User talk:9Nak

Archives

2008

In praise of your wonderful contributions

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		In appreciation of your successful efforts to strengthen the content and character of Wikipedia. Keep up the excellent work! Ecoleetage (talk) 13:58, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS I was doing New Page Patrol and I came upon your recent entries. As an African Wikipedian, I was very happy to see this content brought to the project. Be well. Ecoleetage (talk) 13:58, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Super! If I can of any assistance, feel free to call on me. Cheers! Ecoleetage (talk) 14:18, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure will, thanks, and soon. The current phase doesn't lend itself to collaboration – because a stupidly implemented database that requires manual combing – but the end of that is nearly in sight. 9Nak (talk) 14:24, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brenthurst Gardens

Maybe I'm missing something, but looking at the edit you did on Brenthurst Gardens versus the prior version here, well, the original looks cleaner. But I'm not entirely sure what the cleanup was aimed at, so I'm loath to undo your work. Have a look? 9Nak (talk) 08:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That was a quick sweep through the articles in Category:Gardens and Category:Types of garden as part of a general tidy up I am doing of the Category:Gardening articles. The aim is to organise the articles into easily manageable categories - hence the creation of the Category:Types of garden, Category:Garden pest, and Category:Garden feature cats and the redirecting of Category:Garden Shows into Category:Horticultural exhibitions. I'm also looking to merge stubs (or larger if appropriate) articles together where it seems appropriate (White garden into Color garden for example. I'm also tagging all the garden articles with {{Horticulture and Gardening Project|class=start|importance=low}}, and then adding a fully formatted reference section (which is what you picked up I did in Brenthurst Gardens). The next stage will be to ensure that each article contains at least one reference source. I have recently become aware of the {{find}} tag, and will be adding that to talk pages along with {{Horticulture and Gardening Project}} so that people are helped both on the article page and on the talk page to find and add appropriate references and sources to the gardening articles. Any help in doing this maintenance task would be much appreciated. Regards SilkTork *^YES! 10:37, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm up to my elbows in another project, but I will make my way back to at least just Brenthurst Gardens at some later stage, and see what I can do there. 9Nak (talk) 13:15, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peter the pistol lynch

it was not incomprehensible, so i replaced the tag after the page creator removed it with a more suitable tag. 72.93.78.209 (talk) 15:51, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But I think we can agree that it was nonsense. The 24-year old with an undefeated 48-year record? Not even entertaining vandalism. Anyway, thanks for keeping the CSD notice in place. 9Nak (talk) 15:55, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

right but g1 is patent nonsense. WP:PN is very very specific and just nonsense does not qualify. 72.93.78.209 (talk) 15:56, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oops...

Thank you! Typical copy/pasting error GillesC (talk) 11:04, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No sweat. Accidents are the nice part of new page patrol; the part without vandals. 9Nak (talk) 14:03, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Typo redirect Political Shocker AND Plainfield, IL

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Political Shocker AND Plainfield, IL, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Political Shocker AND Plainfield, IL is a redirect page resulting from an implausible typo (CSD R3).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Political Shocker AND Plainfield, IL, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 11:38, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Declining CSD G1

Hiya 9Nak. Perhaps Randy Watson fits one of the other deletion criteria, but it doesn't fit CSD G1. Is there another tag that would be more suitable? (Watchlisting) - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 14:14, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

G1 was rather shooting from the hip, I must admit. No worries now that it's been PRODed by another user; I'll keep an eye on it and take it to AfD if the PROD fails. 9Nak (talk) 19:07, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks much. PROD sounds good. WP:NONSENSE is the guideline that covers G1. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 19:15, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David riehm

Just a friendly note on David riehm. I declined the G4 speedy deletion request because I couldn't find evidence of a previous AfD discussion for this article. Mind pointing it out to me? Thanks!--Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:32, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I had to figure it out myself. There was no AfD. Deletion log. I came across that log when I tried to move the page to the capitalised surname, saw the multiple A7 deletions and slapped on the G4 without checking for a discussion. Would you consider another A7 plus a "break all rules" exception because there are multiple reliable sources? Given the subject and the determination to create this entry an AfD discussion may be harmful. 9Nak (talk) 22:26, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I'm not following why an AfD discussion might be harmful. If it's deleted through AfD, that gives us the G4 option in the future (and I'd probably salt the article and redirect myself.) But with 15 quality gnews hits, I'm not comfortable with an A7. I'm not saying I think the guy is notable -- I have a feeling this is more of a case of one event. So to wind up my rambling (*grin*), I think AfD would be productive, not harmful. Feel free to nominate it.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:41, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to be too coy. The events all this is based on sounds very much like a cry for attention. AGF or no (and without access to the deleted versions), there is at least a possibility that the entry is being continuously added by the subject. I'm thinking that is a powder-keg environment, and AfD is the match. Protracted, public discussion could be harmful to the subject. And given the right mixture of circumstances and press it could also harm Wikipedia – though few may share that particular paranoia. But I'll rather let it be than take it to AfD myself. 9Nak (talk) 11:04, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

