User talk:Nick/Archive15

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

Media Viewer RfC arbitration case - extension of closure dates

Hello, you are receiving this message because you have commented on the Media Viewer RfC arbitration case. This is a courtesy message to inform you that the closure date for the submission of evidence has been extended to 17 August 2014 and the closure date for workshop proposals has been extended to 22 August 2014, as has the expected date of the proposed decision being posted. The closure dates have been changed to allow for recent developments to be included in the case. If you wish to comment, please review the evidence guidance. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:00, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Media Viewer RfC arbitration case - motion to suspend case

You are receiving this message as you have either commented on a case page or are named as a party to the case. A motion has been proposed to suspend the Media Viewer RfC arbitration case for a maximum of 60 days due to recent developments. If you wish to comment regarding the motion there is a section on the proposed decision talk page for this. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs). Message delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 02:33, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

User:0aheadnovel0/Walter H. Dyett High School

Hello NotASpy, I was asking you and User:Revent in #wikipedia-en-help about User:0aheadnovel0/Walter H. Dyett High School but I got disconnected. Because User:0aheadnovel0/Walter H. Dyett High School has not been edited in more than 4 years, should I move it to Draft:Walter H. Dyett High School instead of nominating it for deletion at MfD? Draft:New Zealand Music Commission is an example of one which was moved to Draft instead of being nominated. Can you please advise me of what do in this instance. Thank you, PNGWantok (talk) 11:01, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

@PNGWantok: A quick search shows that the school in question has an article at Dyett Academic Center, so there is no particular reason to move it to draft space. Since the editor in question only made two edits four years ago I doubt they are coming back, so you might as well nuke it to clean up the stale drafts. Revent^talk 11:09, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you User:Revent. I did a search on Google but I didn't find that page. I have nominated it for deletion. PNGWantok (talk) 11:19, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Just as a note...

Thanks for writing that WT:AIR thing in your own words - which is what should have been done in the first place by one side or the other in the edit war. Because, regardless of how useful a post may be, banned means banned. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:15, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

The Bushranger I hate to tell you, but you're wrong. Please read through and re-familiarise yourself with Wikipedia:Banning policy which allows editors to reinstate edits made by a blocked or banned user at their own discretion provided they take responsibility for that edit. Many thanks. Nick (talk) 22:37, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Case Opened: Banning Policy

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Banning Policy. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Banning Policy/Evidence. Please add your evidence by September 16, 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Banning Policy/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Seddon ^talk 12:29, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Jaguar XE image

Just curious, where did that image come from, and what's the free-use rational? 842U (talk) 20:19, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

842U it's a Jaguar press image supplied by Jaguar's Middle East and North Africa press office under a free licence. They helpfully release all their images under a CC-BY licence. They're one of several hundred companies now using CC-BY to get their press images into use on Wikipedia and sister projects. Nick (talk) 20:33, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! 842U (talk) 15:24, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Bede House

What is wrong with Bede House image? Ray Oaks (talk) 21:42, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Ray Oaks - nothing at all, on the contrary, it's a valuable image so I've moved it onto Commons, where it can be used by other projects (there's a few translations of articles on various Aberdeen buildings and bits of architecture). It's still visible at the original title, deletion here is purely a technical issue as the image has been duplicated. Nick (talk) 21:54, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation - the alert message was confusing. As you might imagine I am not an "expert" in Wikitalk. Apologies if I appeared sniffy in my response to the original message. :-) Ray Oaks (talk) 08:07, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

AWB access

Nick, I wanted to know if I should request for AWB access on WP:AN based on my performance since the revocation.[1] That time, I had about 125,000 edits, now I have 155,000. I feel that I have really learned a lot from that incident. I was aware that further objectionable editing would place me under editing restrictions like topic ban on mass editing and any automated editing. I avoided making mistakes. My talk page had number of complaints during the time you would take action, but it remains free of any complaints since the day you had revoked the access.

