User talk:Nigosh

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] What has been said...

Welcome!

Hello, Nigosh, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! , SqueakBox 22:11, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ni-be-ni-me-ni-cucurigu

At Ni-be-ni-me-ni-cucurigu: do you really think Lulla Rosenfeld merits a link? -- Jmabel | Talk 05:35, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

  • Her main claim to fame is as a translator of Yiddish texts into English; also that she is Jacob Adler's granddaughter and translated and annotated his memoir. When she was younger she did some stage acting (but is not particularly famous as an actress), and I believe she's done some adapatations of texts for the stage. According to IMDB, she adapted one novel for film (Paris Blues, 1961, not a hit although it had a great cast). As far as I know, that's about it. Seems to me to be just below the threshold of who I'd write an article about, though I wouldn't nominate it for VfD if someone else did. Unless I'm missing something big, like many authors, she is a citable source, but not really of encyclopedic notability in her own right. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:49, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 69.50.#.#

How do Thue. Noticed you have blocked one address at the above prefix. Please be aware that this is only one of many IPs producing linkspam from associated IPs (Atrivo/Psychz), see User:Nigosh/linkspammers for a bit more history. Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress has (most of) them logged; it looks like the actor works on a couple of campaigns a week. Additionally, seems now to be starting to seed some pages and then spamming each of them later from a different IP. I think that this activity requires more than a one day ban to a single IP. Do you think that a rather larger, more categorical ban (i.e. 69.50.160.0 - 69.50.191.255) might get the point across. Nigosh 00:49, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

I am reluctant to ban such a large IP range. I have added some comments to the VIP page. Thue | talk 09:39, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
I'm not. Given their continued spam vandalism (spamdalism?), I've blocked the 69.50 range for a year. They're a host, and no edits should be originating from there anyway. -- Cyrius|✎ 01:19, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Haseltine

Hey, I see you restored the prod tag on David Haseltine. Don't do that. As the prod notice states, removing the tag is the correct way of objecting to the deletion. Prod is for uncontroversial deletions only. See the proposed policy at Wikipedia:Proposed deletion#What this process is NOT for. If someone objects, don't put the tag back on, move it to AfD.

So I moved it to AfD for you. NickelShoe 23:23, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Sandbox/Dead End

Please only add one roll at a time to each of the games, as per the instructions at the top of the page. To this end I've removed all of the rolls and words you added except the first one. This keeps it entertaining for everybody who plays and gives people an equal chance of winning. Thryduulf 14:43, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Cricket subcategories nominated for deletion

I have nominated Category:Cricket subcategories for deletion here. This is just a courtesy note because you took part in an earlier inconclusive debate on the same subject, and may wish to comment on this one. If you're not interested, please forgive the intrusion. Stephen Turner (Talk) 12:11, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] email

Did you receive my email? —AldeBaer 18:46, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I did, but at present, having taken another look at wikipediareview, I don't see that their stated policies regarding the posting of personal information should be reason to expunge all direct reference the site's existence from wikipedia:
"We do not allow posting of the address or phone number of WR members or Wikipedians to public areas of the website. In cases where identifying the employer of such persons would lead to the revelation of such personal information, that also would be considered unacceptable. Defamatory (i.e. both untrue and malicious) statements will be removed; accusations which could be construed as defamatory should not be made without providing compelling evidence. Any Wikipedian who wishes to dispute statements on this site is welcome to become a member and, within the bounds of decorum that operate here, rebut them."
It may be somewhat bellicose, but given the robust nature of the discussion, that is not unexpected.
I shall not leave this response on your talk page, as I expect it will only cause you and I grief because of the "gratuitous" use of WR linking - Nigosh 09:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
For the (and my) record, here is the email:
Hey there,
I'm writing you with regard to the link to WikipediaReview.com on your user page. I'm not going to make any unilateral changes to another user page unless necessary, but as you may know, there are attempts at outing the identities of several Wikipedia users actively being pursued on that website, which thus qualifies as an "attack site".
I assure you that I'm fully aware of the argument brought forward by people sympathetic to WR, that there are not only subpages containing attacks and that some threads may even contain legitimate criticism. However, it's very easy to get from such a subpage to one with potentially dangerous attacks against Wikipedians with very few klicks.
If it weren't for actual cases of stalking and harassment, I wouldn't care either way. But as it is, there have been such instances, and I'd therefore like to ask you to remove that link from your user page. We shouldn't be working to increase the readership of such websites unless they vigorously remove attacking content.
Best regards,
<snip />
Nigosh 22:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Nigosh, I suggest you read Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO, especially the Principles. To summarise, there are sites which regularly engage in harassment of Wikipedians; this has led in some cases to real life harassment, to threats against families, to phonecalls to workplaces, etc. You may not post links to such sites, and you will be blocked if you persist. I see that you have already been made aware of this by email, and, following that, you reverted a user who removed such links. Don't post those links again, or you may be blocked. If I've removed anything that you feel you need for your own records, to keep on your hard disk and refer to as needed, feel absolutely free to ask, and I'm happy to email it to you in private. Regards. ElinorD (talk) 20:51, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

