User talk:Nick/Archive13

{{ConfirmationOTRS|source=URL|otrs=Long Number}}

Templates used script (2)

importScript('User:Splarka/temused.js')

That should do it. Currently it creates an extra tab. That could pretty easily be switched to a toolbox link, if you desire. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:58, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Genova and Dimirov article deleted

What is wrong and appears advertising to you in the following few sentences about the Genova and Dimitrov piano duo, that made you to delete the article and block my user account, which has nothing in common with Liuben: Genova & Dimitrov is a German piano duo.
The duo consists of Aglika Genova (born June 29, 1971) and Liuben Dimitrov (born October 12, 1969) and appears worldwide both at two pianos and at one piano four-handed with recital programmes, as well as with orchestra. Aglika and Liuben released CD recodings on cpo Classics.

Since the fall of 2008, Genova and Dimitrov became Associate Professors of the Hannover State Academy of Music and Theatre and lead the special class for piano duo performance.

Piano4ever —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.131.92.116 (talk) 23:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

If you would like to have an article on Wikipedia, you will need to ask at deletion review - your past attempts at creating an article have consisted of blatant advertisements and copyright theft, you also appear to have a conflict of interest, so if the duo (I'm assuming you're part of the duo or involved with them in some way) wish to be considered for an article, they will need to go through the proper processes, in the first instance, you're going to need to request an editor here write an article on Genova & Dimitrov before submitting it to the deletion review process (or contacting all the administrator involved with the deletion of the existing articles). You can request someone write an article about you by visiting Wikipedia:Requested articles. Please don't create any further accounts to post your article either. Nick (talk) 00:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Nick - I should have realised - "normal" CSD complainers aren't that persistent jimfbleak (talk) 06:56, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kanonkas

Thank you for voting in my recent successfully closed RfA! --Kanonkas :  Talk  18:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Notability of Ikariam

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Ikariam, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Ikariam is an article about a certain website, blog, forum, or other web content that does not assert the importance or significance of that web location. Please read our criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 7 under Articles, as well as notability guidelines for websites. Please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources which verify their content.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Ikariam, 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) 13:20, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

thank you

My RFA passed today at 150/48/6. I wanted to thank you for weighing in, and I wanted to let you know I appreciated all of the comments, advice, criticism, and seriously took it all to heart this past week. I'll do my absolute best to not let any of you down with the incredible trust given me today. rootology (C)(T) 08:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Ikariam

I have nominated Ikariam, 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/Ikariam. 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. Aervanath (talk) 17:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Fred Goodwin

My edit, as always, was in good faith. Please do not assume vandalism and read the edit history where you will see I have raised the issue on the article's Talk Page leaky_caldron (talk) 18:09, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

We do not and never have used emotive language in articles - he's a banker, not a greedy banker or a useless banker etc etc - that's tabloid journalism, we're an encyclopedia. It's also vital we don't make such libellous statements on Wikipedia per our well known BLP policies. Nick (talk) 18:12, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

nevertheless, my edit and attempt to raise the matter through the article's talk page, were in good faith and not vandalism as you immediately assumed. I would expect a higher standard from an Admin leaky_caldron (talk) 18:15, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

If you care to read my edit summary, I never suggested you were responsible for the vandalism, simply that I was removing vandalism in my edit. Nick (talk) 18:17, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

and if you'd read the edit history and talk page you would have seen that it was not vandalism at all, but a well intentioned edit entered in good faith. I am very annoyed that you still refer to this as vandalism despite the wealth of evidence that it was inserted in good faith leaky_caldron (talk) 18:23, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Message

Thanks mate for that. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 23:36, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry message

This was a very well-presented message. It gets the point across without being bitey, patronizing, or disrespectful. I'm glad there are administrators like you that take the time to follow the spirit of WP:CIVIL, not just the letter! -kotra (talk) 21:17, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

"Blame LOLiver"

