see that this user was the creator unhappily)? Nsaa (talk) 22:56, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, my mistake; I had thought the creator was reverting to a blank state, but I just checked through and on your revert they just cleared the speedy notice. My apologies! I only looked at the summary when I posted this. Master of Puppets 23:04, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
No problem. Thanks for the friendly tone! Nsaa (talk) 23:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 2 November 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 04:50, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 9 November 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 16 November 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 16:07, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 23 November 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 13:05, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Theft

Please read [6] and note the use of stolen and theft. This is the primary source that has clarified that this is a crime, not a "leak". ► RATEL ◄ 01:35, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

The police investigation will clarify this. CRU is a part in this case and is then not an reliable secondary source for information. F.ex. it's not a theft if you receive a document/email and publish it. Nsaa (talk) 01:41, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
CRU is the victim of this incident and the owner of the stolen data and is thus the most reliable source on its status. Your "for example" is pure speculation and there's absolutely nothing to suggest the scenario you suggest. Might I remind you that we operate on the basis of verifiability, not original research and speculation? -- ChrisO (talk) 16:04, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm just saying that this is not a case where we know what's realy happend. Do you think a big company ever will admit that their employees for example has added their username and password in emails received by outsiders? So CRU is NOT an reliable secondary source in this instance. Nsaa (talk) 16:26, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Referencing and Climategate

I agree with you regarding the inclusion of the "ClimateGate" reference. I don't know what possible argument could be used to oppose. I saw the edit summary, but it looks like the editor made two changes and the edit summary refers to the "stole" issue.

On ref naming - I like the "reuter20091123" (or better yet "reuters20091123") convention for unambiguous use in URLs, but it is ugly and hard to read by humans, so I prefer a human readable for when humans need to read it. I won't touch the ones you have in that form, but I urge you to weigh in on the talk page, as we have been discussing the referencing, and no one else has objected.--SPhilbrickT 15:06, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes I know. It's not easily readable by humans. Maybe Source_YYYY-MM-DD_Author is ok? Nsaa (talk) 15:15, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Looks like you have enough on your plate with the POV debate. Post about that on the talk page, and I'll weigh in. I won't touch any of your references; after the POV issue is resolved. perhaps we can get more input on the ref naming convention.--SPhilbrickT 15:31, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
I will take a break for a couple of hours know. I just got my first tree revert warning, and don't like it. Only on my second revert I revereted. On the first one I added by security consultant on one of the disputed paragraphs. I strongly dislike people removing solid secondary sources, and normaly I see it as vandalism. Nsaa (talk) 15:41, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Join the crowd. I got my first warning ever, yesterday. One of the reversions was a replacement of something the person removing said was an accident. Tread carefully.--SPhilbrickT 15:50, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Did you read Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Controversy_and_scandal? At first blush, it appears to be in conflict with WP:COMMONNAME. The first is a guideline, the second is a policy, so in theory, policy should trump guideline, but I wouldn't venture in that direction incautiously.
Yes I did, and I'm not proposing to name the article Climategate, but it should be mentioned in the article obviously. Removing it completely is rewriting/omission of fact supported by a lot of reliable sources. Nsaa (talk) 16:21, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