ElinorD, firstly, congratulations on your recent adminship. Now, you have deleted my page history, so I will have to respond from memory of the content and events; AldeBaer's email related solely to wikipediareview.com, and MONGO's deletion was of WR, wikipedia-watch.org, and wikitruth.info. Your action removed those sites, plus a link to antisocialmedia.net, a linksearch on WR and others, (so yes, please do email me the deleted material). I will for the time being, refrain from linking to these sites, as I don't want a revert war or to have my history deleted again, but the deletions made by you and MONGO included sites that I was not aware were subject to any prohibition, and as wikitruth has its own page and is linked to from here, I don't see how you can justify its deletion at all.
Since these WP pages [1], [2] and [3] critical of wikipedia continue to link to such "sites which regularly engage in harassment" (attack sites), I feel somewhat victimised by your actions. While there is no consensus on what an attack site is, I don't see how I can know when a site might contain personal information within it (I'm not interested in that kind of personal information, and so will not waste my time searching for it). None of the links I had were to anything more than the front page (or in WR's case, an additional one to it's stated policy of NOT condoning publication of personal information). I particularly object to your deletion of my user page history. The MONGO case you cite above has, I can see, resulted in the complete link redaction of ED, but the only policy I can find is Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks#External links, which refers specifically to the removal of "Links or references to off-site attacks or privacy violations against Wikipedians"; this, to me, means a link to a page that attacks or "outs" a wikipedian, not the whole site. If any site should not be linked to, then blacklist it (as ED and kapitalism.net has been).
What do I have to do to find out if a site is regarded (more or less informally and tacitly) as an attack site? Do I have to post the link (e.g. this one for example) and await the ton of bricks that may fall upon me (or not if it goes unnoticed or does not, in fact qualify as an "attack site")?
My response to those Principles:
  1. Harrassment - It is unacceptable to harass another user. Agreed.
  2. Combatting harassment - Any user, including an administrator using administrative powers, may remove or otherwise defeat attempts at harassment of a user. This includes harassment directed at the user themselves. I am harassing nobody, and have not linked to any such harassment.
  3. Links to attack site - sites may be removed by any user; such removals are exempt from 3RR. Deliberately linking to an attack site may be grounds for blocking. See above, what is an attack site, how can I know that a site is To Be Forgotten (yes I do understand WP:BEANS), or are we now being asked to treat any site critical of WP as such.
  4. Solidarity - Wikipedia users, especially administrators, will not permit a user under attack to be isolated, but will support them. This may include reverting harassing edits, protecting or deleting pages, blocking users, or taking other appropriate action. Agreed, but this support should also extend to those who feel they are being attacked from within WP.
  5. Guilt by association - Participation in a website which spoofs or criticizes Wikipedia is not an actionable offense in itself. Very generous, although for the record, I have not participated in any of the above mentioned sites.
  6. Requests for deletion - Involvement by Wikipedia users in debates regarding deletion, even of subjects they are involved in, is not an actionable offense. Quite reasonable.
  7. Support of harassment - Users who link to webpages which attack or harass other users or to sites which regularly engage in such activity are responsible for their actions Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks#Off-wiki_personal_attacks. Until those sites linked to above are redacted and blacklisted in the same way that ED has been, I can't see what I am doing wrong by linking to them alongside the many other users and many hundreds of special pages revealed by linksearching.
  8. Karma - Users, especially administrators, who are associated, or suspected of association, with sites which are hypercritical of Wikipedia can expect their Wikipedia activities as well as their activities on the hypercritical website, to be closely monitored. True, but similarly, users, especially administrators (and higher), can expect their public activities to be closely monitored (Digital data can bite you in the ass, researcher warns). NB I am NOT condoning stalking in any way, but once you start to do things in the digital domain, you must expect that any activity you engage in will leave traces, (except for oversight of course;).
  9. Users may edit anonymously - Users, including administrators, may choose whether to disclose their real-world identities on Wikipedia or to edit anonymously. All fair and good, I'm fairly anonymous myself (I hope).
  10. Many edit anonymously - For a variety of reasons, a majority of Wikipedians, including many administrators, edit anonymously. It is believed the opportunity to edit anonymously increases participation. ditto.
  11. Outing sites as attack sites - A website that engages in the practice of publishing private information concerning the identities of Wikipedia participants will be regarded as an attack site whose pages should not be linked to from Wikipedia pages under any circumstances. See response to 3 & 7.
In summary, show me the policy and I'm happy to comply, but while there is debate over what the policy should be, I feel justified in using my own judgement, in conjunction with good natured discussion, and assuming good faith to keep myself (and others) aware of all points of view on what WP is, and how others perceive it.
Nigosh 15:05, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Farmers and Peasants

Hey Nigosh... didnt know how else to reach you. Basically i think the relationship and differences between farmers and peasants should be noted in wikipedia, and thus made the appropriate changes to both pages... which you reverted. How is a peasant an "agricultural worker" but not a farmer? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.39.3.19 (talk • contribs) 09:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Request For Rollback

I have fulfilled your request for Rollback. Best Wishes. Pedro :  Chat  14:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted.
You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Chios.
For the Mediation Committee, WjBscribe 03:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.