I've just replied to your message on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#.22Blame__LOLiver.22, the hacker has just come back. See here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Removed_the_resolved_tag. Thought you might want to be informed. Control-alt-delete ★ user◾talk◾favs 22:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I couldn't help in this case, I wasn't online at the time. I'm sure you already know, but in case you don't, the template that was vandalised was fixed by another administrator and is now protected to ensure further vandalism cannot occur. Thanks for the heads up though. Nick (talk) 09:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

No worries ;) Control-alt-delete ★ user◾talk◾favs 17:41, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

RFA thanks

My RFA passed today at 61/5/4. Thanks for participating in my RFA. I appreciate all the comments I received and will endeavor to justify the trust the WP community has placed in me. Have a nice day. :-) AdjustShift (talk) 21:10, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

All done!

All done! --Mixwell!^Talk.css}} 18:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I think you might have a stray bit of code (.css}}) floating about in your signature though. Nick (talk) 18:33, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Fixed! --Mixwell!^Talk 18:37, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Jerly Lyngdoh

Sir, why is this article not eligible for speedy deletion? I agree the subject itself is notable, but the page as it stands does not indicate why its subject is important or significant, as per CSD:A7, so would appear to me to be qualified. ShakingSpirit^talk 20:05, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

If the subject is notable, why the interest in deletion ? Nick (talk) 20:22, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Category:Islamist terrorists

Hi, if this category was deleted, shouldn't it be empty? Folk 55 (talk) 03:38, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

It will be emptied when a bot gets round to removing the category from all the articles it is currently used on. There's too many articles to manually remove the categories that were deleted yesterday, so it'll need a bot, but things are a little more complicated because some of the sub categories were moved into the Terrorism category (those categories that listed people convicted or charged/indicted on terrorism offences). Nick (talk) 09:16, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Category:Terrorists

A decisive and brave closure, well done. -- PBS (talk) 13:39, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Before going to DRV, I figured I would discuss this with you here. First of all, at the most basic level I count 11 keeps and 8 deletes. Of course, CfD is not a vote, so I won't dwell on that. In essence, all of the delete rationales (and your own closure) boil down to delete the category because it can be misused. Many categories have the potential to be misused, this does not mean we should delete them. Similarly, we do not delete articles on controversial people or topics simply because they are likely to attract NPOV problems and edit wars.

The claim was repeatedly made by those !voting delete that there is no "watertight" definition of terrorist. This is true, but there is also no "watertight" definition of athlete (what about someone who plays tennis on the weekends with his wife?) The fact of the matter is that, in many cases, there is consensus among reliable published sources about whether or not someone is a terrorist. Political science journal, newspapers worldwide (including in the Islamic world), and governments have all labeled people like Bin Laden terrorists. There is absolutely no debate among respectable scholars about this characterization (whatever the case may be on the "arab street"). Yes, there are borderline cases, but that doesn't mean there is a lack of clear cases.

In short, scholars worldwide devote considerable attention to the study of terrorism and terrorists. There is a broad consensus among these scholars in many cases. As I said in the discussion, I am not aware of a single reliable source that says bin Laden is not a terrorist. Deleting the category is fundamentally unhelpful and unnecessary, and I hope you will reconsider your decision. If not, I'm sorry to have to challenge you at DRV, but I feel that it would be appropriate to take the matter there. Cool3 (talk) 03:15, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

The deletion debate was fairly evenly balanced in terms of vote counting, but sadly a couple of those who commentated decided to make silly arguments, such as suggesting it was a bad faith nom, or using the rationale by the nominator as a reason to keep the categories - those added nothing to the debate, they gave no good reason why the categories should have been kept - and ultimately were not given the same weight as the other comments. I understand the concern that it was a bad faith nomination, but I have no evidence that Sceptre nominated the categories for any other reason than concern that they are problematic.

The most persuasive argument to keep the categories was yours, some of the other keep comments admitted problems and some of the delete comments suggested methods of improvement, such as the continued use of the Category:People convicted on terrorism charges and Category:People imprisoned on charges of terrorism which is fine and should be further encouraged.

