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.
• Be civil and assume good faith. Trolling and personal attacks are likely to be removed.
• 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

Advice is needed

Hi. I wish to submit a complaint regarding one of the Admins' bullish behaviour, and abuse of his administrative rights (User:Mel Etitis); and, since I was unable to find the relevant page/form, therefore I am taking your time. I would be grateful if you kindly advice me by return. Regards Surena 20:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know, Mel has not abused his core administrative tools, such as the block, protect and delete buttons. Please assume good faith while dealing with other editors, and try to resolve disputes peacefully by using the talk pages of the articles for discussion. In case you are not satisfied by my answer, feel free to file an informal complaint on WP:AN or go to WP:RFC or WP:RFAR as you deem appropriate. Best, — Nearly Headless Nick 14:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Warning and blocking

Sorry about that, I just saw that he'd been given an "only warning", and so reported him when he vandalised again. Otherwise, what's the point of the "only warning" at all? In general, I don't even like the "only warning" (although I have used it once), and am always fair with vandals. But since it was clearly vandalism (diff), and not an honest mistake in any way, I don't really think it's biting the newbie. ConDem 16:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Query

You said that you "have seen systematic reverts of other users' edits, without trying to engage them on the talk pages. The WP:CREEP incident would be a good example." Please take a look at the talk page of WP:CREEP and you will see that yes, I am engaging people and discussing the issue. I've been on the talk page since december 7th; the dispute with Jeff started several weeks later. >Radiant< 15:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Autoblock

Thanks for removing the autoblock! What is an autoblock though? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

It is a tool that blocks the IP address of the blockee. So, even if your account gets unblocked, you will not be able to edit until your IP address gets unblocked. The IP addresses are not available, even to administrators. They are identified with this tool – . View my blocking log – . — Nearly Headless Nick 13:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. WP is more complex and sophisticated than I had thought. I learned something! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I was very surprised when I learned that you got blocked. I always took you for a smart-one. ;) — Nearly Headless Nick 13:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, some people think I am smart. My girl friend thinks I am stupid and she got a kick out of my block. My cat did too, I think, he was giving me superior looks.  :) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

CyberAnth

Um, I thought in my 3RR reoort I indicated why a block would not be that necessary. May I ask why you choose to block her? JoshuaZ 15:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I guess I did not read your message very carefully. However, the version to which you were reverting was no WP:BLP violation, and the words were done fairly. In case you feel that it would be appropriate to unblock, please go ahead. I have no objections. Best, — Nearly Headless Nick 17:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

OK...

I dont know who you are but please leave me alone. If you actually knew what you were talking about you would see that he personally attacked me first. Again, please leave me alone. I have work to do. WikiTony 17:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

PS:I know you proably meant well but it certainly seems like certain parties who will remain nameless are ganging up on me. Again, i do not mean any hostility but i believe there is hostility being directed at me from various people. I just dont think you know the full story of what happened when you wrote what you did on my talk page. i have already left that guy a note to explain to him (politely) how i feel about the incident. WikiTony 17:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Responded on your talk page. I have watchlisted your talk page, you can respond there and I will notice any messages you address to me. Best, — Nearly Headless Nick 17:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

AfD closure?

You recently closed Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of people who became famous only in death with delete. I count 9 delete votes, 7 keep votes excluding a keep comment by a newly registered user: 56.25%. Misplaced Pages:Deletion_guidelines_for_administrators#Rough_consensus is relevant but I note the relevant article, Consensus_decision-making#If consensus is not unanimous, who must agree?, states Rough Consensus is the process used by the IETF working group, where there is no specific rule for "how much is enough". Rather, the question of consensus is left to the judgment of the working group chair. While this makes it more difficult for a small number of disruptors to block a decision, it puts increased responsibility on the chair, and has frequently led to divisive debates about whether rough consensus has in fact been correctly identified. Misplaced Pages:Consensus states the numbers mentioned as being sufficient to reach supermajority vary from about 60% to over 80% depending upon the decision. Misplaced Pages:Supermajority - a rejected policy but perhaps the content is useful because it reflects past decisions, states consensus is two-thirds or larger majority support for Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion (WP:AFD).