During this period, I have been involved with a number of backlogs, mostly Category:Biography articles without listas parameter. I also had GA,[2] DYK.[3] [4] [5] [6] Thanks OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 14:52, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't see any issues with your access being restored, give it 24 hours for anybody to object, and if nobody does, feel free to request access in the usual manner. Nick (talk) 15:01, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I had posted on WP:AN.{check this) 11 days now, I still don't seem to be receiving any complaints with my editing. I have made around 3k edits during this period. So what you think about the consensus? 3 oppose - 3 support, 1 undecided/neutral. One of the oppose seems to contradict established policy. What can be done now? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 22:34, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

That's clearly no consensus to restore access, so there's nothing I can do. I'd suggest waiting for the same period and requesting access again at a later date. Nick (talk) 23:19, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I had to restore the whole thread today,[7] can you recheck? Thanks OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 12:59, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not going to close the thread, as I'm involved, but it's still looking firmly like there's no consensus and that those who oppose you being given AWB access have very serious concerns which would need to be assuaged. Nick (talk) 14:20, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

Would you please start a new AfD for Jashodaben Chimanlal? Thanks. Please leave the content till it closes. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:32, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello. Can you give me some options? I can talk to you now by phone or video if you email me. I can seek other comment elsewhere, but I do not want to do a deletion review because I feel that is not the right process because the judgments were all valid. I wrote a new article. You seem to not accept it. What should I do? Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:48, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I cannot offer any other options, there are set processes to follow on Wikipedia. The previous AfD addresses the notability concerns and it was agreed amongst those who took part in that discussion that Jashodaben was not notable on their own, an issue you have yet to address despite presenting new sources. You will need to take the discussion to deletion review and demonstrate that Jashodaben is independently notable before creating a new article. It is not possible to simply create a new article and ignore the outcome of a previous AfD, one that's less than six months old and I must insist that you follow due process. Nick (talk) 13:58, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks. I still object to your doing this without giving an explanation in the edit summary or on the talk page. Other than that - thanks for patrolling and keeping order. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:00, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

The outcome is of this is at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2014_September_30. As we had both agreed and wanted, the past deletion discussions were confirmed as valid. I still assert that I have a substantially new version of this article as compared to the last one which went to deletion discussion, and would like to recreate something. I think that I have a compromise which I could explain to you here if you liked, but first let me ask: Do you want to engage with me further on this, or should I find someone more personally interested (which is no problem)? If you do want to continue talk, to what extent would it be useful to you that I present further argument to ask you to remove page protection? At this point I am looking for an admin to confirm or deny that I have standing to recreate a different article which can go to AfD, and for that admin to remove page protection.

Sorry for any stress that came to you as a result of this. Being an admin gets a lot of flak and it is unfair that people in this role are second-guessed continually, and it was not my desire that you experience this because of me. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:51, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

The situation, as we know, is complicated. I'd think it's probably for the best if you find another administrator and after informing them of the DRV discussion and previous AfDs, ask for them to remove the page protection. I'm happy for any administrator to remove the protection and allow the restoration of your article. The other option which might work is for you to create a Draft article and nominate that for deletion, making participants aware of the DRV and previous AfDs, to see if they think your draft is suitable for inclusion. It's somewhat unorthodox but gets round the technical issues of recent AfDs and the DRV. The last option is to continue to pursue inclusion at Narendra Modi's talk page, gain consensus there and you'll have consensus to effectively cast aside the previous AfDs and DRV. Nick (talk) 23:31, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks again for all of your help. It is not my intent to draw you more deeply into this but I did mention your name on the admin board and per protocol I am informing you that I spoke of you. You have been entirely helpful. Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:08, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Unblock on hold

I have placed an unblock request at User talk:David Hedlund on hold. You blocked the account on 1 July, since when the editor has made a number of unblock requests. He has attempted to indicate that he understands the reason for the block, and will not do the things that led to the block again. Like other admins who declined earlier unblock requests, I am by no means sure that he really does understand well enough, but I am in favour of giving him a chance. At the worst, an unblock would be giving him enough rope to prove that he has not learnt better, in which case he can be blocked again very quickly, and at best it will turn out that he really has learnt, and we gain a constructive editor. What do you think? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:01, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree and I'm quite happy to give him another chance. Nick (talk) 13:11, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

OK, I've unblocked. Let's see how it goes. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:51, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

AN3 report of revert war at Battle of Badr

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:AsceticRose and User:Fauzan reported by User:Calcula2 (Result: ). Notifying you because you are an admin who commented on the article talk page and might have opinions on what to do. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 15:59, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Article: "Joseph Steinberg"