I understand the argument you make, that scholars agree the definition of a terrorist, but the problem occurs when that definition is applied to an individual, some would agree that they fit the definition that scholars agree upon, and others would disagree. There are further problems, as argued in the deletion, that in applying a scholary definition of the term terrorist to an individual, there is original research. The categories as they existed when deleted provided no definitive definition of what defines a terrorist and unless the same scholars that are used to provide a definition of a terrorist are also used to determine which individuals would fall under the term terrorist, then there is always going to be an unacceptable degree of original research in deciding whether or not to place an individual in a category such as Category:Terrorists. I suggested in my closure that instead of using a catch all and vague category such as Category:Terrorists, we categorise individuals under more accurate categories that require no original research, such as Category:Persons convicted of terrorism offences in the USA, Category:Persons indicted of terrorism offences in the USA. Nick (talk) 11:33, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, it seems that Category:Canadian terrorists was properly deleted, but the sub-cat Category:Quebec terrorists was accidentally left behind. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 14:54, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up - it seems to have been improperly categorised which is why it didn't appear in any of the other categories that were emptied then deleted. It's currently queued up for emptying then deletion. Nick (talk) 16:19, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Category:American right wing terrorists and Category:American left wing terrorists were also accidentally left behind. Thanks. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 02:29, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, yet another couple of categories that weren't correctly categorised, if you spot anymore, drop me a note. Thanks. Nick (talk) 08:56, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

A few more... thanks. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 19:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

• Category:North Korean terrorists
• Category:Christian terrorists
• Category:Italian right-wing terrorists
• Category:Italian left-wing terrorists
• Category:American Islamic terrorists
• Category:Sri Lankan Sinhala terrorists

re:CSD Tagging

Hi, thanks for the note. I like to do my best, so constructive criticism is always welcome :). Could you please link me to the article(s) though. Cheers - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 15:35, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

They have been deleted, but not as vandalism - the main examples were Animalz Like Petz and HaX0Rzz which weren't specifically vandalism - one was more akin to a test page and the other was more incomprehensible/patent nonsense. The vast majority of your tagging is very accurate however. Nick (talk) 15:52, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Animalz Like Petz was deleted as g3 by Closedmouth, but not being able to remember the content of these two pages it's hard for me to say anything clever ;)... Lets see.... Animalz Like Petz was something made up. So the reason I used g3 (when I tagged it) was because of misinformation (although fair enough to say that the g3 warning is a bit BITEy, and a test warn or similar would have been better). And I recall that HaX0Rzz had very bad spelling (not really a suitable g1) but other then that I can't remember on that one. I do recall that after two g3 in-a-row I felt like there was probably a mistake ;). Anyway, thanks for the note - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 16:04, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Vandal

Thought I'd bring it to your attention that 71.145.166.33 is blanking people's user pages, talk pages, and is persistently vandalizing articles. Every time someone warns him, he blanks his own talkpage. Please block this user. Δnnuit Cœptis 19:24, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I've blocked this user for 48 hours - can't do much more as they're on an IP address, if you spot this user editing from a different IP address in the same range, please contact me again and I'll see what I can do. Nick (talk) 19:50, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

User:71.145.166.33

Does this merit a block extension? --Rrburke^(talk) 20:07, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Nah, it would if it was a registered account, but it's an IP address that could easily be reassigned, and we don't want any user that is assigned the new IP address caught up in a longer block. I've semi-protected the talk page for pretty much the duration of the block though. Nick (talk) 20:27, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Zapped Category:Chechen terrorists

Just a quick heads up, I deleted Category:Chechen terrorists, presuming you forgot to zap it along with the other terrorist categories you got (presumably from Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_April_27#Category:Terrorists). Anyway, if this was a mistake on my part, feel free to undo it. Cheers, =) --slakr^\ talk / 23:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Zebruh