Any comment?--Golden Wattle 22:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

No comment. See WP:DRV. — Nearly Headless Nick 08:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I too find the deletion to be premature & inappropriate. The call had been made to edit/modify it until it was clearer, but instead it was deleted without that effort. --Duemellon 13:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

CSD

Hehe... Special:Recentchanges rocks. I haven't looked into CAT:CSD for a day or two... because I'm thinking how to defeat those stupid spambots and stop them from polluting our wiki with nonsense/search/ pages. :-) Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 09:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

the noob

I hearby request the noob be re-created in my userspace. Timmccloud 12:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Here you are – User:Timmccloud/The noob. — Nearly Headless Nick 14:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Starslip Crisis

RE: May want to have a look at this article. http://www.halfpixel.com/2007/02/15/delete-wikipedia . There is a discussion started more webcomics stuff. :( --Hu12 14:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll look into it. — Nearly Headless Nick 14:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

thought you'd be interested since your mentioned in the article.--Hu12 14:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I think I made the decision by looking into the discussions and arguments, rather than counting fake WP:SPA account votes. The article did not pass the threshold of notability in any case. — Nearly Headless Nick 14:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Ditto. I'm also putting a note on the Misplaced Pages:Deletion_review page. --zandperl 15:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Roger, roger. — Nearly Headless Nick 15:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

"I think I made the decision by looking into the discussions and arguments" - You think? You're not even sure? And what arguments persuaded you, anyway? The arguments were designed to be flawed. Boxjam 16:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The arguments were designed to be flawed. The sockpuppets seem to have a better grasp of policies then you do. Only the Alexa ranking bit was wrongly put. — Nearly Headless Nick 16:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

You cannot be serious. Have you even read the article linked? If so what is your opinion?(reply here not on my userpage). Please also note that the WCCA comments in the delete were also by sockpuppets --Energman 17:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The nomination having been admittedly in bad faith and the deletion debate infected beyond redemption by gross misconduct, the deletion nomination and result are void ab initio and I have reinstated the article per WP:IAR. This is not to be considered an overturning of your close result, but a determination that there was never a valid deletion nomination and debate in the first place. No criticism of you is intended, who closed properly based on the views that had been presented. This is all, of course, without prejudice to a nomination from a contributor in good standing. Newyorkbrad 02:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Ever the diplomant, Brad. :) Would you not agree when I say that a lot of SPA trolling and socking is going around on AfDs? Each and everyone of them is organised, and this one got published on some blog. Should we even pay attention to them? I closed it within my reasoning, and if we are going to consider "votes" (as they all call it) that say keep on baseless grounds, it would be such a shame. — Nearly Headless Nick 10:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Freedom skies

I will stay away from the "Indian mathematics" article for the remaining period of the block. Best Regards, _{Freedom skies| talk}  15:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Hillcrest Christian School

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Hillcrest Christian School. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review.. Meanwhile will you userfy to me, please? Bridgeplayer 16:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Sure. I have recreated the text here – User:Bridgeplayer/Hillcrest Christian School. — Nearly Headless Nick 16:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Bridgeplayer 17:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Benjiwolf (talk · contribs)

Thanks for dealing with this situation; it was getting out of hand. Just dropping a note to let you know s/he is demanding an explanation. Usually I'd just keep moving if the person hasn't added {{unblock}}, but s/he has added a legal threat to the demand as well . On a related note: great work on the 3RR violations. Some won't touch a malformed report; good to see some initiative. auburnpilot talk 17:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Look What I Brought Home!

Content of Look What I Brought Home! has been simply blanked and replaced with a redirect, and not merged with Keenspot per your closing comments... would you mind finishing that if that's what you really think should be done? FYI on that... As someone who commented but did not vote on that AFD, it is, upon examining the Keenspot article, not a good idea to set the precedent of sticking sections on every Keenspot comic worth talking about within the Keenspot article. Perhaps you should have just closed with a simple keep per the 7 rather than merge per the 2? Balancer 21:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Opinions of WP:SPA accounts are generally ignored. — Nearly Headless Nick 07:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, the 5 votes to keep rather than the 2 to merge, then, but the rest of those two questions still stands unanswered. Answer them. Please. Balancer 08:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

