Thank you for your support on [[Wikipedia:Successful_adminship_candidacies#Newyorkbrad|my RfA]], which closed favorably this morning, and especially for your exceptionally kind words accompanying your !vote. I appreciate the confidence the community has placed in me and am looking forward to my new responsibilities. Please let me know if ever you have any comments or suggestions, especially as I am learning how to use the tools. Best regards, [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] 18:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your support on [[Wikipedia:Successful_adminship_candidacies#Newyorkbrad|my RfA]], which closed favorably this morning, and especially for your exceptionally kind words accompanying your !vote. I appreciate the confidence the community has placed in me and am looking forward to my new responsibilities. Please let me know if ever you have any comments or suggestions, especially as I am learning how to use the tools. Best regards, [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] 18:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
== [[User:RCS]] ==
I must say that the unfair, inept and shortsighted way you treated my case (accusing me of having continued warring after having been reported, which is not true - is [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_tall_men&diff=prev&oldid=102040542 this] warring ?) says a good deal about how [[India]] could have been submitted to foreign rule by various invaders for several centuries. The [[List of tall men]] is a haven and harbour for vandals and unfruitful contributions, and a simple glance at its recent history [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_tall_men&limit=500&action=history] proves that i have been generally committed to improving it. But this simple fact must have been beyond your understanding. You're laughable - lovable not. But i don't care. [[User:RCS|RCS]] 08:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
<freakofmimsy> Is watching porn and vandal-reversion simultaneously, good for health?
<AlienLifeForm> as long as you refrain from telling the vandals "YES BABY MORE MORE"
I prefer to keep discussions unfragmented.
If I post on your talk page, I will notice any replies posted there.
Unless you request otherwise, I will reply here to comments made here.
I will usually post a brief note on your talk page to let you know that I have replied, unless your talk page instructs me otherwise.
If you write a reply to me here, I may decide to move your text back to your talk page in an effort to keep the thread in one place.
If you are just pointing out something written to me elsewhere, edit here.
Such pointers are useful if you've written to a comment I made many days ago.
Hi there. This article, which you deleted after an {tl|AfD}} debate, appears to be back, but now it's a redirect to MapleStory. I do not know, and of course cannot tell, if the text is the same/similar. But you can. I leave it with you.--Anthony.bradbury22:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nick, can you say why you unblocked Kendrick7 before the 24 hours was up? He reverted five times in 50 minutes, calling the other editors vandals. He's a consummate revert warrior, and in fact does little else at Wikipedia. I personally can't see any justification for unblocking. SlimVirgin(talk)00:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know that I should reserve the rollback for what is clear-cut vandalism, but per Jayjg's comments at the same thread of AN3:
[To Mackan79]—If anything POV forks are "vandalism", and please don't try to unilaterally re-write policy to punish people with whom you have been in considerable conflict, while excusing people with whom you have allied. Jayjg (talk) 02:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
3RR is about 3RR, which Kendick7 knowingly and willingly violated. The fact that he used the pretext that re-directing his POV fork article to the main article was "vandalism" is neither here nor there. Nor, for that matter, is the piling on of various other editors with a grudge, discussing unrelated matters. 5RR violators should be blocked, and those blocks should not be undone, period. Jayjg (talk) 02:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
(Yes, I know that one was posted after the other, but this is how he put them in).
To SlimVirgin: I unblocked, because the block was unilateral. If he was revert-warring, so were you – on two articles. You call him a trouble-maker and a revert-warrior. What does that make you? – [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. In one of those edits, Kendrick terms your edits as vandalism and you respond with a stop your disruption.
To Felonious Monk: Yes, it is clear to me, as well, that Kendrick violated WP:3RR and should be blocked for it; and what about the rest of them? Their actions will fall into the purview of gaming the system. Both are established users, one is an administrator. They should know better. Your action was unilateral, Jayjg and some others are involved parties in one way or other; Majorly and I were not and I unblocked after discussion. Please review WP:WHEEL.
I don't agree with Jayjg's comments. They don't impress me a bit. Calling someone edits as POV implies that you have a POV as well, and you're pushing them with your position. Period(?).
