User talk:Nsk92/Archive 6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Brian Roper (academic)

Thanks for your work on this. I cd not believe that someone wanted to delete the article, but you have made it MUCH stronger. (Are you at London Met?)

Aa42john (talk) 15:56, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Minaret controversy in Switzerland

Following of your undo of my edit to the above page, with all due respect, I wish to disagree with you.

With reference to the prohibition I believed you used, namely Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority. (This exception is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for biographies.). You will see that the author of the blog is notable, the blog in question has been had coverage in The Spectator, Emel magazine and on the BBC to name just three main stream media outlets. It has won an independent award (Winner of the Best European Blog Brass Crescent Awards) two years on the trot (2008 & 9) and is listed in the Quranclub's State of the Muslim Blogosphere Report as being the third oldest active Muslim blog on the internet, so it meets the exception criteria. The blog is also referenced in numerous other Wikipedia articles.

You also said in the edit summary “in this case there are plenty of published sources covering this topic”, at the time of my edit there was just one other link in the further reading section (one more has been add since then).

I will concede that it is not clear cut, and if there had been 5 or 6 other links in the further reading section then I may not have added it.

It is for that reason that I am going to undo your edit. Codf1977 (talk) 10:32, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

You make some reasonable points but you have misunderstood the meaning of my remark “in this case there are plenty of published sources covering this topic”. What I mean is that there are a plenty of published sources to choose from for inclusion in the Further Reading section (not that there are plenty of sources already listed there, which is clearly not the case, as you point out). Yes, you are right, that the author of this blog does have his own Wikipedia article and one can make the argument that an exception mentioned in WP:ELNO applies here. However, I still feel that it is better to avoid blogs as external links, and I would only see a compelling reason to do it if the coverage in published sources is scarce, which is not the case here. If you feel strongly about including a link to this blog, you should raise the issue at the article's talk page and see what the consensus there turns out to be. Nsk92 (talk) 13:29, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay in geting back to you, sorry I did not explain my point about the "plenty of published sources" was that, that beeing the case they should be listed. Moot point anyway as a admin saw fit to delete it again. Codf1977 (talk) 10:45, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
I have posted something to the talk page following your advice. Thanks again Codf1977 (talk) 13:11, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi. You reverted me because you felt that the phrase "This referendum originates from action on 1 May 2007" is proper English? You sure about that? Doesn't "The idea behind this referendum originated on May 1 2007" sound a bit better? So you revert my edit to make the phrase look as if it was written by an ESL dropout. If English is not your primary language, please don't revert grammar rephrases. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 04:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
What you wrote was:"This referendum originated on May 1 2007". This is more awkward and less grammatically correct than "This referendum originates from action on 1 May 2007", although both sentences are fairly awkward. Also your edit included a change from "The Swiss government recommended that the proposed amendment be rejected" to "The Swiss government recommended that the proposed amendment should be rejected". The latter is definitely less grammatically correct than the former. If you disagree, you are free to raise your objections at the article's talk page and see what the others think. Nsk92 (talk) 11:37, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Yeh, I agree with you that both sentences are awkward. But I kind of like "The idea behind this referendum originated on May 1 2007". What do you think? Meishern (talk) 11:46, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
I think that something like "The process leading to this referendum started on May 1, 2007" would be better. The initial legal step, that ultimately resulted in holding of the referendum, was taken on May 1, 2007. The idea presumably originated earlier. Nsk92 (talk) 11:55, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Tough to find the right words. 'This shit all started on May 1' ha! but seriously, i dont like the word 'process', i just so far cant find anything better.... Meishern (talk) 15:24, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

To those who make Good Arguments, who are appreciative, or supportive. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 17:48, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

DYK for International Congress of Mathematicians

Updated DYK query On December 30, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article International Congress of Mathematicians, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Allen3 (talk) 11:42, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Sam Blacketer 2