invitation

You're invited to sign up as a founding member, at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#WikiProject Historic Sites ! :) doncram (talk) 06:43, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Historic Sites is opened up. I took the liberty of assuming your support for the wikiproject meant you wanted to join as a member, and I copied your signature to the Members list on the main page. Please visit and add to, or remove, your listing there. It would be great to hear about what you're interested in the Wikiproject becoming, in your member comment and/or at the Talk page, shortcut wt:HSITES. Thanks for your support! doncram (talk) 17:40, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Motley Moose (again)

Ahhh, 9Nak, my friend, it looks like we're at this process again. Take a look at the AfD page if you would, please. I am not involved with that page's off-Wikipedia presence except having visited it a few times. I decided to edit it and save it from deletion last time because I had never done anything like that on Wikipedia before; I am not the site's creator, nor anyway involved in it via conflict of interest. I've dissected your points from last time, and I would suggest rather than go hunting for articles to propose for deletion, why not come over to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Blogging and help us try to improve and/or save the over 200 Wikipedia blogging articles that need work to save them from deletion. Certainly, it would be more productive, and you seem to have the time available. ;) Thanks, dude! Ks64q2 (talk) 12:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that suggestion. May I make one too? Instead of writing a 2 400 word thesis on why the previous AfD was at fault, could you instead turn your efforts to providing sources that prove the notability of the subject? A good place to do so is at the current AfD talk page, where I have gone to the effort of breaking down the references in the piece – because the lack of references is why I believe this entry should be deleted. To be blunt: a few more facts and a little less verbiage will help. 9Nak (talk) 14:03, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, my friend, no worries. I've posted a point-by-point breakdown on your list explaining where your analysis of the references has shortcomings. Everything I cite is well within Wikipedian policy and certainly keeping within the spirit of Wikipedia and the reason the rules were posted in the first place. Sadly, I've discovered the verbiage seems to be the only way I can get anyone to specifically address my concerns; indeed, this was a problem in the last AfD, so I've gone through the trouble of cataloging everything here. For instance, I would think you would agree that Roy Bennett was a notable person, being from South Africa. Also, if you could address "samj"; he's making some personal accusations about me and my motives which certainly don't belong in this AfD. I'd rather a third-party address that, and I trust you and your motives enough that I would like you to. Thanks, man, and thanks for keeping an eye to see if this page got re-created! I knew if I could get ahold of you and address your concerns this go round, everything you be okay. Ks64q2 (talk) 18:03, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any explanation of the shortcoming of my analysis. What I do see is you putting words in my mouth to create phantom accusations, a whole lot of Wikilawyering and you throwing a lot of dust into the air to try and obscure the issue. Let me phrase it as Yoda would: Roy Bennett, Tom Periello, conspiracy theories, the prominence of contributors, these things matter not. At issue is whether this group blog is notable. Absent any other proof of notability (such as awards won, say), all we have to judge by is third-party coverage. The previous AfD showed community that existing coverage did not show notability. I do not believe that has changed between then and now. 9Nak (talk) 18:41, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you could explain to me how the notability of contributors does not contribute to the site's notability? Even you suggested in the last AfD that mattered (via your comments on Peter Jukes); yet here, you seem to be discounting that. You accuse me of wikilawyering and "throwing dust in the air"; I'd suggest you're dancing around the counterpoints I'm suggesting and sticking to a very strict interpretation of a few Wikipedia policies that are intended to be guidelines for the spirit of our work here in building an online informational resource second to none, rather than the spirit of those laws, as well as making the disingenuous argument that since the last AfD suggested deletion, this one automatically must because you were there both times. Perhaps, as I said, it would be best if we both recused ourselves from this issues, as I think that we're developing some personal acrimony here, which is not condusive to our work as Wikipedia editors. Ks64q2 (talk) 18:58, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am definitely running out of patience with your Wikilawyering – and I'm moving towards being flatly pissed off by the fact that you continue to put words in my mouth. I would welcome it no end if you recused yourself from the AfD. Since I have no conflict of interest whatsoever, I have no intention of doing the same. 9Nak (talk) 19:37, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest your comment there suggests you have an irrefutable conflict of interest in this matter. I apologize if you take my manner as "wikilawyering", sir; you've once again fallen back on that as an argument rather than to, again, refute the points I've said. Your accusations of "wikilawyering" is, in my opinion, disingenuous as best, since you appear to be using it to deflect having to respond in detail to my points. I am hardly "putting words in your mouth", sir; indeed, you appear to be doing just that to me. Again, if we cannot continue to be civil with each other, perhaps we should have an administrator judge on this. I understand you are working (at least I think so) under good faith towards Wikipedia, and not towards me or the article in particular, but comments like the above certainly strain that belief. I certainly hold no personal grudge against you, sir. Ks64q2 (talk) 19:46, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like your style of debate. That is not a conflict of interest as the dislike started after – and because – of my AfD nomination. I also have no interest in the nitpicking you insist on. And I most definitely do not intend refuting you every time you put words in my mouth. Thanks for not holding a grudge, I appreciate it. 9Nak (talk) 20:46, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, no problem, dude; I know you aren't after me in particular, or the site. You're working for the best interests of Wikipedia as you see 'em. Now, I would have less heartburn if you were working on the Blogging Wikiproject with us; there are plenty of worse cases than this blog that have survived AfDs in the past; I'd be happy to show you a dozen right now, and I have another couple hundred to review in the scope of that project. I don't think your conflict of interest, if any exists, results from me/the article, either, merely that we both feel very strongly about our positions- both have many strong merits- hence my suggestion we both take a step back. And I assure you, I am not intending to put words in your mouth, but I do feel like my points are not being addressed. You seem to be implying the points either are simply a case of "wikilawyering" or through some ill-intent, which questions their validity before they are even addressed. I believe you when you say that's not your intent, but it comes off as a perception of a logical fallacy to avoid having to defend my counterpoints in detail. Thanks, man! Ks64q2 (talk) 21:21, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Words can not express how happy I am to not be alone. And, having just caught up on your behaviour over the last 48 hours, I'm damn glad I wasn't around to see it real time. I would not have kept my cool nearly as well as so many editors have done in putting up with your style of doing things. 9Nak (talk) 21:49, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Motley Moose