AfDs are not votes, they are discussions. It lies on the discretion of the administrator to make a suitable judgment in the interest of the encyclopedia. Administrators may be wrong, but there is the WP:DRV process for that. My reasoning: The participating users did say that they found the subject of the article to be notable, but they did not indicate it in anyway. Have a look at this version of the article – . It explicitly lacks the reliable sources that would jutify it's inclusion. The keep arguments also explained that Keenspot presence is sufficient for notability, I considered the arguments and observed that there was no multiple, non-trivial and independent sources on the subject of the article. However, the article could be redirected to the Keenspot article and the content be merged by the interested editors by substantiating it with appropriate links (probably from the keenspot website). Did I make myself more clear? Best, — Nearly Headless Nick 09:15, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I had no objection in principle (based on the AFD) of merging, but the above explanation should have been included in the original closure. What is now clear to me in particular is the reasoning behind your AFD closures in general; it is apparent that you do not believe in the consensus principle of Misplaced Pages, and will continue to undermine it at every turn if you remain an administrator. Balancer 09:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

An army of numbskulls does not imply consensus. Arguments should be within the scope of policies and guidelines and only then they are to be considered. Hope you understand. Best, — Nearly Headless Nick 09:49, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

If by "numbskull" you mean "experienced Misplaced Pages editor," or simply "anybody who disagrees with me on my interpretation of Misplaced Pages policy," then you will persistently violate Misplaced Pages:Deletion Policy. If you apply as a test It lies on the discretion of the administrator to make a suitable judgment in the interest of the encyclopedia to your decisions rather than At the end of the discussion, if a rough consensus for deletion has been reached, the page will be removed per Misplaced Pages:Deletion process; otherwise the page remains, then you will frequently violate (though, IMO, the decision to close as merge was not a violation of policy in this case; it was an appropriate closure even if the closure could have used a little more explanation in the AFD itself) the deletion policy of Misplaced Pages. Which I just quoted, and the incompatibility between your idea of policy ("I know what's best for Misplaced Pages and can freely ignore as many other editors as I like") and policy ("Misplaced Pages operates by consensus, i.e., agreement between editors.") is going to crop up in numerous closures you make in the future. This must change if Misplaced Pages is to have integrity as an online encyclopedia. Balancer 10:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Please don't assume anything on my part. Administrators are administrators for a reason. I do not chose to ignore comments by any editor. I have to reject them when they do not conform with policies. That is how we derieve consensus. Misplaced Pages is not a Democracy. Do you think I was involved in the webcomics saga before closing the few AfDs? In no way did I impose my will on other users. I interpreted the reasoning and the logic given by what you call "voters" (i.e. participants) and weighed the arguments and then came to a conclusion. — Nearly Headless Nick 10:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not assuming anything on your part. I've asked for clarifications, and you have provided explanations of your reasoning, which in turn show that you are not following Misplaced Pages policy in your closures. This is, as I noted in The noob DRV, not about webcomics, but about consensus. It has come to my attention as a result of webcomics related AFDs, but I find that your disregard for consensus is not limited to webcomics related AFDs. Deletion policy is explicit as to the role of consensus in AFDs, and also explicit on the very few exceptions to a specific rough consensus of the editors on the AFD (copyvio, NPOV, and articles that cannot meet WP:V). Your role, per policy, is not to create a decision from scratch; your role is to interpret the consensus of the editors.

I could attack your motivations if you really want, however, taking as a basis your recent votes in webcomic AFDs following the overturn in DRV of your closure of the Starslip Crisis AFD, but I'm not interested in picking a fight with you. You're starting to act tempermental and defensive about this; don't be. What I'm interested in is simple: Your current and future support for consensus on Misplaced Pages, including at a minimum compliance with Misplaced Pages's existing policies' support of consensus within process. Balancer 11:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I have clarified my stand, please stop making personal remarks. Another time, we will let users like yourself to close AfDs by counting votes and let consensus reign. I am sorry to say, but your actions depict that you are not much knowledgeable with respect to the notability guidelines. Please leave my talk page, I do not wish to continue conversation with you and end up following your circular arguments. — Nearly Headless Nick 11:21, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

DRV

An editor has asked for a deletion review of The noob. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Balancer 21:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Latino Muslims AFD

Where did you find no consensus in the Latino Muslims thread? It was 7-6 in favor of deletion, per the rules the thread needs to go.--- Skyhawk 22:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

AfDs are not votes. Latino Muslims page probably needs to be moved to a moar appropriate title. It needs work and sources, but it is a perfectly encyclopedic subject. Give it some time to develop, sources would be available over the internet. Try using relevant keywords. Best, — Nearly Headless Nick 10:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Graduation afd

Since you closed Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Graduation (The Suite Life of Zack and Cody episode) as delete, can you delete the other 2 eps that were listed with it? --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 22:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Done. — Nearly Headless Nick 09:49, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanx :) --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 15:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

DRV note

An editor has asked for a deletion review of List of people who became famous only in death. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review.