Hi Nsk,
I thought for a while about writing a reply at the RfA, but basically I have not much else to add, so I thought I'd just come here and acknowledge and thank you for your long reply. I believe we, and most editors, are in agreement about the whole mess, including the issues you mentioned in the reply. However, we draw different conclusions from it when it comes to giving back the admin tools. It's an academic discussion anyway because I'm convinced that this is never going to become a reality – and actually, Balloonman has all but convinced me that it would be a mistake from a PR point of view, which I hadn't considered even though I read the news at the time.
Cheers, Amalthea 13:02, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I am usually not so verbose when commenting in RFAs, but this case really bugged me. Anyway, I see that this RFA has been withdrawn, which is probably for the best under the circumstances. Nsk92 (talk) 20:11, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

here is the original Press Notice of the HEISENBERG FELLOWSHIP Kils you can contact the Media Office if you want a signed copy from the University

there you can also see, that I was faculty at the CHRISTIAN ALBRECHTS UNIVERSITÄT in Kiel, do have a Dr. title and a habilitation in Marine Biology Uwe Kils 14:28, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

here is the original of a Dr. Urkunde Kils - I asked Kiel administration to send prove of Habilitations and VOLKSWAGEN PRIZE Uwe Kils 14:51, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


Hi, please indicate how to open properly a discussion on Epstein's notability. Tx. Advertchaser (talk) 19:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Which Epstein are you talking about? Nsk92 (talk) 19:27, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
You probably mean the David Eppstein article, right? The article has been listed for AfD twice and was kept both times, so neither notability nor CSD tagging would be appropriate now. You could post your concerns at the article's talk page Talk:David Eppstein. If you feel strongly that the subject is not notable and that the article should be deleted, you could nominate it for deletion at WP:AFD (note that the procedure for doing that is fairly complicated, so you'd need to read the instructions carefully). Before doing either of these, I'd recommend that you look at the WP:PROF notability guideline related to academics. IMO, the subject clearly passes WP:PROF and there is not much chance that the article would be deleted if you do list it for AfD. Nsk92 (talk) 20:54, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Sheldon Pinnell

Thanks for your comments at AfD. Regards, PDCook (talk) 20:32, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Panyd RfA

Closed it. Sorry about that. Thanks for pointing it out. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 21:09, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Sure, no problem, and good luck next time. Nsk92 (talk) 23:50, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Community de-Adminship - finalization poll for the CDA proposal

After tolling up the votes in the revision proposals, it emerged that 5.4 had the most support, but elements of that support remained unclear, and various comments throughout the polls needed consideration.

A finalisation poll (intended, if possible, to be one last poll before finalising the CDA proposal) has been run to;

  • gather opinion on the 'consensus margin' (what percentages, if any, have the most support) and
  • ascertain whether there is support for a 'two-phase' poll at the eventual RfC (not far off now), where CDA will finally be put to the community. Matt Lewis (talk) 01:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Johannette Zomer

Thank you for your interest in this singer. I found a Link to bio, recordings, reviews - her best reference are her notable recordings, please compare "What links here". How to proceed? --Gerda Arendt --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

It would help if you add such sources to the main body of the article as footnotes, to reference specific facts mentioned in the Biography section (where and with whom she worked, at which venues she appeared and in which roles and productions, etc). At the moment there is only one footnote there, at the end of the first sentence. Regards, Nsk92 (talk) 13:42, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

your blp comments

Just a note to say I'm glad to see your name around again, and to thank you for your eloquent comments on the BLPs opposing the recent fanaticism, which seems to have finally had unfortunate success in the Orwellian Arbcom motion. If ever a movement fit the definition of fanaticism as redoubling ones efforts after forgetting ones aims, this one does.John Z (talk) 10:47, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Nsk92 (talk) 11:24, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Elizabeth Minchin

Wow, nice job on rescuing this one. Bearian (talk) 03:04, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced mathematics BLP lists

Hi Nsk92, thanks for helping to fix unreferenced mathematics BLPs . Note there are two overlapping lists at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics#Unsourced mathematical biographies, So when you deal with an article it might be helpful check both lists for items to strike. Regards, Paul August 19:12, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks, I'll keep that in mind. (I had thought the two lists were disjoint.) Nsk92 (talk) 19:15, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


Barnstar-atom3.png The E=mc² Barnstar
For your amazing work getting math biographies sourced during the recent mess - every time I look, there you are, crossing another name off the list. I'd have given you the tireless barnstar, but you already have one of those :) RayTalk 04:32, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Nsk92 (talk) 04:35, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I second that barnstar, you're entitled to add two of them to your user page! Pcap ping 16:03, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

warm thanks

Tournesol.png Thank you for participating at: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people, which will delete the vast majority of 50,000 articles created by 17,400 editors, mostly new editors. Nice barnstar by the way! Ikip 05:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Discussion invitation

British Royalty Hi Nsk92/Archive 6, I would like to invite you and anyone watching who shares an interest in moving forward constructively to a discussion about Biographies of Living People

New editors' lack of understanding of Wikipedia processes has resulted in thousands of BLPs being created over the last few years that do not meet BLP requirements. We are currently seeking constructive proposals on how to help newcomers better understand what is expected, and how to improve some 48,000 articles about living people as created by those 17,500 editors, through our proper cleanup, expansion, and sourcing.