9Nak, I didn't roll back their contributions, I am taking them into consideration and fixing the article in the manner they suggested. One of editors who did most of the intermediate changes were not editing the article in good faith. If you have specific problems with what I'm doing, flag an administrator or let me know, but this is not a rollback. Adding comments like "the democrat party" and "The moose whatever it is" to the article is NOT appropriate, I don't care who edits it, and we face a DRV and another AfD if that's apparently acceptable. Ks64q2 (talk) 13:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For once we agree on something. We need some admin involvement here. I present to you: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Ks64q2 reported by User:9Nak (Result: ). 9Nak (talk) 13:39, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Good God, I thought this would never end. The admins should be able to look at this and easily see the problems here. Your assistance is truly appreciated, 9Nak, thank you. Ks64q2 (talk) 13:43, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Socks and leggings

Would you be so kind as to clarify – as unambiguously as possible please – something from the sockpuppet report?

Were these edits by IP address 75.75.2.253 made by you? 9Nak (talk) 15:29, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, mate, I assume those were my edits, they'd made sense anyway. Not sure, I just checked my IP address and it's different; I guess my IP sets a dynamic address, rather than a stable one. So, in other words, yes. Ks64q2 (talk) 15:34, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In that case your statement "No, none of those are me..." is incorrect. Any chance of a similar slip-of-the-mind on the other IP or accounts? Again, a lack of ambiguity would be a considerable help here. 9Nak (talk) 15:45, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, mate, I'd be happy to respond to that! Just give me an email, or a call- I'll shoot you my phone number- and we'll get on it. Thanks! Ks64q2 (talk) 16:09, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That would, unfortunately, be a problem. Please respond on-wiki – in other words, right here. No rush; Monday will do nicely. 9Nak (talk) 16:11, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) WP:TIND. Please continue to discuss in a civilized manner; we can roll back edits to the very beginning if necessary. Thank you both for your valuable contributions; we're all here for the same reason, right? To improve the quality of the information on wikipedia. -- Chzz ► 02:41, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've asked for other eyes on this:

Hello, 9Nak. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Other eyes please. Thank you. -- Banjeboi 08:45, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Noticeboard

Hello, 9Nak. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. ╟─Treasury Tag►contribs─╢ 08:43, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uganda AIDS Orphan Children Foundation

Dear 9Nak, thank you for contributing a resource for the Uganda AIDS Orphan Children Foundation article page. I truly appreciate it! Would you be able to assist me in taking the "This article is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy" banner off of the page. Thank you once again. -- timp111 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timp111 (talk • contribs) 05:28, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SP4NK

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		For your additional suggestion at this AfD. It made me laugh out loud, anyway. Yintaɳ 11:47, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Malema

I notice you are the original Malema article writer. I took the time to write a new one called Mampara and it got deleted. Can you add a link to the Google site on yours please (http://sites.google.com/site/doesjuliushavehiv/). Thanks and keep up the good work — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julius.mampara (talk • contribs)