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 userpage is archived automatically by Werdnabot, so
• To see older messages please view my archives.

Messages

Archives: The Basement  · My desk  · My Barnstars

DTV

I saw you not only took out links at DTV, but took out information along with the links. I fixed the mess you made. Judging from the discussions here, this isn't the first time you've done this, so in light of that, please, next time do it right or don't bother. -- taegdv

Oh I made a mess of that page, but that isn't the story with every page I am doing. Thanks for pointing out, and best regards, — Nearly Headless Nick 05:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

MedCab

Why do you think MedCab is dead? --Ideogram 02:23, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Because they haven't been taking up cases lately. — Nearly Headless Nick 05:23, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

You can see at Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Cases that this is not true. The most recent case taken up was filed 11/15. The oldest case not taken up yet was filed 11/07. Delays of up to fourteen days are normal. --Ideogram 10:11, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

There is no cabal. — Nearly Headless Nick 08:54, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

There is no possible response to that. You got me. --Ideogram 09:14, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

YAYZOXXORS ^_^ — Nearly Headless Nick 09:15, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi - thanks for co-nomming me. I appreciate your support and hope you'll gimme a buzz anytime you need an extra hand. Rama's arrow 02:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

OK

It is Ok but not right :) link title. --Bhadani 14:26, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thank you for the w00t! I'd like to express my huge thanks to you, NHN, for your support in my recent RfA, which closed with 100% support at 71/0/1. Needless to say, I am very suprised at the huge levels of support I've seen on my RfA, and at the fact that I only had give three answers, unlike many other nominees who have had many, many more questions! I'll be careful with my use of the tools, and invite you to tell me off if I do something wrong! Thanks, Martinp23 14:26, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

My apologies if you felt offended (or annoyed!) with my thankyou message - I'm sure you know that it was not my intention, and if you wish, feel free to remove it. Martinp23 15:04, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

lol

 <Jungleking> americunts are dumb.
 <@Sheneequa> then get off the internet
 <Jungleking> gotta go
 * Jungleking (and@DFA277B3.43878B1F.C8702E2D.IP) Quit ( Quit: )

Sheneequa 07:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:3RR

Please re-read the policy, and in good faith please consider what you've said in IRC. The way you see 3RR is detrimental to Misplaced Pages, and we cannot have that in admins. You are advocating more than three reverts to a page as long as it's not to the same version, when it's clear that four reverts with the same intent is a 3RR vio. As pointed out on WP:3RR, "The policy states that an editor must not perform more than three reversions, in whole or in part, on a single Misplaced Pages page within a 24 hour period." In good faith, please reconsider your stand. We cannot afford to have admins allowing 3RR violations. – Chacor 11:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

This will speak for me – from User talk:William M. Connolley.

I don't care for your opinion; you're obviously not suited to be an admin. I'd suggest you please re-familiarise yourself with the policy before making blanket accusations, tyvm. – Chacor 12:08, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Block of D.Prok. (talk · contribs)

Hello William. I read the report on the WP:AN/3RR page and saw that you blocked this user for 24 hours for WP:3RR on the Michael Shields page. From the look of it, the user in question made three edits and reverted to his version three times and not four which is a prerequisite warranting a block. I understand that WP:3RR does not give any user authority to take the system for a ride and blocks are warranted when they have been repeatedly disruptive, but this user was new and it would be preposterous to assume that he was aware of the policies and guidelines on Misplaced Pages. Prima facie it appears that User:Chacor did not care to discuss the issues properly, but only left edit summaries such as rv, stop reverting to POV version and failed to explain why he thinks that this revert is POV. I, in good faith believe that you should have warned the user against a 3RR breach instead of blocking him, and asked Chacor to discuss the matter with him. In my opinion this constitutes newbie biting. Take care. — Nearly Headless Nick 10:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

D Prok made 4 reverts, not 3 edits. If he is a newbie, how come he knows about POV tags and reverting? William M. Connolley 11:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

You'd be surprised to know how resourceful those newbies can be... ^_^ — Nearly Headless Nick 11:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

He's just sent me a rude email, so he can sit out his block as far as I'm concerned William M. Connolley 11:55, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'd endorse the block in such a case, but to speak for the defendant – reversion essentially means reverting to the same version, and three revert rule generally applies to reversion of the article to the same version more than three times. Here, this edit is slightly different from the other three edits. Now, I wouldn't really stand up for this, but if you carefully look at the history of the page, Chacor conveniently goaded the other user to revert him by "edit-warring" and this user probably did not know anything about WP:3RR. He did not care to warn him on his talk page whatsoever, I see this as nothing but disruption and gaming the system. He went to the discussion page and then tells the user that he has breached 3RR and then posts the breach on the WP:AN/3RR page. That is the reason, I thought this block was ridiculous. It is disparaging how established users like Chacor resort to such tactics. Best regards, — Nearly Headless Nick 05:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Moving

Can you pls do that?-Bharatveer 11:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Done. — Nearly Headless Nick 11:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey Nick, I just deleted an article that you had contributed to. Guess I am getting bold now ;) -- Lost 17:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

That article was suckage. I was trying to move it to a more appropriate title. Good work on deleting the redirect. :) — Nearly Headless Nick 08:42, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Civility

The same applies to TerryJ-Ho as well. His provocative comments need to stop.Hkelkar 13:06, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

This (summary)

Comments like this, discussing political motivations, are irrelevant and disruptive to boot.