3RR warning

Warning
Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing at Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:28, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm fully aware of this policy. When people removes referenced material without discussing it? I've taken it up on the appropriate discussion tread at Talk:Climatic_Research_Unit_e-mail_hacking_incident#Name_of_article. Nsaa (talk) 15:37, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident#More whitewashing, speculation and POV edits. All the issues you are raising have already been discussed on the talk page. -- ChrisO (talk) 15:57, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Unhappily I see this 3RR as an campaign for tainting my user profile. Maybe it's successful? Nsaa (talk) 16:39, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Not really. You got the warning because you broke 3RR (by rather a lot: [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14]) and because i didn't know whether you knew the policy. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:41, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Nr Edit(s) claimed to breaking Wikipedia:3RR Comments
1 [15] As far as I can see I've added sources and quotations in these sources. Is this a revert?
2 [16] None of the two references[17][18] given says Stolen, so adjusting the text to reflect this should be quite obvious.
3 [19] This is not an revert, I add a quotation in the reference for the disputed text ", likely an insider,[1]" with this "quote=Judging from the data posted, the hack was done either by an insider or by someone inside the climate community who was familiar with the debate, said Robert Graham, CEO with the consultancy Errata Security. Whenever this type of incident occurs, "80 percent of the time it's an insider," he said."
4 [20] Restoring "statements that are sourced reliably, written in a neutral narrative, and pertain to the subject at hand." is just an action to restore a "disruptive" action, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Hkelkar#Removal_of_sourced_edits_made_in_a_neutral_narrative_is_disruptive
5 [21] Removing references without explanation? As far as I see it's an way of removing the importance of the term)
6 [22] Its not an revert, its an moderation of a prior statement: ", likely an insider according to security experts," (bold what was added in this edit)
7 [23] A revert, but it still falls under whats discussed at point 4
8 [24] A revert, but it still falls under whats discussed at point 4
As far as I see the claim of breaking 3RR is not obvious as I can see. Nsaa (talk) 12:42, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
3RR doesn't care what your motives were for reverting, the only major exceptions is for BLP violating material (and that one is hardly ever accepted as an excuse), vandalism (blatant) or reverting confirmed sockpuppets. All of the diffs are reverts to earlier versions of the article, partial or in full, and that is what matters. Try rereading WP:3RR to gain a full understanding. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:02, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Since apparently another editor is concerned about the correctness: #1 is a partial revert back to duchamps version which was removed here. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:52, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
As the other concerned editor, I've asked Kim how you can revert something on the 25th that was removed on the 26th. I'm guessing someone is just confused, but I haven't yet heard a response, although in fairness, it hasn't been all that long.--SPhilbrickT 01:34, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
The response has been on my talk since the 29th (before this comment). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
What is going on here? See this edit summary: Use British spelling where appropriate when the user removes the disputed naming. I've seen it yesterday also in the same article (correct spelling AND removes disputed sentences.). Nsaa (talk) 16:59, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
As far as I can see «It is disruptive to remove statements that are sourced reliably, written in a neutral narrative, and pertain to the subject at hand.» Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Hkelkar#Removal_of_sourced_edits_made_in_a_neutral_narrative_is_disruptive. Nsaa (talk) 11:39, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I did not intend to remove the text. It looks like the person after me User:Chris O was editing there. I explained I did not touch that text at Talk:Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident. I have no opinion on it. Bevo74 (talk) 17:04, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Thats fine! Try to be careful then when doing edits (I'm not sure how you managed to remove the Climategate-section in this edit Use British spelling where appropriate. Is it a bug in the wiki-software?) Nsaa (talk) 17:18, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm puzzled by that edit as well. There's so much going on, I'm not sure it is worth pursuing; my guess is that when multiple people are editing at the same time, the software gets confused. --SPhilbrickT 01:29, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Removal of sourced material

I think we might be able to do something. May I ask if you use any instant messengers? We can speak in detail over them. Macai (talk) 18:05, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Chris is right

Fair use images cannot be used in talk pages or user pages. --SPhilbrickT 01:27, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 30 November 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 13:51, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident protection expired

Hi, just to let you know, the protection expired a few hours ago for Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident so you don't need to use the editprotected template. One of your requested edits was made by a bot and I removed the template. The other one I removed the edit protected template without making the edit as I feel it may be wise to ensure there's no further controversy over the addition of the primary source. While I obviously won't edit war if you choose to make the propose change, I do feel it wise to wait perhaps one more day Nil Einne (talk) 08:55, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I will wait adding the university press release since itLs an primary source and some have questioned it earlier. Nsaa (talk) 12:02, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 7 December 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 05:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 14 December 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 16:14, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

User talk:66.99.220.2 continues to vandalize

This user vandalized United States Congress. Many warnings. Why are they still allowed to edit?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The IP 66.99.220.2 (talk · contribs) has done five disruptive edits today, and I would probably have blocked him if I was an Administrator at this wiki since three Warnings already has been given on the IPs talk page. You can report the IP at WP:AIV (or more general at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents), where an administrator will make an assessment. Nsaa (talk) 23:25, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: Don't change discussion treads like this!

Hi. I saw your comment on TS's page regarding this edit. You took offense and asked TS not to change the discussion. However, it is my understanding that TS's refactoring was not only acceptable but is encouraged, as it highlighted the fact that another discussion about Delingpole was in progress. You see, we have at least two prior threads concerning this topic, and it would be nice to know where they all are so we can view the entire discussion as a whole in the archives. Viriditas (talk) 03:11, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

tb

Hello, Nsaa. You have new messages at 67.241.191.198's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
67.241.191.198 (talk) 22:58, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 December 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 03:24, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Noindexing talk pages is standard

There's a lot worth challenging, but noindex of talk pages is quite standard.--SPhilbrickT 04:52, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 December 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:46, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Arbcom

Have you seen this: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Climate_Change?

They are still working out the list of parties and whom to notify, so you may yet get formal notification, but just thought I'd make sure you knew.--SPhilbrickT 18:24, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. I appreciate that more people will get involved since it looks like some parties 'own' the articles in question. Nsaa (talk) 00:46, 1 January 2010 (UTC)


User talk 2009
  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference McMillan was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nsaa/User_talk_2009&oldid=1166514193"