Although I would love to be of help, you caught me just as I need to leave for five hours of university classes, followed by an inevitable lunch, a trip to the gym, another lecture, and then a pasta dinner. However, I should be back in about 11 hours. :) RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!)12:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please leave the protection on for awhile, until we can get some experts to weight in on the article. The edit wars are being caused by editors that know very little about the topic, and flaming is being used as a substitute for knowledge. There was as request for expert tag on the article at one time. Please reapply it. Ovadyah16:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why have you deleted my links to websites on the Matchroom Sport page.
Everyone of these events and websites that I put a link on for is produced by Matchroom Sport and a large part of their work. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Emonsmi (talk • contribs) 14:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
On the Matchroom Sport page it says 'Matchroom Sport became the official sponsor of the WPA World 9-Ball Championships in 1999'. So I put a link to the official website of that competition. How can that be an inappropriate link? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Emonsmi (talk • contribs) 15:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
From you contributions, I could see that you were adding the link to the site to every page which you thought was related to this event, which is completely inappropriate. Please review WP:NOT. — Nearly Headless Nick15:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look at www.worldpoolchampionship.com. After the top banner it says 'Official site of the 2006 World Pool Championship'. Then right at the bottom of the page it says this event is brought to you in association with ... and there is a link to Matchroom Sport. It's an official website of an event produced by Matchroom Sport so why not allow it on the page about Matchroom Sport? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Emonsmi (talk • contribs)
At no stage did I put a link to www.worldpoolchampionship.com on to the pages of Nick Halling or Cass Edwards. Every link I have added is relevant to that competition or person's page. I removed two weblinks on the Weber Cup page that do not actually take you anywhere. I replaced it with the correct address. But this has also been removed so the page now contains incorrect information and links that do not go to any page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Emonsmi (talk • contribs)
Not so fast! Much of this is blatant spam, and it was generally right to revert it when it was. On the other hand, in Emonsmi's defense, many of the additions (though misformatting, phrased in a spammy way, inadequately described, or misplaced) were legit relevant content, and should have been fixed (despammed, described accurately, merged into article text, etc.) instead of just deleted.. See User talk:Emonsmi#Your 16 January 2007 advertising edits to numerous cue sports articles for details. I am in process of cleaning it up; have done a dozen or so articles so far. The material IS worth saving, and Emonsmi put a lot of effort into the edits, they were just malformed because he's a newbie. I'm willing to fix the mess over the next day or so, and have gone to some trouble (as you have) to bring him up to speed. Someone as tireless as he is at adding material to the cue sports articles would actually be welcomed if he does it right (though I've put him at a {{Spam2}} warning level just the same). — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib]ツ00:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
AIV
My explanation for this is this, this, this and this. {{template:repeatvandal}}, as I am sure you are aware, says This IP has been repeatedly blocked from editing Wikipedia in response to abuse of editing privileges. Further abuse from this IP may result in an immediate block without further warning. Just below it is written "notify an administrator" and this is a link to WP:AIV. So not only do I have an explanation, I did precisely what I am supposed to do. If you look at my history of reports to WP:AIV and check my activities as an RC patroller, you'll find that I use the full gamut of warnings. If I may, a nice cup of tea would do you much good. Pascal.Tesson15:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please unlock the page. As it is sometimes prone to happen, when a version favorable to one side is locked, discussion ceases. I was not involved in the edit warring, but I have proposed a solution to the current version and would like to see if it can be implemented. I hope to hear your answer soon.
