Misplaced Pages

• If I post on your talk page, I will notice any replies posted there.
• Unless you request otherwise, I will reply here to comments made here.
• I will usually post a brief note on your talk page to let you know that I have replied, unless your talk page instructs me otherwise.
• If you write a reply to me here, I may decide to move your text back to your talk page in an effort to keep the thread in one place.
• If you are just pointing out something written to me elsewhere, edit here.
• Such pointers are useful if you've written to a comment I made many days ago.
• My user talk page is archived automatically by Werdnabot, so
• To see older messages please view my archives.

Messages

Archives: The Basement  · My desk  · My Barnstars

User talk:Dakshayani

This user's ben asking for unblock for over a day now; could you respond to him? Thanks. Part Deux 20:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

OK. I just put him out of his misery – . — Nearly Headless Nick 12:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I sure did, and called you the name that Samir once used, though I refrained from typing it down :-) Tintin (talk) 11:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

lol! :-)--thunderboltz 11:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

This one is for you. Dakshaayani 09:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello

Thank you for pointing that you.

I will surely keep that in mind the next time I edit wikipedia

Regards

naxalrevolution

You're welcome. — Nearly Headless Nick 10:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome

Hi Nick, Just letting you know that I replied on my talk page. You can remove this notice now if you like.

81.104.210.31 11:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I surely won't. I think I have a fetish for n00b messages. Oh wait, or was that b00bs? — Nearly Headless Nick 11:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

maybe it was n00b massages ;) 81.104.210.31 11:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I registered to upload a picture!

Tkenna 21:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Barrington Hall

Please do not delete sections of text or valid links from Misplaced Pages articles, as you did to Barrington Hall. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. See the discussion on the Talk:Barrington Hall page - you are incorrectly interpreting the policy. Argyriou (talk) 15:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Kindly review the concerned guideline and revert yourself. Also your warning, to a edit made in good faith came as unwarranted. — Nearly Headless Nick 16:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, the YouTube links are not reliable sources as any person with an internet connection can upload any kind of file over their website. Many of the vidoes uploaded are copyrighted by their respective owners and links to those should not be used on Misplaced Pages. — Nearly Headless Nick 16:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Read the discussion on Talk:Barrington Hall and ]. There is no consensus that it is against policy to link to YouTube videos which are not clearly infringing copyright. That particular video clip is claimed to be allowed to be posted on YouTube, and nobody has offered any evidence that the clip exists on YouTube in violation of copyright. Deletion of a link which does not knowingly violate copyright, which has been discussed at grat length on the talk page, is not a good-faith edit. Neither is wholesale removal of links to YouTube throughout Misplaced Pages. Argyriou (talk) 16:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

What exactly are you talking about? We do not need consensus on Talk:Barrington Hall for deciding if we need to keep YouTube video links on this website. Speaking of WT:EL, the guideline clearly states –

• Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. See Reliable sources.
• Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority. – YouTube is not an authority, there is not reliability as anyone can upload new videos, including copyrighted ones. Facilitation of copyright violations is not a choice with Misplaced Pages. Either link it to the website retaining the copyrights over the video or remove the link to YouTube.

Kindly get yourself familiar with Misplaced Pages's guidelines of reliable sources and external links and revert yourself. Regards, — Nearly Headless Nick 16:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Have you even looked at the videos you delink? In the Barrington Hall case, the video is not some talking head talking about Barrington Hall, it's a video of the actual building; it is by its very nature, a reliable source. The restriction on personal websites, besides being controversial (see the WP:EL talk) is also a guideline to the potential reliability of a link. The guideline is titled "Links normally to be avoided". It does not read "Links always to be avoided". The guideline assumes (not entirely justifiably) that in the "normal" case, most personal web pages are not reliable sources, but it does not ban such links.

If you were removing video links after having examined them, and tagging them as copyright violations or irrelevant to the article, or such, you'd be doing useful work. But if you're just going through articles and automatically removing all YouTube links without checking them, you're vandalising Misplaced Pages. Please stop. Argyriou (talk) 16:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

There is an ongoing discussion on the WP:ANI relevant to this thread – WP:ANI#YouTube_link_deletion. — Nearly Headless Nick 17:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Bitis arietans YouTube link removal

Hi Nick, I noticed you recently removed a YouTube link from the Bitis arietans article. Most of the YouTube links were removed from this series of articles a while ago because they lacked copyright information, but the one you removed does have copyright information. It's at the end of the video and says "© Al Coritz 2006, Deadly Beautiful Zoological, LLC." Did you accidentally not notice this, or is this copyright information not good enough? If not, what's missing? --Jwinius 16:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