These constructive proposals might then be considered by the community as a whole at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people.

Please help us:

Ikip 05:06, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

(refactored) Ikip 04:00, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

re: Edit summaries, etc

In these cases, "rvv" was a typo, I hit the button on my keyboard too fast. Oops. Sorry! As for leaving a comment on the article's talk page: this is an issue across many articles. If the user(s) refuse to respond to me on their own talk pages, then I don't see why they would respond on an article's talk page. I really don't want this edit war; I want to resolve this through discussing the issue with the other person (there are 3 users reverting me; all of them refuse to discuss it on their talk pages and have the same editing pattern, so I assume it's one person). Having one place to discuss it, such as a user talk page, would keep it much more centralized than having it spread out across many articles's talk pages. I'm sorry if I sound overly-frustrated about this, but it's because I am. Kolindigo (talk) 01:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks, I half-suspected that "rvv" was a misprint. I had the Adam Rippon article watch-listed and saw your edit show up there. It is too bad that the IP(s) is(are) refusing to communicate. But that is one of the reasons why I think it'd be a good idea for you to post something at the talk pages of the affected articles, so that other editors interested in these articles can chime in (even if the IPs don't). You can also request a WP:3O or an RfC and have a record of consensus established on the issue of tables. If it gets really bad, you can try WP:ANI or WP:3RR. Nsk92 (talk) 01:58, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Your comments

Thanks for your comments at Phase II. I appreciate your thoughtful concerns. I was hoping to answer some of those questions.

1. "what exactly constitutes "unsourced" is not specified and subject to abuse."

Sourced means a reference. I have been adding one or two reference to unreferenced BLPs. This avoids deletion.

2. "The vast majority of BLPs have no contentious or controversial material. A great many of them have, in the External link section, a link to the subject's homepage, that can usually be used to verify noncontroversial basic info (education employment, current position etc). This is an allowable form of using a slelf-published source per WP:V and such articles should not be considered unsourced, even if the link in question is listed in the External links rather than in the References section."

agreed. I talked about this here: Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Biographies_of_living_people#Badly_tagged_unreferenced_BLPs this is something that can be remedied quickly by editors looking over the unreferenced BLPs.

3. "There also needs to be a provision for dealing with abuse of BLP-prods, in cases where such prods are placed obviously incorrectly. Finally, there needs to be a provision for an automatic remand to an AfD if someone wants to contest a prod but does not have time or resources to look for sources. In an AfD such issues can be discussed in detail and with a more substantive participation of other users. Cutting of an AfD route by disallowing a prod removal without adding sources is bad because it artificially prevents a substantive discussion about the article from taking place. Also, the cases of incorrect BLP-prod placement could be dealt with in an AfD."

I agree, but the current push is to not allow an editor to remove a prod (Jerochman's proposal, 163-55). One option is to notify wikiprojects of the blp article, as I have. they can then be tasked with sourcing the article.

4. "Finally, I find the basic idea of mass indiscriminate prodding, based purely on the date of creation and "unsourced" status, problematic, as it will likely lead to deletion of a large number of easily sourceable and improvable articles on notable subjects. Those desiring clean-up should invest their energy in a more constructive clean-up endeavor. E.g. go through the list of unsourced BLPs (possibly even arranged by date). When you see one, do a few quick google searches. If it looks like the subject is notable, add a few sources yourself or add it to a clean-up list for an appropriate wikiproject page (many wikiprojects have. If the subject is not notable, prod the article, or BLP-prod it (whatever). But indiscriminately prodding a ton of articles without looking at them more carefully would result in too many unnecessary deletions, something that would do more harm than good to the project."