Two years ago you blocked Zebruh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for "POV and legal problems".[1] FYI, I just blocked Mikutyan (talk · contribs) as a block evading account of the same user. He has been recreating LS Studio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), an article originally created by Zebruh.   Will Beback  talk  05:17, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

For participating in my RFA. Even though it was a compelte and utter failure, I would like to thank you for the advice. I hope that I will be better for my next RFA. Thanks, Abce2|AccessDenied 22:58, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for Nuvola

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Nuvola. 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. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Water is wet

"it's one of those things that's common knowledge and doesn't require a citation, just like water is wet and so on" Jan. 24

Have you been having a lot of success with "water is wet"-type facts? There is a page in Wikipedia where I added a fact like that, several times, and it would be deleted within 5 - 10 minutes. Finally I added it again, with a citation. It still got deleted because the "guardians" of that page happen not to like that particular fact. So, citation or no, out it goes.

The heck with it.

Varlaam (talk) 15:44, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Grue/ethics

Hi. Would you please consider commenting at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Grue/ethics. The page contains content related to yourself. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Template:Location map Scotland

This doesn't get much vandalism. Please undo your lock at least reduce it to established editors can edit it. Nobody has been able to add a higher quality svg map because you locked it. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 09:39, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I've reduced the protection level at the moment, but the protection may need to be reinstated if there are further instances of vandalism affecting templates like location maps. Nick (talk) 11:08, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Deleted Article: Cribbar

Jeez, give me a bit of time to complete the article. You deleted it about 20 seconds after it's creation!! At least give a warning that you're going to delete it unless I provide a good reason not too! I'm going to restart it and please give me more than 20 seconds to complete it!! Fletch 2002 (talk) 16:31, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Adolf_Kurrein article

I realised that the creator had re-created this deleted article after I had modified it slightly - only after that did I see that you had deleted it!

However, the information came from kurrein The Jewish Encyclopedia, which is where the www.kurrein.com website got their information from.

The Jewish Encyclopedia is in the Public Domain (it was printed 1901-1906), and so usign text from it is acceptable - and in fact their is a notice at the bottom of the article acknowledging this as a source of information.

My understanding is that if it is PD, then it can be copied as-is, especially as the source is being openly acknowledge on the article. Am I correct in this thinking? As far as I am aware, there is nowhere in the world where this publication (which is now 103 years old!) is not in PD.

I look forward to hearing from you to clarify this misunderstanding! I should point out that I knew nothing about Herr Kurrein before I came across this article by chance, and personally I don't care if it's in Wikipedia or not (it's in the German wikipedia, as is also ackowledged on the article page) - but I do want to get to know the legalities better! This is a learning opportunity for me.

They say that you learn a new thing every day - I must be doing a hell of a lot of catching up on all the days when I learnt nothing, as I learn lots every day - not just from the articles on Wikipedia, but from other editors helping me to understand how to be a better editor - I hope you can help me with this too!

Regards, -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 17:39, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

The article is perfectly fine, I'm pretty certain when I deleted it, there wasn't the usual Jewish Encyclopedia source template on the page, when it re-appeared it had the template and a quick double check with the potential copyright source soon confirmed it was a straight copy from the Jewish Encyclopedia. There's certainly no problem with using content from there verbatim there, it forms the basis of a large amount of articles here and is in the public domain pretty much everywhere. Nick (talk) 18:00, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Nick. I'm glad that I understood that bit of Wikipedia at least! -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 18:09, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Norton Canes services (2nd nomination)

I don't believe there was a consensus that was backed up with more than votes and opinions. There is no presented evidence these pages meet wp:notability requirements for individual pages. Just because a handful of very vocal editors FEEL they do, doesn't make a consensus for Keep on an AfD when there is ZERO evidence for individual notability of the MAJORITY of these service center pages. Your closure of this hours after it has been opened I believe to be in error. The majority of these pages can't stand up to an AfD on them individually, and that was the rationale for the bulk AfD to save time. Please explain where you see consensus that is more than just opinion? AfD's need to look at WP policy for inclusion not just look at the opinion of some vocal editors. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 21:43, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