YouTube links are not reliable as any person with an internet connection can upload a file on their website. Moreover, many of these videos are copyrighted by their respective creators and links to those should not be used on Misplaced Pages, as this constitutes direct faciliation of copyright violations. Regards, — Nearly Headless Nick 16:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

So, now we're not allowed to link to anything at YouTube, period? Is that it? Please confirm, but if so, I find that rather harsh. After all, it's not likely that people like Mr. Coritz will be streaming such video material themselves any time soon, since the bandwidth requirements are obviously prohibitive. --Jwinius 16:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Unless the video's copyrights are exclusively owned by YouTube, no – you cannot link to the site. — Nearly Headless Nick 16:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

That claim is utterly ridiculous. YouTube merely has to be authoriszed by the copyright holder to display the video for the link to be valid. Claiming that YouTube must own the copyrights for Misplaced Pages to even link to the video is far beyond anything required in WP:EL, WP:COPY, or the DCMA. Argyriou (talk) 17:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

You are just not willing to cease your disruption? Get over it. — Nearly Headless Nick 17:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

..."disruption" is a grossly inappropriate term, and it is uncivil of you to even suggest that a good faith editorial opinion given on a talkpage is "disruptive." Reread the Wiki definition of disruptive, toute de suite. Cindery 05:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Only if "the video's copyrights are exclusively owned by YouTube"? That does indeed seem a bit exaggerated. Last month, Dmcdevit removed some of my YouTube links and told me that " In order to be linked to YouTube, they need to have a source and copyright status. This could mean saying he made it and he owns the copyright to it, and then he can release it however he likes." Since Mr. Coritz has added this information to his latest video material at YouTube, I don't see that copyright is any longer an issue here. --Jwinius 22:46, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

There is an ongoing discussion on WP:ANI page, the link has been mentioned above. Feel free to drop a line or two, there. — Nearly Headless Nick 04:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I just checked the link. No where on YouTube is it mentioned where it was sourced from, copyright information. If you are only providing the copyright information on Misplaced Pages, that is clearly not justifiable. The copyright information and the terms of usage should be specified on the site which you have sourced. — Nearly Headless Nick 09:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Ongoing discussion? That would suggest that there is still disagreement on the issue, in which case it may be premature to go around deleting YouTube links from other people's articles. As for the link itself, as I said before, the required copyright information, which I only quoted, is stated clearly at the end of the video clip. --Jwinius 13:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The clip has been copied from another independent source that holds the copyright to that video clip. The copyright information showing at the end of the video-clip does not mean that the copyright holder has licensed YouTube to use the clip. Do you not understand the difference? Why not assume good faith with me and let it rest. There is already consensus regarding the issue on the WP:ANI page. Check here – WP:ANI#YouTube_link_deletion. Regards, — Nearly Headless Nick 13:25, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I've seen WP:ANI#YouTube_link_deletion, but from that it looks like I'm not the only one who disagrees with you. Therefore, you must forgive me if I choose not to assume good faith. It is unreasonable to maintain that it is necessary for the creator of a video clip to sign their copyright over to YouTube before we can link to it. Mr. Coritz now clearly indicates in his video clips that he retains the copyright to his material, so it is no longer for us to assume that he did not voluntarily post his material on YouTube. Indeed, in this individual case we must assume the opposite is true unless we have specific reason not to. In other words, innocent until proven guilty, and not vice versa. --Jwinius 14:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

That is the administrator noticeboard, in case you did not notice, all the administrators (including myself, ofcourse) have been agreeing with me. You can do whatever you want, but please do not disrupt Misplaced Pages to illustrate a point. — Nearly Headless Nick 14:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

...that is incorrect: all the admins are NOT agreeing with you. You do not have consensus AT ALL on any of the many discussions on policy pages--consensus is against you, in fact. Cindery 07:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

List the number of administrators agreeing with me and those who are not; and you are going to answer yourself. — Nearly Headless Nick 07:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

YOU list them--I could use a laugh. And admin opinions, in any case, donot count for more than anyone else's--takea long look at the NOR and EL policy pages. Cindery 07:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