Hello Nick. I was going to create an article for technology author “Joseph Steinberg” {who has also been in the press for writing against sexism} and I saw you are listed as a Wikipedia Administrator who deleted a prior article about him. Your comments from that deletion state that he was bordering on being notable. After then he seems to be appearing in ‘reliable sources’ for different topics often (examples - USA Today - BBC - current Google News) and his writing shows much larger numbers of readers than before. Forbes also mentions him as a top writer one example. Worldcat now shows 749 libraries with his book. It was 544 when the old article was deleted. He seems for-sure to pass the rules for notability for authors. But I am a Wikipedia user who is new to editing. So I wanted to check with you if you still object to the article or if I can create it. I will not ask you to restore the old article as the previous deletion says the old article was very promotional. --Thetechgirl (talk) 21:39, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Thetechgirl I've no objections and don't see why you shouldn't have a go at writing a new article. I can't guarantee it won't be nominated for deletion, but it's not something I intend to do. Nick (talk) 21:55, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Done. Thank you. --Thetechgirl (talk) 19:58, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Lia Olguța Vasilescu

Hello. Please see this at WP:AN, where I talk about an edit of yours that I find very odd. -- Hoary (talk) 01:27, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for the minor complication, but as it seemed an "incident" I moved the matter here in WP:AN/I. -- Hoary (talk) 03:46, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I came here to post a notice that I've tagged Lia Olguța Vasilescu as a copyright violation, though now I see that the matter's already been raised by Hoary. In this case the text is indeed free content, but you have failed to attribute the authors in the manner prescribed by the licence. You are, of course, welcome to take responsibility for the restored edits of the banned contributor, but you must do a proper WP:HISTMERGE so that they and all other contributors to the article are properly credited. Simply linking to an anonymous offsite copyvio, as you did here, is not sufficient. —Psychonaut (talk) 09:00, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Rabbits and Trix

Have a look at the contribs of SillyRabbit2. Might just be a coincidence... Peridon (talk) 11:55, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Peridon umm, that account doesn't exist. Nick (talk) 12:05, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, small r not big R. This is in connection with a recent block you made. Peridon (talk) 12:26, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Iaaasi

Nick: I see you commented recently at the AN/I section on the Romanian politician article, so you've been keeping an eye on it, but I'm notifying you that as I've just said there, it seems to be time to call the question on unbanning Iaaasi. I'm not at all familiar with his case, and you clearly not only are but believe he's either rehabilitated himself such that articles he creates are now useful to the encyclopedia, or has almost reached that point, so I'm putting it to you: do you want to make the proposal? Maybe with some suggestion for mentoring, topic limitation, or similar? Yngvadottir (talk) 17:41, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

He's fit to be unbanned, if it wasn't for the socking. I've looked at the content he's written with his socks and I can't see any problems with inherent POV issues or nationalistic issues. The only thing that concerns me is how recent his sockpuppetry runs to, and I've said to him, I would want to see a few months free from sockpuppetry before I'd propose unbanning. The problem is how to keep someone who wants to write content from breaching his ban by socking, which is where the idea of him writing on his blog came in, but that seems like far too much trouble. Nick (talk) 18:28, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I'd be grateful if you could dig up what exactly Jimbo said when he proposed the blog idea; he's said I have misrepresented it. I agree with both you and Wnt, we have a collision of values here: we want to build the encyclopedia, but banned people have been banned because the community feels they represent a danger to the encyclopedia that outweighs the value of their lost contributions. However, I very strongly feel that the solution is not to do an end run around the ban, for reasons I've attempted to explain several times at AN/I; and ArbCom appears to agree with the thrust of my thoughts on that, if I'm understanding their legalese correctly. On the smaller scale, I don't know this editor or where in particular he gets into trouble (other than socking and insistent canvassing). If it were a language I could read, I'd wade in and solve the problem editorially. But unless someone comes forward who can genuinely vet that article (and any others he's socked to write) for nationalist bias, that avenue is closed off. And a lot of you seem to think we would be better off with him rehabilitated. I'd rather you, or one of his other backers, made the case. But I don't think we're doing the encyclopedia any good wrangling over it, partly because the issue will remain - both for this editor and for others, such as Pumpie.

I've quoted you in a response on AN/I, but I fear I must now go to bed. I'll look both here and there when I get up to prepare for work. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:26, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I've been trying to find Jimbo's post for a couple of days now and can't find it, so I've asked Jimmy to repeat/clarify and expand based on my attempt with Iaaasi. Nick (talk) 21:27, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that and especially for the explanation at AN/I, which I've responded to. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:15, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Katy_Perry_at_the_Prudential_Center_(cropped).jpg

Hi Nick, Not sure where to post this so my apologies if it's in the wrong place!,
Although you removed the offending image it's still visible here [8] (2nd image on the right) and is also visible on some of the other wiki's linked,
I had hoped after a few hours it would revert back but clearly not,
Anyway thanks,
Regards, –Davey2010 • (talk) 04:16, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I can only guess it's a caching issue somewhere between you and Wikipedia. The images were reverted then deleted on Commons so there's no way they could remain visible on WMF sites ordinarily. Nick (talk) 10:37, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Ah I had wondered that to be honest but thought it was best I checked first anyway, Anyway all back to normal :), Cheers, –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:15, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Your undeletion of Why didn't you invest in Eastern Poland?