I have raised the issue also at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard#Consensus standards for deletion--Golden Wattle 22:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Blood Red Sandman. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Blood Red Sandman Open Up Your Heart - Receive My EviLove 07:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

30LL

An editor has asked for a deletion review of 30LL. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Kartrab 01:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Sharas

If you don't mind, I'd like to add Category:Golden State Warriors players to Šarūnas Jasikevičius, or you can do it yourself. I seriously doubt that adding the category for a player's current team could be controversial, but I do want to run it by you.  :) — Dale Arnett 16:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I have unprotected the page, you should have approached an administrator to do so earlier. You can add the category yourself. — Nearly Headless Nick 06:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

"Roiter vandal"?

G'day. I noted you blocked User:Luxor99 (good job), with the comment "possible roiter vandal". What exactly is a roiter vandal? I can't find the term on WP, nor in my (albeit cursory) Google search, and I'm over 40 and an art student so my leet-speak (if that's what it is) is way below zero.

2nd - Should there not be a block tag on his talk page? I was about to reply to him that he wasn't blocked -- I had left a sweetly-worded warning) -- but on a hunch I checked block logs. Since the templates are "Admin Only", could I trouble you to add one on his page? Tks.

3rd - Do you have a shorter nickusername one can employ when addressing you, like "Sir Nick", "Heady", "SNiMP", or do I keep Ctrl-C'ing the page title and Ctrl-V'ing it here, Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington? :)

• Thanks. --SigPig | 22:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Greetings. Roiter vandals are those who leave subtle vandalism on Misplaced Pages articlespace which is hard to detect. I am not still sure if I am spelling it correctly (Reuter vandal doesn't exist :P).

• {{sofixit}} - You can add the template
• I prefer Sir Nicholas. :) — Nearly Headless Nick 07:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Islam and slavery

Hi Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington,

I hope everything is going well with you. I was wondering if you can help with the Islam and slavery article. As you can see User:Arrow740 is removing a lot of sourced material without discussing them and reaching consensus on the talk page. . Just to point to one among many examples is removal of the quote from Seyyed Hossein Nasr. The user is further edit-warring rather than discussing the points one by one as it is expected from the one who initiates such a removal. IF you are not busy, I would be greatly appreciate if you could help us there. Thanks --Aminz 08:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know anything about the subject. If it escalates into an edit-war, please let me know. But please, don't revert more than once in a day. And you can call me Nick. Regards, — Nearly Headless Nick 08:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. Thanks anyways Nick! Cheers, --Aminz 08:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Aminz is being deceptive. Many of the issues have been discussed at length there and at other articles prior to today and yesterday. Moreover, another user began the removal, and was quite clear in his edit summaries. I largely put his edits back after Aminz's many reverts. In fact I have explained on the talk (for the second and third time in many cases) why I removed what I did. Arrow740 08:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution and assume good faith with everyone. Best, — Nearly Headless Nick 08:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, another user began. It is user KittyHawker and Arrow supported him. Please see User:KittyHawker's contribution. He usually starts editing an article for the first time and removes lots of stuff. Another example when this user edited Jihad article:. Here is when he touches Criticism of the Qur'an for the first time . Please note the mass removal of sourced material. The reaons he provides are vague, sometimes strange, edit summaries. --Aminz 09:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

User:BabyDweezil 3RR

• I would ask that you look again at the most recent WP:3RR violation by User:BabyDweezil. It is a separate instance, in an unrelated article, that does not involve WP:BLP. Smee 09:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC).

• Nevermind. Thanks for your time. Smee 09:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC).

• Eww, I am so sorry. Messed it up. :P — Nearly Headless Nick 09:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• No worries. Smee 09:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC).

Re

Nothing much... Busy with RL these days so editing is greatly reduced... — Lost 10:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages is failing

Why have you protected the deleted page so that no-one can find where the essay is now? Worldtraveller 11:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I did not delete it. But I did protect it to prevent recreation. That seems to have consenus on WP:AN. Best, — Nearly Headless Nick 11:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see consensus there at all. Several people are arguing for it to be kept. Worldtraveller 11:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

There is no consensus. (MichaelJLowe 13:26, 17 February 2007 (UTC))

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration

I have initiated a Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration#Nearly Headless Nick disregarding consensus and consensus-related policies, a matter in which I believe you to have been involved in the case history of. Your commentary may be appreciated. Balancer 13:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying me. But it does not interest me at the moment. Thank you. — Nearly Headless Nick 17:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