You are only disrupting Misplaced Pages and making red herring arguments without have any knowledge of the copyright laws. Cease your disruption or file an WP:RFC. — Nearly Headless Nick 07:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Your legal ignorance is currently placing Misplaced Pages in who knows how much legal jeopardy regarding libel--unsubstantiated allegations ofcopyright violation--and there is consensus that YOU are disruptive: please see current discussion at EL regarding filing a user conduct RFC against you, that you should be apologizing, etc. Cindery 02:37, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

YouTube link removals

Please stop removing the YouTube links on "Daniel Edwards" Misplaced Pages page. I'm the filmmaker that made those short films and I have given my permission for the links to be there. www.GoodnightFilm.com

You link to in your edit summaries, but I don't see anything like "Sites which fail to provide licensing information" in the criteria. Am I missing something? TransUtopian 16:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. See Reliable sources and Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority. YouTube is not a recognised authority, as I have reiterated above, anyone with an internet connection can upload a video file to their website. Many of these videos are copyrighted by their respective creators and links to those should not be used on Misplaced Pages, as this constitutes direct faciliation of copyright violations. — Nearly Headless Nick 16:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: WP:SIG

Sorry about the images in my signiature. I didn't know about that guideline. I removed them as soon as I read the message you gave me. - King Ivan 06:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your co-operation. Although, you didn't have to be sorry about it. Cheers. — Nearly Headless Nick 06:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Islamic terrorism

Hi again Sir Nicho. I thought most of the views at the Afd were for naming it Islamist terrorism instead of Islamic terrorism. Cheers -- Szvest - 12:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

{{sofixit}} by all means. Godspeed! — Nearly Headless Nick 12:29, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh-kay. I corrected it myself. Looks like I made a *horrible mistake*. — Nearly Headless Nick 14:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks mate. It's not a horrible mistake. It was just a simple mistake. -- Szvest - 13:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Uh, well. Lots of difference between Islamist and Islamic. :/ — Nearly Headless Nick 13:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

rfa/agathoclea

"And that is why, children"

I didn't quite get that :) What is why? - crz crztalk 18:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

So that they may defend innocent users from the onslaught of communism. ^_^ — Nearly Headless Nick 09:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Islamic extremist terrorism

Thanks for closing the Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Islamic extremist terrorism. KazakhPol 19:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Noticed you removed link to hurricane video...

Not complaining, since it appears to be Wik policy, but is there a proper way to link to a video clip? - Marc Averette 19:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

You can link to those websites that *own* the copyrights of the videos or mention the "licensing information" as to whether they have the rights to host the video on their servers or not. Regards, — Nearly Headless Nick 12:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Archiving Zora's talk page

Dear Nick,

That's sweet of you to suggest it, but after looking at the Werdnabot talk page, I think I'd rather not be a beta tester. I think I will archive monthly, however; I can put it in my computer scheduling program (Above and Beyond) which runs my life and damn well too. Zora 01:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Block User:Mustafa Akalp

Hi, you have blocked User:Mustafa Akalp for 48h for his 3RR on the Persianate article. The editing there is a complicated story. Around 23:30 user discovered a bad troll and in some edits (like ) a clear vandal operated from the open proxy (see User_talk:58.147.4.20). Mustafa made two reverts fighting this troll, reported it on an admin's talk page on WP:AIV and finally got the troll blocked.

According to Mustafa's E-mail he believed that reversions of such a user does not count towards the 3RR. Later in a completely unrelated editorial argument between Mustafa and User:Tajik he made two more reverts. He believed that he did not violate WP:3RR as such noncontraversial edits as reversion an open proxy are not counts.

I agree that Mustafa formally violated WP:3RR - edits by the open proxy to the Persianate article had not been a simple vandalism. On the other hand, he acted in good faith believing he followed the letter and spirit of the policy.

In this case 48h block appears to be excessive. Is it possible to shorten it? Alex Bakharev 07:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead, I trust your judgment. However, ask Mustafa not to violate WP:3RR in any case; and look for consensus. Best regards, — Nearly Headless Nick 08:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I can also see disruption by removing clearly reliable sources from Iranica though. That is disturbing. However, if you can assure me that he will regard the guidelines and policies, you can unblock him. — Nearly Headless Nick 08:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

3RR

Thank you; I will now return to my regularly scheduled railroading. --NE2 11:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Unblock