There's more if you look carefully Hkelkar 13:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Nick - I don't know why you should post that notice mechanically - How is 1 incivil and why can't . I put my views in evidence and be treated as incivil.MerryJ-Ho 14:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Troll

Are such edits (unsolicited) by TerryJ-Ho acceptable? Hkelkar 16:29, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, they are very much acceptable. He is civilly trying to explain his opinions. However, putting a header like ==Troll== is considered incivil and disruptive. — Nearly Headless Nick 12:35, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Image:Yanagupta.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Yanagupta.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Misplaced Pages articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --Chowbok ☠ 03:10, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I have engaged the template and produced my fair use rationale on the talk page of the image. — Nearly Headless Nick 12:36, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

New User

Hi. There appears to be a new user HKelkar2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who's been editing some articles that I have been.I think he needs to change his name and he categorically is not my sockpuppet or anything.Hkelkar 19:48, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

One other thing, he redid an anon's edit that Rama's Arrow reverted , suggesting that he

and the anon are the same guy. A traceroute reveals him to be a Mumbaikar, so not me.Hkelkar 19:57, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

ArbComm post

Regarding your most recent post to my ArbComm, if you are expressing doubt as to the genuine nature of my references to the RSS criticism section then understand that I cited it per the rules of WP:CITE and I do so again below:

Smith, David James, Hinduism and Modernity P188, Blackwell Publishing ISBN:0-631-20862-3

Author, Title, Page #, Publication and ISBN are all there.Look it up if you don't believe me.Hkelkar 08:57, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Read my comments carefully. I was reasoning why Hkelkar probably reverted one of Terry's edits to the 2002 Gujarat violence articles. — Nearly Headless Nick 08:59, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I misunderstood. This is why I asked you in the talk page for clarification. Thank you for clearing it up. Hkelkar 09:35, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, are such comments by TerryJ-Ho against Bakaman acceptable ? Hkelkar 11:08, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Appropriately warned. — Nearly Headless Nick 11:32, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Nearly Headless Nick, here's something interesting.Bakaman _Bakatalk 20:53, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello! A request for minor assistance

Helkar and I are having a mostly friendly (I can hardly believe it!), relatively minor disagreement about the the Misplaced Pages verifiability policy. I'm probably in the wrong here, but I was hoping you could weigh in. For the first time there seems to be real hope of moving this article forward, and I don't want to break the momentum Indian Buddhist Revival. Thanks in advance! NinaEliza 07:03, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I think you would need to fix the article link here. — Nearly Headless Nick 07:05, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry - the title of the article changed, and maybe it's not redirected. This might work Indian Buddhist Movement. I'm sorry, but I can't figure out how to link to the talk page - I'm not very good with links yet, so what I meant was go to the talk page - or maybe that's obvious.

However, it looks like things got worked out - at least I think so. I'm not absolutely sure to be honest with you. I'd appreciated it if you still had a look. Thanks!NinaEliza 07:17, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I will have a look, but responding might take some time. Please bear with me; and you don't have to be sorry. Perhaps you could use the preview button to take a look at what you're typing before pressing the save button? Cheers. — Nearly Headless Nick 07:31, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

There's a preview button? - Oh wait - it's right there. Thank you - you've just saved me a lot of time...NinaEliza 07:38, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

From HKelkar's arb.

Thank you for your suggestion that I should read WP:NPOV. I am not sure what suggested to you that I had managed thus far without having read it.

I still do not find any justification for the view that if X is quoted from an RS, Y must also be quoted; unless Y is necessary to set the context for X. In other words, NPOV applies to articles, not individual refs in articles. In fact, a summary of NPOV from WP:OR: In many cases, there are multiple established views of any given topic. In such cases, no single position, no matter how well researched, is authoritative. It is not the responsibility of any one editor to research all points of view. But when incorporating research into an article, it is important that editors situate the research; that is, provide contextual information about the point of view.....

In other words, if I wish to quote a Guardian article to indicate the FCO doesnt like Modi, I am under no obligation to report that the same article states that Gujaratis in Walthamstow do; as long as there is already a statement on the page that Gujaratis as a whole tend to. Hornplease 11:56, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I think you need a few keywords to do a google search (which were conveniently not provided neither by Terry nor by you), and please stop spouting WP:CIVIL on users who do not agree with you. In this case, Terry wrote –

Despite his popularity with the wider Gujarati electorate, he remains a controversial figure and the Muslim community and international organisations blame him for the genocide of more than 2000 Muslims.

However, this very page says – There was to be no Pinochet-style arrest for Narendra Modi. Instead, a man either responsible for mass-genocide or the saviour of India's Hindus - depending on your point of view - rolled into Wembley conference centre last night besieged by hundreds of Muslim protesters from as far afield as Bolton, Birmingham and Leicester.", so writing that he's a murderer and responsible for genocide, based strictly on this is ludicrous. Moreover, these pages have no mention of "international organisations" blaming him for genocide, whatsoever. Talk about WP:NPOV, this edit was totally biased and defamatory; such politically motivated editing is considered disruption on Misplaced Pages. Hmph. — Nearly Headless Nick 12:50, 25 November 2006 (UTC)