In addition not only did a few vocal editors like Kudpung troll (and here and here) for additional vocal editors to quickly flood the page, they resorted to personal attacks and brought everything under the sun unrelated to the AfD they could in, including insulting me based on my nationality and ignorance of things in UK. I'm definitely going to have to protest this closure and open a topic on Wikipedia:Deletion review if you continue with the closure just HOURS after it was opened based solely on a vocal group of editors that have no policy or evidence to back up their position that these service stations deserve their OWN page and not just general pages for them as a whole. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 21:58, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

In addition not only was there a User_talk:Nev1#AfD_all_UK_Motorway_service_Station concentrated effort to derail the discussion, there was clearly personal attacks being said about me here. Even talk of blocking me for being an idiot when there is clearly an issue with notability of individual pages for these. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 22:08, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I can confirm that the majority of these pages, arguably all of them, meet the requirements laid down at WP:N.

• Significant coverage - there exists no shortage of significant coverage listed in the AfD, articles in major national newspapers in the UK (and upon further investigation, there's widespread coverage on television, on radio, in books and in local press). This criteria is satisfied.
• Reliable sources - the significant coverage is eminently reliable, national newspapers, corporate websites belonging to FTSE listed companies, and in the case of the necessary Transport and Works orders necessary for their construction, these are indexed by HMSO and The Hansard, the official journal of the UK Parliament. This criteria is satisfied.
• Secondary sources - again, the coverage and the reliable sources as listed above come from a mix of primary sources belonging to the companies responsible for the sites, but also from national newspapers which make excellent, reliable secondary sourced. This criteria is satisfied.
• Independent of the subject - this follows with the above criteria, again the comments in the AfD provided no shortage of sources that are independent of the actual service stations and the companies that operate them. This criteria is satisfied.
• Presumption for inclusion - The above criteria being satisfied does not guarantee inclusion and editors can decide that even if the above criteria are met, inclusion should not occur, however in this case, there was a significant majority of contributors to the AfD who believe the articles should be allowed to stand and should not be deleted, therefore this criteria is effectively met by the consensus at the AfD to keep these articles.

I further note, that at Wikipedia:Notability (streets, roads, and highways), and I quote Named bridges and tunnels usually meet WP:N requirements and therefore can have their own articles.. I see absolutely no reason why that should not extend to motorway service stations in the UK given their size, naming, and of course, the fact they would normally meet the general notability criteria.

In short, looking very closely at the arguments, evidence presented and thoroughly looking through policy here as it stands today, I can see that the articles currently meet our notability criteria and under the current policy, are ineligible for deletion without a solid consensus opposed to the presumption of inclusion. I apologise for taking a little time to reply, but it was necessary to provide as detailed a rationale in reply to you as possible. Nick (talk) 22:11, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying there isn't notability of them as a group, but each individual 50+ of them are NOT notable in their OWN right and have not ALL gained Significant coverage in secondary reliable sources independent of the subject. To say so is fallacious at best. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 22:15, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I certainly can't say one way or the other if every article has gained the necessary level of coverage in independent sources, but there's certainly a proportion of the articles you nominated that would pass the notability criteria and are most unlikely ever to pass an AfD, there's nothing to prevent you from picking individual articles and nominating them, one at a time, giving those interested parties a chance to try and demonstrate notability and a closing administrator a much more straightforward job of determining consensus and how each article fairs with the notability policy. If you do decide to do this, please don't nominate all the articles again individually, or nominate the articles you think are problematic all at one time. Nick (talk) 22:28, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I was happy to see the AfD closed as it was becoming disruptive. I came here out of curiosity to see if anyone requested clarification on the closure. I am disgusted to see that Raeky characterises Kudpung's edits as trolling and it shows a clear lack of understanding of the term. Kudpung notified Jeni who has edited articles about motorway service stations before, so it was logical to let her know. As for the note left on my talk page, Kudpung could have had no idea what my stance would be on the matter. Kudpung made a grand total of two edits to the AfD. And yet the editor is characterised as vocal (which is used as a dirty word by Raeky)? Kudpung was a peripheral participant in the discussion and most of his edits were to post neutral messages on the talk pages of the affected articles in an attempt make interested parties aware of the AfD. To characterise such actions as trolling is an assumption of bad faith, pure and simple.