Dear Nicholas, Thanks for your good faith. Also thanks to Alex for his referance fom me. I will under pressure of obligation to respect to this referanceand your good faith in my future edits. I think this is my responsibility. Please let me state some points; My first/main mission is to organise/categorise/wikify/contribute Turkey related articles. Unfortunately there are not so much Turkish users in wiki. Of course there are much users which interested in these articles,but some (a group of) users ,put some misinformation, unsourced infos, strong anti-Turkish POVs to these articles. As a conclusion I defence these articles( I accept that some time in a aggressive way under stress). In persianate case; of course Iranica can be accepted as a reliable source, but I have some suspicion for Iranica in Persianate. Like as Islam Encyclopidia for Muslim. Just for my info;Can I restrict my self for 1RR (to protect myself for a period of time, to calm down), where can I find details in wiki.? Thanks again. Sincerely yours. Must 12:22, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from editing the Persianate page till the period your block would have naturally expired. Also avoid the talk page of the article, so that other users may assume good faith with you. — Nearly Headless Nick 12:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

TfD

Dear Nicholas, I am here again.(Since you brought me to life, I wait additional care now.!!) Please take a look to this case(If you have time); I opened a TfD. Creator of Template deleted/divided and transferred my and some other comments. I sent many messages to that user about Tfd. But he insists to destroy my comments. He changed the name of Template when TfD in process. here the last version of TfD( if not changed in some minutes again) Is it alloved this action before TfD close.?

• He logged-in as IP and Username, (I think there is no bad faith here), but he emptied IP talk page and User talk page, I found them from my contributions here talk messages;IP talk,

User talk Also you can find his comments on my Talk page. Regards Must 16:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I would love to...

...but I do not know how myself. It is incredibly frustrating when dealing with people who simply won't listen. I deal with a significant number of people who simply ignore the rules because they think they know better but so far have not (I believe) attacked anyone - which I think is pretty good as I'm now at ~5250 edits :).-Localzuk 16:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Your signature

Hello there, I was wondering if you would please modify your signature to conform to the guidelines laid out at Misplaced Pages:Sign your posts on talk pages. The general guidelines are that signatures shouldn't contain images, they shouldn't contain unnecessary internal links or any external links, and they shouldn't be unnecessarily long in Wiki source. The reasoning for this final bit is that overly long signatures tend to overwhelm the actual comments in edit mode, making it hard to track down and respond to specific comments. You can fix your signature by removing any images and external links, any unnecessary links (like links to Wikipedian organizations, articles, or subpages in userspace), and removing excessive color, font, and formatting code. Thank you. --Cyde Weys 17:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Ogiedogie – . — Nearly Headless Nick 17:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I did like the old one... —¡Randfan! 18:22, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Lennon

hi Nick - I don't want to get embroiled in the AP:EL border wars, but I did want to ask you about your removal from John Lennon of the 2 you tube clips. They were not add-ons in an "external link" section, but actually integrated into, and illustrative of, points being made in the text. I stopped reading the EL talk page because I couldn't take it any more, but I recall there being some movement against wholesale removal of You Tube references just because they are You Tube. So are you sure that these 2 need to be removed? thanks Tvoz 20:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Please see WP:EL, WP:RS and WP:COPY. YouTube links are either copyright infringements or not reliable. — Nearly Headless Nick 07:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

YouTube links are either copyright infringements or not reliable. Not necessarily so. Policies and guidelines can't exercise judgement, only editors can do that. So when you delete a link, you have to justify why the clip violates policies, not just brand YouTube as "bad." -- David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 19:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Exactly right, David Spalding. Nick, at least please acknowledge that there is a difference of opinion regarding this guideline. I would like a specific response, not a referralto general guideline pages. Thank you. Tvoz 05:27, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I think I have had more than my share of discussions on WP:ANI. I have cared to present all the evidence as to *why* those links should not be used – . There is a notification of an RfC filed on this issue. Please feel free to chime in. David, I think the users *have* exercised their judgment in framing the policies and guidelines. So, when you put in a link to YouTube, you need to justify how it *does not* violate copyrights and *why* it should not be removed. Regards, — Nearly Headless Nick 05:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Tvoz, there is a difference of opinion on this matter, and all the administrators who are comfortably aware of the policies and guidelines of this place have their reasons as to why YouTube links should be removed. Have a look here User:Dmcdevit/YouTube (admin), User:J.smith/YouTube Linklist (admin). Regards, — Nearly Headless Nick 05:36, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I have to say that a) I find the implication of the statement "all the administrators who are comfortably aware of the policies and guidelines of this place" insulting not only to me, but also to anyone who disagrees with you; and b) I've seen the hit list and a random sampling shows no valid reason for some of those pages even being included on the list. So I have no idea what the point is other than for systematic and indiscriminate excision of all material that you think could be tainted. Directing me to those two pages was a waste of both of our time as it illuminated nothing. This entire discussion is so far out of line with what I understand Misplaced Pages pillars to mean that I choose not to continue having it with you. I asked for a specific reading on a specific removal that you made and you told me that wiser heads than mine "have their reasons". That, sir, is classic totalitarianism, and it has no business here. Tvoz 06:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment at the RfC, sir. — Nearly Headless Nick 06:17, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