You just speedy deleted the article ActiveRain, an CSD candidate I contested by placing the {{hangon}} tag on the page, and for which my reasoning was explained on the talk page of the article Talk:ActiveRain. I would like to request undeletion of the article, after which I will place it at AfD if you want, as I do not feel this article was a proper candidate for speedy deletion. Regards, --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr)10:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He had already been warned at least 5 times and Had recieved a last warning. He had not been blocked since that last warning according to the block log and all the other warnings had been placed after the last warning. Correct me if I'm wrong but at that point don't you just go to WP:AIV? Since he has already recieved enough warning.--St.daniel13:15, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't it a legtimite reason to request someone who has recieved many warnings ,not by me but by other people, had gotten a last warning and is still vandalizing. Isn't that a valid reason for blocking or do I still have to leve a warning to his page like all the other editors. Can't I use the other users warnings and the fact that he continues to vandalize as reason to nominate for blocking. Isn't that a valid reason?--St.daniel13:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you are referring to 217.xxx., yes. I read their talk and they have indeed been warned multiple times. If you mean that AIV was cleared soon after you posted your message there, I can assure you it wasn't me but the bot attending to the page. If you are talking about something else, please be more specific. - Mgm|(talk)13:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I see what you mean. But requiring people to be warned on the day they vandalize before getting them blocked simply allows them to do it once each day without the risk of getting blocked. Do what you like. - Mgm|(talk)13:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion of article: Tony Le Rhodes
Today you deleted my article Tony Le Rhodes without even notifying me (I'm a little miffed about that). I am new to this system, having only signed up today, but I'm trying to learn quickly. :-) In any case, when I discovered that my article was tagged for deletion I added the {hangon} tag to the top of the page while I proceeded to modify the page. I thought the modification (a total rewrite, by the way) was sufficient to satisfy the submission guidelines, only to discover several hours later that the article had in fact been deleted. Could you please explain what the problem was? If possible, I would appreciate it if you would undelete the article and give me time to correct the problem(s). Drbw14:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unprotection Request
Since the main editors have pledged to put their differenes aside to work productively on the Ebionites article, could you please remove the protection lock? --Loremaster17:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is not the whole truth. Of the 4 editors, 1 has said nothing, 1 has withdrawn (although wishes the lock to remain) and the 2 remaining (Loremaster and myself) have not worked out an MO yet. So please don't unlock the article: at the moment it would (I believe) revert to redit-warring. More time is required to work things out. --Michael C. Pricetalk18:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mildly puzzled by your revert of Free-Diving. AFAICS the edit was reasonable, adding a reference to a Czech language site for a branch of one of the sports organising bodies. It seems no more commercial than any of the other sites referenced, and approprite in the context of the article. Is your objection that the site is in Czech, or have I missed some other issue--Shoka20:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
you sent me feedback on how i vandalized a page that i don't think i have ever been to. It was while i was not logged in, but you said that i vandalized the "Citing sources" page. Does this just happen sometimes? G man yo22:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is because you connect to the internet using a shared webproxy connection, which is available to other users as well on your network. A better way to circumvent such warnings is to get yourself an account, which you have already done. — Nearly Headless Nick12:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If it's that the user is blocked, it's often better to let the helperbot to handle those. now you removed three entries without giving any reason for it. →AzaToth16:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since you protected your archive file Archive09, Werdnabot failed to archive to it and stopped running. Please change your Werdnabot invokation immediately to use a new file or unprotect the existing file. JRSpriggs08:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just to keep you informed: When Werdnabot failed to archive section "My RFA" from your talk page the first time, I reverted its edit. Then after I put my above message on your page, Werdnabot ran again and again the same problem occurred. Later, Tragicomedian fixed your invocation. Werdna reverted him. And you reverted Werdna. So you ended up with Tragicomedian's version of the invocation. Subsequently, Werdnabot ran and successfully archived four sections to your new archive file Archive10. However, in all this activity, the section "My RFA" got lost and did not end up being in either of your archives nor on your talk page. So when I rechecked what happened this evening and saw this, I retrieved it from the revision history of your talk page and inserted it into your new archive file just before the four sections which Werdnabot archived this morning. JRSpriggs03:07, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for protecting the page or else the edit warring will become worse. Adding a blank section into the article should not be put into the article, unless there is some context or whatsoever imo. Oh, the article is on hold to become a GA. Just to let you know. See you around. Terence Ong14:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, could you unprotected the page, so that others can edit the article. The current organisation of Section 1 is quite incorrect. Thanks.--Vsion16:35, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington: [[8]] - Please try these Wikias: World Wikia, Finance Wikia and DIY Wikia] - of course, if you have time and inclination. No doubt, Wikipedia shall continue to be the largest wikis, but several others are emerging almost daily! Regards. --Bhadani16:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know. He has only made two edits, and seems to be just playing around rather than engaging in malicious vandalism. (If you want to increase the block length, go ahead.) In any case, I don't believe he's coming back; at least, not using this account. - Mike Rosoft19:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Project tagging:After a brief edit war over the addition of {{WP India}} to ancient archaeological sites now located in Pakistan, a "pre" parameter was introduced to remove the ROI flag from the template for pre-1947 articles, following discussion. After another large discussion on ANI alleging that the automated tagging by Ganeshbot and LostBot was "nationalistic", Ganeshbot was briefly blocked. Currently, the bots are again in action.
What is India?:Recently, there have been ongoing discussions here which discuss the stated issue of "India" the historical region is different from the Republic of India. It consisted also of modern Pakistan and Bangladesh, but a search for "India" automatically redirects to the Republic of India. Should there not be a clarification? . This comes in light of clashes on articles such as Panini, Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar, Muhammad Iqbal and Muhammad Ali Jinnah, regarding the status of the individuals.
Swastika on Hinduism templates:Recently, an extremely large and at times emotional debate broke out regarding the use of the swastika on Hinduism templates, given its association with Nazism. As a result, {{Hindu Links}} now contains an educational message about the use of the swastika, as discussion on a more permanent resolution continues.
Congratulations to all contributors who helped to develop the above content to represent the best of Wikipedia!
Need some help?
Are you stuck at a point where admin help is needed? There are 21 Indian Administrators in Wikipedia at the last count. If you need some help with anything related to WikiProject India, they are just a couple of clicks away!
Weekly Collaboration (Shortcut:WP:INCOTW):Collaboration of the Week has fallen from its once high feats. Please drop by and help rejuvenate it.
As before, we'd like to stress, this is your newsletter, and we want you to be part of it as well. Provide us with news tips. It can be anything related to the project, from discussions to calls for help, and other interesting stuff within our community. Sponsored content for recruitments within your WikiProject sub-groups are also welcome, including requests for copyediting, photographic work, peer review, etc. We'll be very happy to include them here.
Before we sign off, Happy New Year, everyone.
This edition special
Translation Department: Can you read and write any languages of India? Do you know multiple languages and are looking to keep your skills at a high level or improve them? If so, the Translation Depeartment may be for you!
The translation department of the India WikiProject aims to utilize high-quality non-English material related to India for the goals of the project. This includes both translating articles from and to other-language Wikipedias as well as assisting contributors with non-English sources. The department aims to provide services in transliteration, formulating scripts for various languages, as well as translating articles from one language to another and validating sources in other languages to that of the encyclopedia article. If you are looking for a friendly translator here is your go-to point. Currently, we are still seeking representation for Kashmiri, Nepali, Oriya, Sindhi and Tulu, as well as reinforcements in all other languages.
You are receiving this newsletter because you are part of Wikiproject India. If you'd like to change your subscription options, please say so at the Outreach Dept.
Greetings, You have just deleted the Proteus (WAM-V) article that I have been editing with the comment of "G11". Would you care to elaborate? I have included below the latest copy of my edit. Fosnez12:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for linking to the explination. I did put the "hang on" tag in there and was in the process of "rewriting in order to become encyclopedic". I believe that my edit that I initially posted below does "assert the importance or significance of its subject". May I please recreate the article? Fosnez13:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can recreate it for you in your userspace, if you don't mind. You can work on the article there, and move the page yourself, when you think it's appropriately done. — Nearly Headless Nick13:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you could that would be great. Once I have added my edit, could you please review it and let me know if it is ok? Fosnez13:06, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've explained my logic on the Transnistria page. Blocks aren't necessiarily meant to be preventatvie; they can (I hope) be educative. I've explained that I'll unblock within three days if this plan looks like failing. These guys have been discussing on the talk page for months and still come back reverting. Its clear that protection/discussion has failed on Transnistria.
I'm not usually stubborn on Wikipedia but I'm going to be on this one. If someone reverts my blocks/unprotection then I'll let it go but I'm not going to endorse such action and I'm not going to do it myself. --Robdurbar13:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I’m writing a few admins because I’ve seen your good work on WP:AIV. Is there any chance WP:RFI could get some love? I know RFI is a lot more work, but it’s no less important. The reports are about editors who undermine the integrity of the encyclopedia as a whole, and the efforts of productive contributors.
I don’t see a need for you to reply to me directly, but if you do, please do so by copying this whole section to my talk page and then replying to it. --WikidSmaht (talk) 19:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's border line spam for a prototype ship design, but I'll withdraw my objection to it being too new and untested as it's made enough press (if only because it looks like something out of a Bond film!) If you want to close the AfD early ... --Steve (Slf67) talk 02:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for my not having replied to you apropos of this RfA sooner; I assure you that my failure to respond did not stem from my viewing your concerns as invalid or insignificant, but, rather, from my undertaking a few other tasks and allowing the issue to slip my mind (I will admit that I bristled initially at your terseness, but I gather that it meant not to convey the incredulity at my malfeasance that first I appreciated). In short, I did understand that my close was disfavored by DELPRO, but I thought it nevertheless appropriate, principally for the reasons I have set out at Daniel.Bryant's talk page (D.B, as you may know, took the issue to DRV, where the closure was essentially endorsed).
On an unrelated issue about which you wrote me a bit ago, you are quite right that the conduct referenced in one outside view to which I assented is not that to which WP:EDIT WAR means to speak, and to the extent that the outside view ascribes such term to your editing, I disclaim it. Nevertheless, I think that your Barrington Hall editing was probably other-than-desirable (per the spirit of, inter al., WP:1RR and WP:BRD, each of which, to my mind, goes to the proposition that, having been reverted by an editor acting in good faith relative to a content dispute, one ought not to return his edit in the absence of a consensus for such return; such an understanding, of course, requires that one's interlocutors be willing to discuss civilly and be themselves so bound not to edit, which situation doesn't necessarily seem to have presented itself here). You will have noted, I hope, that I also provided that I am quite certain that, having had occasion here to receive feedback from the community apropos of his (ostensibly generally quite fine) use of the tool, [Nick] will follow Theron’s prescription [that [he] tak[e] DRV reversals into account in making future AfD decisions], at least for some non-trivial period, and that I heartily endorsed the outside view of Shimeru, which I think to be the best statement of the situation; several of the issues raised at the RfC, to be sure, were quite overbroad and overwrought, and I hope that I limited my involvement to those issues that touched substantially on your use of the sysop tools.
Finally (I’m fairly certain this note alone will comprise 30 KB, and so you should, of course, feel free to remove it after [or, hell, before] reading it), since performing a revision deletion on a page has the effect of removing any instant protection, your edits to User:Superman.1984, on which I happened from the AN/I thread, undid Asterion’s full protection. I don’t know that we generally, absent some reason, protect {{indefblockeduser}}ed temporary userpages, and I see no particular reason for which protection was employed here, but I suppose I ought to let you know in any event. Cheers, Joe03:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I complete 3 years on the 31st. Would like that to happen first. :) Then of course, I would like to be active when the debate is ongoing. Regards, =Nichalp«Talk»=11:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objection to the increase of the block duration. I only request that you mention it on the AN/I report on this user (here) and explain to the user why you are lengthening the block (which I imagine you would do anyway). Thanks. -- Merope11:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Smile
James, La gloria è a dio has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Also keep up your good work here. Its nice to see that you are a rouge admin who works outside of the policies. We are in need of more admins like that. Have a nice week and god bless. --James, La gloria è a dio12:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is suspected that User:Rumpelstiltskin223 is another sockpuppet account of User:Hkelkar currently under 1 year ban and on 1 edit allowance along with those who reported him due to extensive edit warring on similar type of India related contentious pages.
He has been blocked 4 times since Dec 16 and 3 times this month.I feel merely protecting the page is too lenient as he is a repeat offender as he did in Vaikom Satyagraha.Sorry to write for if repeated edit warring ws not stopped Wikipedia will suffer.220.226.140.5315:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your support on my RfA, which closed favorably this morning, and especially for your exceptionally kind words accompanying your !vote. I appreciate the confidence the community has placed in me and am looking forward to my new responsibilities. Please let me know if ever you have any comments or suggestions, especially as I am learning how to use the tools. Best regards, Newyorkbrad18:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I must say that the unfair, inept and shortsighted way you treated my case (accusing me of having continued warring after having been reported, which is not true - is this warring ?) says a good deal about how India could have been submitted to foreign rule by various invaders for several centuries. The List of tall men is a haven and harbour for vandals and unfruitful contributions, and a simple glance at its recent history [9] proves that i have been generally committed to improving it. But this simple fact must have been beyond your understanding. You're laughable - lovable not. But i don't care. RCS08:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