As for the section on my user talk page, if comments such as "I have been working on and off to improve these articles" (by Jeni), "The AfD has certainly motivated me to see what I can do with Knutsford services" (by Malleus Fatuorum), "I'd actually like to see the article for those services on the M61 improved, as they are without doubt the biggest toilet on the planet" (by Parrot of Doom) and "I can understand Raeky's arguments though I may disagree with them" (myself) are attempts to de-rail the discussion then I'm a can of tomato soup. Nev1 (talk) 23:02, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

You're comments wasn't unhelpful, but iridescent's are anything but. Definitely mean spirited. As for Kudpung he attempted to drum up a lot of editors to quickly flood the AfD with keeps, and even linking my user page across all the talk pages on the nominated pages. I'm meaning Troll (angling) that definition of troll, not the general internet meaning of trolling, fyi. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 23:38, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

What does it matter if the comments weren't useful? It wasn't at the AfD and there was no conspiracy to bring the AfD to an end. Your suggestion is still ridiculous. If that's the definition of "trolling" you're using, I suggest you link it all the time as on Wikipedia most people will think you mean WP:TROLL. Even with that definition, I dispute your claims. It was only fair to notify the users who contributed to the articles, as you've noted before, so there's no problem there. Also, note the neutral tone of the messages:

The current AfD is part of a suggestion to have 50+ Motorway Service Station articles removed from the Wkipedia although many were kept by consensus on earlier AfD debates. See:

• User_talk:Raeky#AfD_Motorway__service_stations
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Norton_Canes_services_(2nd_nomination)

How many of the editors who commented at the AfD had received a message from Kudpung? Nev1 (talk) 23:52, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

To quote Raeky, "In addition not only did a few vocal editors like Kudpung troll (and here and here) for additional vocal editors to quickly flood the page". I strongly suggest you retract the word troll, as I'm sure you didn't mean it that way. If you are going to accuse someone have being a troll, you need serious evidence to back you up. Upon first reading that I was extremely tempted to take it to WQA, but that wouldn't achieve anything. For what its worth, any editor worth their salt who remotely contributes to MSA articles will know that I am heavily involved in them, and I'd generally be one of the first users they notify about in such a debate. That isn't trolling, that is using common sense! Putting comments on article talk pages also isn't trolling, and Nev is also an obvious person to inform regarding a debate on a UK place, as he is involved in that area in general. Looking through the contributions of all those involved in the debate, I see no obvious trolling or (the bad form of) canvassing, all seems all above board. Surely if you'd have looked at the previous AfD debates (there are more than one), you'd see there is already a strong consensus to keep these articles, you could have saved all this agro without tarnishing your good name. Apart from todays incident, you look like a good editor with a lot of common sense, but I suspect the opinion of you by many users has now changed.

Thank you Nick for making the common sense call, for which you deserve a medal!Jeni ^(talk) 00:20, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Seconded. I'll buy you a curled-up cheese sandwich in Trowell services, if you're ever passing "thru"(sic).  Chzz  ►  01:12, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Edit war/COI on WDTW-FM on ANI

I replied to your post on the "Edit war/COI on WDTW-FM" thread on ANI. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 03:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:Pink Floyd - Comfortably Numb.ogg)

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Pink Floyd - Comfortably Numb.ogg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Parrot of Doom 18:22, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Cheers Nick