The overwhelming consensus on policy pages is NOT a blanket You Tube ban--the overwhelming consensus is that there are some valid You Tube links, and therefore no blanekt ban is possible. You are grossly in error, and aware of it--you are, at this point, deliberately misrepresenting the truth. We call this lying, and it is evidence of bad faith. The current RFC is a user conduct RFC against you, and to the extent that anyone has even suggested it pertains to You Tube and policy it regards your disruptive behavior in refusing to honor the fact that there is no blanket You Tube ban. See EL, ANI, etc. Cindery 05:53, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Please stop it, Cindery; and comment at the RfC. — Nearly Headless Nick 05:55, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

The ONLY words you should be saying to me are "I was wrong, I apologize." Cindery 06:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I apologise for trying to be so helpful, Cindery. — Nearly Headless Nick 06:07, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

You are not helpful, Nick, as you are aware--you are lying, bullying people, and disrupting Misplaced Pages. Cindery 06:23, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• Sheesh*, what can I say? — Nearly Headless Nick 06:27, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

As I have pointed ou already, you can say "I'm sorry, I was wrong"--to a lot of people, as in, the community--and then do something constructive with your time. Cindery 06:32, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes ma'am. — Nearly Headless Nick 06:34, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I missed the part where you apologized to the community. Cindery 06:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Please stop wasting my time, and find yourself a good hobby. — Nearly Headless Nick 07:20, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Stop wasting MY time, and the community's time--keeping bullies in check is a dirty job, but bummer for you-- I WILL be doing it. Again: you do not have consensus. You are lying about it. The consensus at the RFC is that you should desist and apologize. Below, a member of the extreme *minority* to which you belong has noted that you are incapable of knowing when the "drop it and move on." There isn't anything for you to do except apologize/get over it/admit you were wrong/move on already. Cindery 08:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Sometimes it's time to dropit and move on...

The debate over the barrington link has become a waste of time. The same arguments are being repeated over and over. I think at this point it is a better use of our time to simply move on. ---J.S 23:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Edit summaries on talk pages

Hi. I noticed that you most of your edit summaries to talk pages are just "comment", i.e. that you overwrite the automatic edit summary (normally consisting of section heading). May I politely suggest that you don't do that? — I'm often interested in which section someone has commented, especially in long pages such as WP:AN, and when you erase the section name, the edit summary totally loses the purpose: I still have to use the diff to find out where you commented. At least, please append the "comment" to the section title. Now that you're an admin, you don't have to be anal about 100% edit summaries — the automatic one works better on talk pages. Duja► 09:29, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Can the developers on Meta not fix it? I can't imagine myself going around leaving no edit sumarries ;) — Nearly Headless Nick 09:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh wait. I think I just understood what you meant – . Cheers! — Nearly Headless Nick 09:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, that one is fine (it contains the section title), but this and this weren't; it's fairly difficult to find out where those ended up. Duja► 10:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I got ya! Cheers! — Nearly Headless Nick 10:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Although, it will definitely take sometime before I get used to it. I wonder why nobody else cared to tell that to me, when I have been *grossly abusing the system* since such a loooong time. >:) — Nearly Headless Nick 10:12, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Probably because it's a) only minorly annoying issue (e.g. how long time would it take until you decide to tell a person not to scratch his ass in public every while? >:)) b) difficult to spot on high-traffic pages — it only happened that I saw it twice in a short period on my own watchlist, and I probably wouldn't have noticed even then if you hadn't such a long user name. Duja► 10:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

/me scratches ass in public. — Nearly Headless Nick 10:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey! Stop that! :-) Carcharoth 15:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Block log summaries

Hi there. I was looking at your block log summary here (21 Dec), and I noticed you used the phrasing "etc, etc." Do you think you could avoid using imprecise and open-ended expressions like that? It would be best to say what you can fit in, and what exactly the block was for, rather than vague hand-waving. Thanks. Carcharoth 16:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Please see WT:RFA and his block-log for previous history of disruption. — Nearly Headless Nick 16:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Dave Gilbert (game designer)