Hi - I deleted this per WP:CSD#G5, and you undeleted it with the edit summary "I'll take responsibility for it". Whatever that may mean, it does not change the reason for the deletion, that is, being created by a banned editor in violation of their ban with no substantial contributions by others, including you. Please re-delete the article accordingly.  Sandstein  11:35, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

No. Please read Wikipedia:Banning_policy#Edits_by_and_on_behalf_of_banned_editors. Nick (talk) 11:41, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

How is that policy relevant for the purpose of applying WP:CSD#G5?  Sandstein  11:43, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Editors who reinstate edits made by a banned editor take complete responsibility for the content. which is what I'm doing.

Pages created by banned users in violation of their ban, and which have no substantial edits by others, are eligible for speedy deletion. Any editor can use the template db-g5, or its alternative name db-banned, to mark such a page. If editors other than the banned editor have made good-faith contributions to the page or its talk page, it is courteous to inform them that the page was created by a banned editor, and then decide on a case-by-case basis what to do. which you didn't do. You went on a wilful deletion spree destroying content which has survived an AfD.

I suggest, if you wish the content deleted, AfD is the most appropriate venue, and always was, given the article previously survived AfD and has been assessed by the community as meeting inclusion standards. Nick (talk) 11:48, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

On the contrary, Nick, as the G5 speedy was obviously valid, if you wished the content to be undeleted, the only proper venue would have been for you to go to DRV. Your undeletion was out of process and constitutes wheel-warring. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:24, 1 November 2014 (UTC)w

It doesn't say that anywhere that I can see, so that looks to be nothing more than your opinion or interpretation. Sorry. Nick (talk) 19:30, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Undeletion request

Good day. I was wondering if you would consider undeleting Brickell Flatiron. While I recognize that many WP:Crystal ball pages of things that never came to fruition should be deleted, as well as that there are many low quality stubs on Miami-area related topics, this one has come back to life (http://www.miamiherald.com/news/business/article1963188.html http://www.thenextmiami.com/index.php/65-story-brickell-flatiron-552-units-launches-sales/) and was/is fairly significant as a larger project with a unique design. It was also going to be a true mixed-use building and was going to be built around an elevated transit system between two properties, which is very rare. I believe the article was just a stub but it is possible that there could be some bit of history that is lost in the page, especially since many local sources such as The Miami Herald are highly prone to link-rot with no easily accessible archive. I know low quality stubs are annoying, especially when they are spammy, but this one doesn't have to be. Thank you. B137 (talk) 02:16, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I've undeleted it for you. If you do decide later that you're unable to get it up to the desired standard though, let me know and I'll re-delete it for you. Nick (talk) 11:44, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. There should be no problem. It has decent coverage. B137 (talk) 12:04, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Final Amendment

Hi Nick, thanks a million for helping me out with my issue. Though I noticed you changed:

Kit_body_Dragons2007h_PL.png to Kit_body_Dragons2007a_PL.png File:Kit body Dragons2007h PL.png instead of Kit_Body_Dragons2007a_PL.png File:Kit body Dragons2007a PL.png to Kit_body_Dragons2007a_PL.png

Kit_body_Dragons2007h_PL.png needed to remain as it was.

Would you be able to amend this for me?

Cheers,

Yoka 17:35, 10 November 2014 (AEST)

Done. Nick (talk) 11:36, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

BNA access

Hello, Nick. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Chris Troutman (talk) 16:48, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Driftchambers

Hello Nick,

It's been since 11th of January and i haven't had any intention for most of those months to regain access, as i forgot altogether about the whole thing, but just recently something happened that made me think i really do need to regain access. It's just that i provided the info last time in response to your reply but received no reply from yourself. Also i have a wikipedia homepage which has the password stored upon it, but the actual password is only part of the information on that page, and i haven't yet found out which part the password is. At some time in the future i'll likely be able to re-find the password, but at the moment it's just an issue of trying every variation, which is time consuming.

I'll just have to continue to attempt to at least regain access to the account via repeated attempts.

thanks 146.90.8.128 (talk) 22:03, 13 November 2014 (UTC)