Agreed. that said, this proposal will give editors time to source the articles, some articles will have 14 months to source.
I have looked at this a million ways, and the push is to delete. We alone can't change this. Better to have a reasonable time limit to work on these articles.

this proposal is a comprimise, something that is not ideal to any side, but will get these articles sourced in a reasonable amount of time. Keep in mind, the original proposal which had the most backing only allowed 1 week for new BLPs. two weeks seems like a reasonable comprimise. Okip (the new and improved Ikip) 17:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

5. Although I think that the idea of a BLP-prod is largely redundant, I would support implementing a BLP prod, provided it is properly designed.
I agree I am asking Gigs to work on a BLP prod. I would love you input.
6. ...I think that a person placing a prod has the responsibility to do at least a quick notability check himself/herself. Often that takes just a few seconds. If you find that an article is unsourced but you see that the subject is notable, the correct thing to do is either add a few sources yourself or add it to a clean-up list for an appropriate wikiproject, but certainly not prod it.
This is the WP:before, WP:preserve argument. I have spent years trying to fight to uphold Before, but as one editor said, no one has been blocked for before. Requiring editors to source, does not work.
7. My other comment concerns how a BLP-prod is supposed to work. My point is that a user contesting such a prod should have two options: add sources and remove a prod, or remove a prod and list an article for an AfD.
Then we will have a edit war in reverse of what we have now, editors will remove prods in mass (instead of adding prods in mass). Add one source, one source, and the prod can be removed.
Okip (the new and improved Ikip) 22:42, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

G. K. Podila

Thank you for your work improving the G. K. Podila article. I took a quick look for information related to two other people killed in Huntsville, Maria Ragland Davis and Adriel Johnson, and my first reaction was that they probably weren't individually notable, so I didn't start articles on them. Both names are now redirects to 2010 University of Alabama in Huntsville shooting. Could you take a look at the two names, and create articles on them if you think they are notable? I also started an article on Joseph Leahy, one of the people who was wounded. - Eastmain (talkcontribs) 19:34, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I am not a biologist, but I did do a bit of google-searching and it appears that neither Davis nor Johnson would pass WP:PROF. They both have rather low citability and Davis was an Assistant Professor at the time of her death. It is also not clear to me that Leahy is academically notable, as his GS cites are also not particularly high and there are no other clear indicators of academic notability (such as those present in Podila's case). Nsk92 (talk) 21:40, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Your VOTE 2 vote at CDA

Hi Nsk92,

Firstly, apologies for this long message! I may need a response from you directly underneath it, per (3) below.

You are receiving this message as you voted in VOTE 2 at the recent Community de-Adminship 'Proposal Finalization' Poll. Unfortunately, there is a hitch regarding the "none" vote that can theoretically affect all votes.

1) Background of VOTE 2:

In a working example of CDA; ater the 'discussion and polling phase' is over, if the "rule of thumb" baseline percentage for Support votes has been reached, the bureaucrats can start to decide whether to desysop an admin, based in part on the evidence of the prior debate. This 'baseline' has now been slightly-adjusted to 65% (from 70%) per VOTE 1. VOTE 2 was asking if there is a ballpark area where the community consensus is so strong, that the bureaucrats should consider desysopping 'automatically'. This 'threshold' was set at 80%, and could change pending agreement on the VOTE 2 results.

This was VOTE 2;

Do you prefer a 'desysop threshold' of 80% or 90%, or having none at all?
As a "rule of thumb", the Bureaucrats will automatically de-sysop the Administrator standing under CDA if the percentage reaches this 'threshold'. Currently it is 80% (per proposal 5.4).
Please vote "80" or "90", or "None", giving a second preference if you have one.

This is the VOTE 2 question without any ambiguity;

Do you prefer a "rule of thumb" 'auto-desysop' percentage of 80%, 90%, or "none"?
Where "none" means that there is no need for a point where the bureaucrats can automatically desysop.
Please vote "80" or "90", or "None", giving a second preference if you have one.

2) What was wrong with VOTE 2?

Since the poll, it has been suggested that ambiguity in the term "none at all" could have affected some of the votes. Consequently there has been no consensus over what percentage to settle on, or how to create a new compromise percentage. The poll results are summarised here.


Directly below this querying message, please can you;

  • Clarify what you meant if you voted "none".
  • In cases where the question was genuinely misunderstood, change your initial vote if you wish to (please explain the ambiguity, and don't forget to leave a second choice if you have one).
  • Please do nothing if you interpreted the question correctly (or just confirm this if you wish), as this query cannot be a new vote.

I realise that many of you clarified your meaning after your initial vote, but the only realistic way to move forward is to be as inclusive as possible in this vote query. I will copy any responses from this talk page and place them at CDA Summaries for analysis. Sorry for the inconvenience,

Matt Lewis (talk) 01:00, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I had no misunderstanding regarding the meaning of the "none" option in this vote; I thought and still think that the option was quite transparently presented to begin with. Nsk92 (talk) 01:12, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your intervention

I saw your post at User talk:John williams 7. Thank you for your intervention. I'm old enough and ugly enough not to be upset by this editor's conduct, but a less robust person might be affected by it. Good catch. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 13:30, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks and my apologies

I am a new editor and in the process of learning. I had no idea about Wikepedia policy on outing. Thanks for making me aware of it and I will abide by it.

I have created my first page and will apprecite your help in improving it so that it is not deleted. You seem to be knowledgeable to help me learn what are Wikepedia policies when there is evidence that another editor is acting out of personal vendetta.

John williams 7 (talk) 01:00, 23 February 2010 (UTC)John Williams

Thanks for your message. You may also want to look up WP:AGF and WP:NPA, which are also basic Wikipedia principles. The former means, in particular that you should not ascribe sinister motives to another Wikipedia user without very substantial evidence and that your default assumption should be that the user is acting in good faith. Just because somebody nominated an article you created for deletion does not mean that they have some sinister motives for doing so; it is far more likely (and I am pretty sure is the case here) that the nominator honestly felt that the article does not satisfy the Wikipedia standards for inclusion. User:Timtrent has been a Wikipedia editor since March 2006 (you can check his contrib record yourself); it is simply not believable that he has been 'lying in wait' all this time waiting for your article to appear so that he can nominate it for deletion. If you really want the others to listen to you and to take your arguments seriously, you should phrase them not in terms of personal accusations (such as "another editor is acting out of personal vendetta") but in terms of policy-based arguments. If you want the article in question kept, you need to demonstrate, by providing verifiable references to reliable sources that the article's subject is notable, and satisfies one of Wikipedia's notability guidelines (in this case the most applicable ones are WP:BIO and WP:PROF). Basically you need to find sufficient examples of significant coverage of the subject of the article by independent (from the subject himself) reliable sources. An AfD discussion lasts at least seven days so you still have time to do that. Nsk92 (talk) 01:47, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Well, Nsk92, it seems to me that your warning has not been heeded. He repeats his allegation and personal attack above. I think it may be time to consider a more formal warning, but I do not want to do this myself lest he feel victimised, so I will leave it for others to judge. It's a shame he does not use his obvious energy and enthusiasm to edit and improve the article instead of engaging in sniping. If it is possible to save it then he should do so. I find him amusing, but less robust editors may find him threatening. I'll support you if you choose to take action or if you choose to do nothing at all. What I will not to is interact with him. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 11:08, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
The post above was John williams's last edit thus far. I'd like to wait and see what he does after resuming editing. Nsk92 (talk) 11:32, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
He has now made some edits to the article. One of those has made the reference to the book worse! I imagine he was the IP editor who made the same error. But, on the AfD he is speaking of harsh treatment and a personal vendetta, now against him. So, for clarity, and assuming he is accusing me, I have no idea who he is nor who Nigam Arora is. I am not interested in either him or Arora. The article is somewhat improved, though WP:RS is lacking in what I believe to be sufficient breadth to assert and verify notability. Were he less strident I would consider touching the article, but I've lost interest.
I perceive him to be an enthusiastic new editor whose energies might be better harnessed once he steps back from the things he edits and realises that this is a place where we father articles, we do not mother them. I feel wholly unable to tell him this in any meaningful manner since he appears to view me as hostile - odd if you look at his talk page where I was at pains to explain the AfD nomination, but understandable if he is taking this personally.
I wonder if he will listen to you as a guide if you explain some of this to him. He appears to be manufacturing all his own grief over this, probably because of his passion for this Arora guy. I am absolutely not going to interact with him. It would pour fuel on his blaze. I'd appreciate his being persuaded to cease his accusations and personal attacks. And, oddly enough, I use my real name on Wikipedia. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:02, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


this. He admitted it on Dutch television, can't find a English source unfortunately... Fontes (talk) 23:49, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Then, per WP:BLP, it is better to wait a little until such sources appear. The story is sure to be covered by the media pretty intensely. Nsk92 (talk) 23:52, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
OK, found a source[1] confirming this info. Time to put it back in the article. Nsk92 (talk) 23:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Great! Many thnx from Hollanda ;-) Wkr, Fontes (talk) 00:05, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Final discussion for Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:

  1. Proposal to Close This RfC
  2. Alternate proposal to close this RFC: we don't need a whole new layer of bureaucracy

Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip 02:03, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration and AN/I

I recently opened an arbitration case on user:Steaphen I wasn't aware of the ANI process. I wonder if the proposal is to stop the arbitration request and try ANI instead, or try ANI in parallel, and if it succeeds, stop the arbitration? I apologise, but it doesn't happen every day that I am involved in this. Ansgarf (talk) 22:17, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

After some thinking I did open an ANI case. Thanks. Ansgarf (talk) 22:42, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
I left a comment at the AN/I page. However please note that you need to notify User:Steaphen about the AN/I thread. Nsk92 (talk) 23:38, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
You might also post notifications at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Logic and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics. Nsk92 (talk) 23:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
O.K.Ansgarf (talk) 23:56, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
I did not know if you were online, so I posted notifications myself at Steaphen's talk page and at Wikiprojects Math and Philosophy (since Zeno's paradoxes article is tagged under those), as well as at the article's talk page. Nsk92 (talk) 23:58, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
I noticed that you did. Thanks. There were two persons in black pants and white shirts with some must-read literature at my door. Ansgarf (talk) 00:01, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Nsk92. You have new messages at Ansgarf's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

When you get a moment

I wonder if you would mind popping over to this arbcom request and giving whatever your opinion might be, assuming you do not feel disqualified. It is, of course, likely that this will be resolved by the declared end of your wikibreak, but I noticed that you had contributed elsewhere recently. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 13:56, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for a non contentious statement of facts. Fiddle Faddle (talk)

Re-opening threads

You've now twice unarchived, a thread at ANI. Once is ok, but one should not generally edit war to keep an ANI thread open if it is being closed multiple times by different parties. –xenotalk 05:56, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I am very much of the opinion that it is way too early to archive the thread. The discussion has only run for a short time. Moreover, this is not a thread where no admin action is required. On the contrary, the initiator of the thread requested a review of the unblock to see if the block should be reinstated. It is inappropriate to archive the discussion until and unless a clear conclusion on that point is reached. Nsk92 (talk) 06:01, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


Are you really going to edit war over whether a section of AN/I is going to be archived? It has been archived twice by other editors, User:Durova, and User:Xavexgoem. Really? Keeper | 76 05:58, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it was archived twice and both times inappropriately. Better have a proper discussion at ANI than to have this end at ArbCom page. Nsk92 (talk) 06:03, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
ArbCom cases are more likely after extended and tedious AN/I threads. It's actually a good gauge: the bigger the AN/I thread, the more likely there'll be an ArbCom case. It is a tactic, but a very effective one: close AN/I threads before they turn into some unmapped level of Hell. You leave something like this wide open, and you're inviting anyone to complain about the subject of the thread, the existence of the thread, those complaining about the existence of the thread, those complaining about complaining, and those complaining about complaining about complaining. Xavexgoem (talk) 06:32, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
It may be OK to quickly close an AN/I thread if it is clear that no admin action is requested or required or in a particularly clear-cut case (e.g. if there is a request for an admin action but it is clear that the request is frivolous). However, early closure is almost never appropriate in the case of a block/unblock review request, such as what we have here. In such situations it is necessary to have a proper, rather than abortive, ANI discussion which allows more than just a few users, who happened to see the thread first, to participate and express their views. An abortive discussion precludes the possibility of a consensus being formed regarding a particular block/unblock and makes the case more likely to end up at ArbCom. The current state of the thread shows quite clearly that more discussion is needed and that the abortive closure attempts were premature and inappropriate. Nsk92 (talk) 11:48, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Xavexgoem is right. The initial post was basically an invitation to wheel war. If anyone had taken up that request (other than the unblocking admin, who had already refused to reverse her action) it would have guaranteed an arbitration case. This needed to go to dispute resolution. Durova412 22:15, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Nsk92. You have new messages at Kirachinmoku's talk page.
Message added 00:30, 18 March 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Seen and replied to your message. KiraChinmoku (T, ¤) 00:30, 18 March 2010 (UTC)