How exactly did you arrive at Keep? Andre (talk) 21:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

To clarify, I think there was a consensus to delete, but even if you don't believe this to be true, there certainly wasn't a consensus to keep -- no consensus maybe? Andre (talk) 01:42, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

What consensus? As far as I can see, there were only five participants in the discussion. I produced the sources and closed it. Please don't take this personally. I have made worse mistakes. Cheers! :) — Nearly Headless Nick 05:23, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your good humor about it, but producing sources is really not your role in the deletion process if you're also going to close the debate. Besides, there were 3 delete votes, the nomination, and one keep vote which professed ignorance as to "alphabetti spaghetti." At any rate, you closed the deletion with a consensus of Keep, and certainly there was not. I am going to reopen and relist the AFD, since I don't think you handled it properly. No hard feelings. Andre (talk) 16:30, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Take it to WP:DRV. — Nearly Headless Nick 16:31, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:IAR doesn't mean you can ignore consensus procedure just to make things a little smoother and easier. As we're seeing now, that creates problems. Please see my comments on the new AfD. Andre (talk) 16:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you understand what consensus is? 5 people participating is hardly what it means. Please take it to WP:DRV. — Nearly Headless Nick 16:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

AfD is not a vote. Therefore, consensus is not about numbers -- it can exist within a group of 5 users or a group of 500 users. Andre (talk) 16:56, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I am deeply troubled by yet-another out of process action by this admin and the in-civil, flip response. —Malber (talk • contribs) 16:49, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't go so far as to call any of this in-civil. Andre (talk) 16:56, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

The admin closing the AFD is expected to issue discression. Sometimes the admin is wrong. Thats what deletion review is for. This might be a case of misaplied SNOW, and DRV will sort it out. ---J.S 17:15, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

This is not even close to a case of SNOW -- nor has anyone brought that policy up. The AfD was not properly closed and we don't need any input on the decision, we just need a new AfD. Also, J.S., no offense, but you've been an admin for a total of 10 days, I'd recommend picking up some experience before sticking your neck out with possibly iffy policy interpretations. I don't mind, but there are some users who might not be so understanding. Andre (talk) 18:07, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Mimsy: did you happen to read the policy on how an admin should close an AfD debate? You're supposed to gauge consensus, not use your position to push a decision. —Malber (talk • contribs) 18:32, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

YSR page protect

While I normally applaud any moves to protect a page that is seeing massive reverts, I think that you came in perhaps a tad too early on this one; my last statement on the talk page after removing a section of the article was , indicating that the section needed merely to be rewritten. The request to discuss was ignored once, but I doubt it would have been ignored twice, when my edit summary specifically requested it. (There are some newbies involved, I think). The discussion on that had not begun yet, and so perhaps a page-protect was not immediately called for, as there was insufficient evidence to my mind that people were unwilling to talk.

Just a thought. Hornplease 11:41, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, discussions are always more fun than revert-warring. — Nearly Headless Nick 11:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Meh.

Boo. Hiss. Can you honestly say there was consensus for a delete and re-direct here? -- weirdoactor 14:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

No, I was simply too WP:ROUGE. Take it to WP:DRV, if you have problems. Cheers! — Nearly Headless Nick 15:09, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I certainly shall; soon after the "holiday". Shame about your head; you don't know what you're missing. Ta! -- weirdoactor 17:21, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Your block of User:Malber

Hi, Sir Nicholas. Since I was one of the people who disagreed with your block of User:Malber, I also wanted you to know that I don't agree either with some of the more vociferous criticism that followed the block. The policy against an admin's blocking someone whom he or she is personally in a dispute with (whether it's a content dispute or, as here, more of a policy dispute) is a good one. The other problem I had with it was that you went pretty quickly from what seemed like partly joking around ("/me desyops myself ... /me desysops badlydrawnjeff") straight to a pretty long block, which I think surprised a lot of people, and 48 hours was a longish block just for disrupting a noticeboard. But at the same time I definitely hope this user will take into account some of the comments that have been made about his questioning style. We shall see what happens; hoping for the best. Regards, Newyorkbrad 17:15, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

We can only *hope* for the best. As it is quite evident, Malber has not yet quit his disruptive editing – , nor has he waited for consensus – , , . Such long history of systematic disruption is not to be dealt in the way it is currently dealt in. — Nearly Headless Nick 17:22, 22 December 2006 (UTC)