Thank you for welcoming me back to Wikipedia.--Sky Attacker the legend reborn... 00:20, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Seriously though, see WP:ENVIRONMENT_LAUGH--Sky Attacker the legend reborn... 10:46, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

File:215852581 d10c70a42b.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:215852581 d10c70a42b.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. FASTILY_sock ^(TALK) 07:20, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop

As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker (talk) 08:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:MG Rover Corporate Logo.jpg)

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:MG Rover Corporate Logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. ZooFari 02:38, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Template:AbRejected

A tag has been placed on Template:AbRejected requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. GrooveDog FOREVER 23:29, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

British Rail Class 321

Hi there, someone on Wikipedia seems to think that it is the right thing to enter the wrong build dates for the British Rail Class 321 Electric Multiple Unit trains. They state incorrectly that these trains were built during the period of 1986-89. This cannot be possible, as during this time, British Rail were building the Class 317/2 Electric Multiple Units (1985-87) and Class 319/0 Electric Multiple Units (1987-88).

The correct build dates for the Class 321 are as follows:

• Class 321/3 were built 1988-90
• Class 321/4 were built 1989-90
• Class 321/9 were built 1991

I also include a reference, it is The Railway Centre 'Technical Data' <http://www.therailwaycentre.com/New%20EMU%20Tech%20Data/EMU_321.html>

Please can you ensure that no-one inputs the incorrect date?

Thanking you in advance.

--Peter Skuce (talk) 09:57, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks for supplying further ciatations/reference.

From

--Peter Skuce (talk) 17:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Human Factors Lab

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Human Factors Lab. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human Factors Lab. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

More vandalism on AN/TPS-43

I just reverted vandalism on AN/TPS-43 and on talk:AN/TPS-43 both from User:190.147.13.211. This is not within the IP range you specified on the talk page, but I thought I'd let you know anyway. DES ^(talk) 17:36, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks David, I just don't get the fascination that article holds for one or two people. I'll keep an eye out for more vandalism and semi protect if necessary. Nick (talk) 17:45, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Unblock request of Jano rajmond

Hello Nick. Jano rajmond (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), whom you have blocked, is requesting to be unblocked. The request for unblock is on hold while waiting for a comment from you. Regards,  Sandstein  11:56, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:British Rail Diesel Loco/Info 66 0

Template:British Rail Diesel Loco/Info 66 0 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:10, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

File:WPSPAM Jan v Mar 2007.png missing description details

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as File:WPSPAM Jan v Mar 2007.png is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors to make better use of the image, and it will be more informative for readers.

If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:18, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Heligoland User Page 4.JPG missing description details

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as File:Heligoland User Page 4.JPG is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors to make better use of the image, and it will be more informative for readers.

If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:34, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

== File:Heligoland User Page 5.JPG missing description details ==

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as File:Heligoland User Page 5.JPG is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors to make better use of the image, and it will be more informative for readers.

If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:47, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Heligoland User Page 3.JPG missing description details

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as File:Heligoland User Page 3.JPG is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors to make better use of the image, and it will be more informative for readers.

If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:14, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:KB Bandmask.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:KB Bandmask.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:37, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Unblock request of User talk:Uga Man

Unblock request on hold, you were involved, so please comment, as I'm not comfortable unblocking without consulting those involved NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 05:55, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:BRPortalframeless

Template:BRPortalframeless has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 15:38, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Di-no license

Template:Di-no license has been nominated for merging with Template:No copyright information. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. —Gh87 (talk) 23:32, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Pagosa Springs Panoramic.gif listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Pagosa Springs Panoramic.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:52, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Image uploads

Thanks for your explanation - makes sense. Could you go through your uploads and paste that explanation on all the images that are like that? It would help future image janitors like me. Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:10, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Please see

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 January 13 and Talk:British Rail Class 58 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mddkpp (talk • contribs) 02:04, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

MSU Interview

Dear Nick,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the communityHERE, where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:

• Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
• Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
• All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
• All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
• The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your nameHERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk)