User talk:Nishkid64

Leave me a new message.

Please SIGN your comments using ~~~~. That way it'll be easier for me to identify who is trying to get a hold of me.

This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot III. Any sections older than 2 days are automatically archived to User_talk:Nishkid64/Archive 33. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

Wikipedia ads	file info – show another – #99

Archives

July 1, 2006 - August 20, 2006 August 21, 2006 - August 30, 2006 August 31, 2006 - September 29, 2006 September 30, 2006 - October 6, 2006 October 7, 2006 - October 12, 2006 October 13, 2006 - October 19, 2006 October 19, 2006 - October 27, 2006 October 27, 2006 - November 6, 2006 November 7, 2006 - November 14, 2006 November 14, 2006 - November 23, 2006 November 23, 2006 - December 3, 2006 December 3, 2006 - December 9, 2006 December 10, 2006 - December 16, 2006 December 17, 2006 - December 26, 2006 December 26, 2006 - December 31, 2006 December 31, 2006 - January 5, 2007 January 6, 2007 - January 16, 2007 January 16, 2007 - January, 22, 2007 January 23, 2007 - January 29, 2007 January 29, 2007 - February 7, 2007 February 7, 2007 - February 16, 2007 February 16, 2007 - February 22, 2007 February 22, 2007 - March 2, 2007 March 2, 2007 - March 10, 2007 March 10, 2007 - March 23, 2007 March 25, 2007 - April 19, 2007 April 20, 2007 - April 30, 2007 April 30, 2007 - May 14, 2007 May 14, 2007 - June 3, 2007 June 3, 2007 - June 19, 2007 June 19, 2007 - July 10, 2007 July 11, 2007 - September 15, 2007 September 17, 2007 - Present

Isiolo school for the deaf just as I reached for the save button.

Snatched from the jaws of stub-dom! LOL. It might be notable w/ nine google hits. I'm willing to create and source the stub if you are willing to bring it back. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 20:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I checked it out before I deleted, and I didn't find any reason to keep the article. I can't find any reliable sources to back up Isiolo School for the Deaf, and I don't even know if it would meet notability guidelines (I believe it's a primary school). Nishkid64 (talk) 20:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Nishkid. That's what I was afraid of. Looks like you were two steps ahead of me. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 20:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

BTW, I see proposed guideline for schools bit the dust while I was away. What are we using these days?

Cool, Thanks Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 21:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

:)

Yay! --KFP (talk | contribs) 20:51, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Double yay! \o/ ~ Riana ⁂ 20:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 24th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost

Volume 3, Issue 39	24 September 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor: Survey results
Wikimedia announces plans to move office to San Francisco	WikiWorld comic: "Ambigram"
News and notes: Times archives, conferences, milestones	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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. R Delivery Bot 02:25, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

APEASS

In response to your deletion of the APEASS page due to the 'advertising personal websites', I would have appreciated it if you had told me sooner, rather than deleting both talk pages and then thelling me. However, I am sorry that I used the website for reasons other than those intended. Rosstoph 20:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Anyways, sorry about what I did. I didn't realise I wasn't supposed to until you told me. Sorry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosstoph (talk • contribs) 20:30, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

And I'm glad you're not verbally kicking my ass for abusing the website, so thanks for that. Rosstoph 20:34, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Edit conflicts

Hi there! you have just beaten me to the draw in five consecutive warnings/blocks!! I may go and play in WP:AfD instead! --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 20:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll check it out. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 20:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Aydin00‎

Hey, just so you know, you indef blocked this guy, but the note on his talk page said that he's only been blocked temporarily. Dunno if you want to fix it, seeing as he's not coming back, but I thought I'd let you know. Cheers! GlassCobra 21:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Yup. Happy editing! GlassCobra 21:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

RE: Block of User:Drewgu111

I reported User:Drewgu111(contribs) to WP:AIV as a sockpuppet of Dingbat2007 based on edits made during a string of vandalism by User:76.194.64.13. Those edits also looked like Dingbat2007's work. However, after examining Drewgu111's contribution log again, I concluded that I had misidentified him as a sockpuppet, and was about to withdraw my request for intervention. However, before I could post my withdrawal, you blocked the user indefinitely, which would have been appropriate for a sockpuppet. A bot had mentioned that the user was found in a list of sockpuppets, but I believe that I have made a serious mistake. Please review User:Drewgu111 again and consider lifting the block. I greatly regret my error and any problems that it may have caused. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Thomas Hobbes

Your last revert to Thomas Hobbes inadvertently added this... I've reverted it back to what (I hope) is a clean version. Guess we know who the class project at that school's about this week. — iridescent (talk to me!) 00:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Vandalsim only account block duration?

I was wondering about the block on Bdjake58 (talk · contribs), as it seems to be a vandalism only account, and I thought those were usually permanently blocked. I am not trying to tell you how to do your job, just wondered if you had seen all the vandalism from this account lately? Thanks for all your good work, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 00:57, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• OK, thanks for the explanation and the block. Keep up the good work, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Block of User:172.171.127.62

I see that you blocked User:172.171.127.62 with an expiry of indefinite. However, that's an IP address. I would think that that long of a block would be unwise on an IP, at least without a checkuser or somesuch being run. Even then, there's the question of whether the address is dynamic or static. Did you really mean to block the IP indefinitely? —C.Fred (talk) 03:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Blame the mouse for being hypersensitive and not going to the dropdown item you wanted. That's what I do. :) —C.Fred (talk) 03:49, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

We meet again...

Glad to see you again! Remember me? I'm PrestonH, as you can tell, and I want to say that I'm glad you are back to editing rapidly (exceptionally late notice). Well...if I'm disrupting you for anything...I apologize. I'm glad to see you again!--PrestonH 04:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

RNA Vandal

I noticed you (swiftly) blocked the guy who was vandalizing RNA. I'm trying to get better at helping out with the vandal effort... I was wondering if you could take a second and let me know if I did everything appropriately and properly (leaving a warning on the IP page, appropriate notice on admin vandal warning page, etc.). Trying to get some feedback to improve my response. Thanks! Macboots 04:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Found Two Libelous Edits

On Jesse Sartain, here and here. -WarthogDemon 17:03, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Sigh

"you idiots"?, some people will never learn. Bmg916^Speak 17:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

User 216.100.95.240

I knew he is never going to stop vandalism. If you blocked that IP then how long is indefinite when you blocked that IP. Is it 3 week or 12 weeks? Freewayguy--Let me know what's up? 22:19, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Your assessment of the 3rr is not correct

Concerning the 3rr violation by User:Taharqa, The first edit WAS a revert. The first revert was this one which was in response to information added by User:SenseOnes. The three subsequent reverts are listed on the 3rr notice board. The user reverted a total of 4 times in a period of a few hours and would have continued to do so had the page not been protected. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 23:02, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that this user has a long history of violation 3rr and I fear that this user will resort to the same tactics on other pages or will resort to the same tactics on the page in question once it's unprotected. The users first reverts were totally lacking an edit summary and subsequent reverts failed to explain all of the info being reverted but was continued to be reverted. Also, WP:3RR doesn't specify that users shouldn't be blocked if the page in question is protected or should be blocked only to prevent the page from future violations. The user in question doesn't even acknowledge that he/she made a mistake and is even accusing me of violating 3rr. I think that given the 8 previous blocks for 3rr in the past 5 months, a block is in order, longer than the previous ones. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 23:11, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

What page did you protect? Also, If blocking this individual for violating policy won't help, then that's what "longer blocks" are for. A longer block each time the user violates policy would lead to perhaps weeks or months being blocked, which might change the users mind. This user has violated the 3rr policy 8 times in the past and has only received fairly short blocks. I think you should block this user for at least a week, otherwise they will think that they can get away with violating policy, which seems to be the case currently likely due to very short block durations after repeated violations of policy. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 23:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I've never read where WP:3RR says that blocks are preventive opposed to punitive, however given the fact that the user has violation 3rr 8 times in the past 5 months, I would say it's obvious that the user has little regard for policy at this time and would likely violate 3rr again given the chance on the article in question or another article. The user has not admitted mistake but simply shifted the blame to me for reverting edits lacking summaries or edits failing to explain the reverts being made. The user also has accused me of "POV pushing" and edit warring. So I believe that a block based on the previous violations of the policy would be quite preventative. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 23:29, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd already warned the user and he/she continued to make reverts, apparently ignoring my warning. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 23:33, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

DYK

Did you know? was updated. On 29 September, 2007, a fact from the article Who Stole the Cookie from the Cookie Jar?, which you recently wrote, uh nominated, uh, helped inspire (in the super secret cabal channel), was featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, blah blah blah.

--Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 00:54, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Question

I would just like to know how I am breaking a Wikipedia policy. I have read them, and do not see how my article broke any policies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mathiea (talk • contribs) 01:33, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

i hate india