In light of the proper order of steps to take, I have opened Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington (2nd RfC), which you should also be informed of. Balancer 23:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Unblock request on one of your 3RR blocks

Please comment on the request for unblock at User talk:Wjhonson. Thanks, Newyorkbrad 00:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I suppose the block has already expired by now. — Nearly Headless Nick 13:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Support

Hey Nick. I can't say I've looked at much of the details of the recent RFAr's, but I've always considered you a talented and solid administrator and contributor, so I just wanted to offer you my support. Let me know if there's anything I can do. Eric (EWS23) 04:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Yo. Thanks. I guess I will cabalise with you over email. See ya! — Nearly Headless Nick 13:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Concern

Hi Nick

I am getting concerned about user:Freedom skies edits. There are two areas of concern:

• S/He has begun to remove material again that I have added to the Indian mathematics page. At first her/his complaint was that I was adding "Wikiquote material" (perhaps, since I was using "cquote"). I then began to paraphrase the quoted material and s/he complained that I had violated WP:NPOV and WP:NOR in my paraphrases. See the discussion here, where s/he produced some exact quotes (which I had added earlier) and claimed that my paraphrases were not accurate. So, I finally added the exact quotes (that s/he her/himself had quoted on the talk page) here in addition to adding some technical material here (essentially all the material that doesn't have a "citation needed" tag on it). Well, earlier today s/he made a number of edits, where s/he mostly removed material that was critical of the notion of Vedic mathematics. (See here). The material s/he has removed was all sourced and consists of text from articles in internationally known journals or well-known text-books published by Wiley and searchable on Amazon. I have refrained from reverting anything as I had promised you, but I can't prepare the article for the RfC that I am planning on the mathematics portal, if material keeps getting removed. Please advise.

• What is troubling me more however, is a post on my talk page earlier today from user:IP198, who says that user: Freedom skies had stated in her/his edit summaries on some articles that IP198 is a sockpuppet of mine here and here. These are both articles that I have never edited, and hadn't even heard of the first, "Hindokowans." Here are user IP198's posts on my page: InitialPost and here are: my replies to user IP198. My only contact with user IP198 has been on the Talk: Salwar Kameez page, where as you can see, we have different points of view. I don't know what game user:Freedom skies has in mind, but he seems to have scared user IP198, who apparently fears getting blocked by Freedom skies! See their discussion here. As I suggested to user IP198, I am happy to challenge user: Freedom skies or anyone else to a checkuser ID (for me and IP198) and with the condition that the loser in the challenge donate $200 to the Wikimedia foundation! Anyway, please advise. Thanks! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I recommend that a closer look regarding the discussions on Talk:Indian mathematics is in order. Severe misrepresentations were made by Fowler and he attempted to present those misrepesentations as actual "critisisms." My understanding is that content disputes are resolved before actually being put in the articles in concern; as is being done by me and other editors on Talk:Zen. Fowler has gone on revert wars and has even indiscriminately removed the citations I procured after hours of research. His purpose of edits and assesments of mathematics are also given on the talk page, which not only is unethical but since it seperates geometry from mathematics, is also flawed. Since he has asked you for advice, I would recommend that you use your position to bring Fowler to the discussion table before he reverts again. His section, as inappropriate as it is, has still been allowed by me to stay in the article for the time being.

I have concerns that the user in question may have ben a sockpuppet of Fowler, given the nature of the editor involved it would not be improbable to assume that he would have an alternate account to aviod other users from checking on his contribs. The user IP198 reverted one of my edits to Fowler's version, shows unusual sophestication for a newcomer, has been known to "communicate" with fowler and has edits overlaping with Fowler. I will produce the overlaps on a future probable ocassion and will vigilantly watch for the activities of the editors involved. The response and allegations of the "user" of a "possible grudge" against fowler are also things I find extraordinary. Consider this section, here and here for details.

I, unlike, fowler and others am not keen on violation of WP ethics. All I ask is that Fowler discusses his edits and answers legitimate concerns before he reverts someone else's hard work.

Best Regards,

_{Freedom skies| talk}  07:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I have additional concerns regarding Fowler. He has initiated a revert war by maliciously stating that "reverting freedom skies' bogus reverts; have you added anything to this article yet, or do you only know how to revert.?" His new confidence may stem from his sucsess in involving a completely unrelated editor to help him out on Indian mathematics. The new editor has stated things like "oh dear, why cannot they just leave good enough alone." and "I suggest you sit back and watch F&f's work on the article, and maybe learn something."

Fowler's conduct on Indian mathematics has been extraordinary. I find this continuation of mailicious agenda surprising. Recruiting muscle to back him up up in revert warring and using semi-abusive online bullying does not amount to fair decent behaviour.

Kindly take appropriate action. There is bound to be trouble due to revert warring and semi-abusive bullying by the parties involved.

_{Freedom skies| talk}  10:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Response by a harried Sir Nicholas

• I am not getting involved. I barely know anything about the topic.
• I'd rather stick to those topics that are amply covered by sources over the internet.
• Quibbling over hotly contested and disputed topics on Misplaced Pages, where the sources are not clear and unavailable is a major pain in the ass.
• In case you did not notice, I have a second RfC on me. I guess, I am gaining notoriety faster than Darth Vader and Boba Fett, (you know what I mean).
• And oh yeah, some one ask that dirty rouge admin to stop using rollback while reverting contentious edits.
• Chao. — Nearly Headless Nick 12:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

A suggestion

I recommend that when closing AfDs against the numbers you give a better indication of your rationale. Some of these definitely need closing as delete, so it's worth the effort to avoid pain. An extensive rationale can forestall a lot of criticism. Guy (Help!) 23:37, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Roger, roger. — Nearly Headless Nick 13:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Question

Is this a 3RR violation by TJ Spyke: . All the reverts aren't 100 percent identical, but pretty close. It was reverting vandalism: but he could've easily reported the users instead of turning it into yet another wrestling article edit/revert war. RobJ1981 05:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Unblock ip

Kindly unblock ip 202.41.72.100 you had blocked this ip for requesting unprotection of your user discussion page, in your user page. This is not a valid reason for blocking an ip. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vinay412 (talk • contribs) 06:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC). Vinay412 06:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/202.41.72.100 Vinay412 09:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

my suggestion: you fully protect your user page. Vinay412 11:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The IP has been currently used by an indefinitely banned user. I will block as the IP is abused. Thanks for letting me know. In case, the users are unable to edit from your college, ask your network administrator to contact me via email. — Nearly Headless Nick 12:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Alan.ca

I appreciate the backup, but I think you might have missed part of the history. The "relist" comment was added by User:TigerShark while I was in the process of closing the AfD, although TigerShark did not actual relist the AfD other than add the relist comment. I completed the closure without noticing the relist notice. User:Alan.ca then reopened and relisted the AfD, completing what TigerShark started. Just letting you know since Alan seems intent on pushing this issue that he'll probably not be happy about your comment in light of this. Anyway, thanks all the same. —Doug Bell  14:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

That's ok. But it is well-within admin discretion to close the AfD if he feels that the community has put in it's opinion. In this case, there was a unanimous call to keep the article. Even if you ignored the template, no other user should revert back an administrator's edits. We have the WP:DRV process for that. — Nearly Headless Nick 14:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh I agree, just wanted to give you a heads up of how your comment to him might be taken. —Doug Bell  14:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind him. He has been blocked before. Doesn't take anything seriously. — Nearly Headless Nick 14:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

about civility

Hi Nick. Look, I don't want to be a dick about all of this but I do think you're being rude to me for no particular reason. You keep implying that since my RfA failed you understand policy better than I do: this is patently unfair and childish. I was in fact involved in the transformation of WP:N from an essay to a guideline and I have been one of the main architects of WP:BK. I've participated in probably hundreds of XfDs and have mostly used detailed constructive arguments to do so. Now we obviously don't quite agree on how policy should be interpreted and that's quite ok. But you should remain civil regardless of these disagreements. Cheers, Pascal.Tesson 15:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Active RfC

I went ahead and weighed in on the active RfC concerning you, and have lent my support as I feel is appropriate. I am glad to see that Misplaced Pages still has some administrators left who are willing to fight the good fight against mob rule by the masses in favor of policy and encyclopedic standards. Be prepared for a rather heated RFC, as some of the people who didn't like your stand against voting blocs, canvassing, and policy-weak arguments will surely show up to accuse you of having some hidden agenda related to the complete abolishment of consensus on Misplaced Pages; just ignore those kooks - they belong on fan wikis and in chatrooms, and not on a place whose goal is intellectual writing of a meaningful nature. Keep fighting the good fight against fancruft and tribute pages! NetOracle 22:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)