User talk:Nishkid64/Archive 15

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

dyk

Please update. Its backlogged.Bakaman 15:53, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: Congrats

Thank you! Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:47, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

P.S. On a completely unrelated issue, I noticed you protected Image:Konstantin Makovsky Self.jpg because it will be on the Main Page tomorrow. Note that if an image is coming from Commons (and it's not protected on Commons), then only protecting the image description page here will not suffice; the image must be uploaded locally and then protected. Otherwise, the image may still be changed on Commons and reflected here: although the image description page is locked, the new image on Commons will still be seen on the Main Page. I've already done this for the image mentioned above, but just keep this in mind for next time. :-) Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:58, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
No problem! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:08, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
And I forgot to mention that {{c-uploaded}} is the proper template to tag such images with. Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:09, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

thanks for semi-protect

Hi, feel free to delete this but I just wanted to say thank you for the semi-protect of Hyphy. We'd been struggling with it for a while because many editors felt it was important to have anonymous editors contribute, but 95% of the time it was simply vandalism or other trivial and bad edits. -- Joebeone (Talk) 00:10, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


Administrative conflict of interest in the case of Ganesh, an administrator and an editor on this site

I'm copying part of my message to Ganesh that I've left at the IIPM talk page. This is just for your information.

  • Thanks Ganesh. The reason I focused on fixing your spelling and grammar, was because I took offence to being told that I was accusing "established editors and administrators". Neither is Deepak any more "established" than a normal Wikipedia dabbler; nor are you, and more so in matters of English; and 'English', mind it, which forms the basis of Wikipedia. As Wikipedia confirms, we're not striving for perfection. Ergo, I do not expect your English to be perfect; and it is not, you make unbelievable subject-object, composition, modifying verb et al errors (and not just once, your statements do have many of those). It proves to me that to become an administator, one needs to be focused on following ethical guidelines of editing, and not necessarily on getting one's English appropriately conjectured. I find a clear conflict of interest in your continuing editing on this page, at the same time holding administrative responsibilities, at the same time awarding another editor for ensuring that he has kept controversial details alive on the page. I do not mind controversial details being discussed by editors. But I object to those being discussed by administrators with extra powers; even if they might not finally use their extra power openly. But you did use your powers indirectly. For information, instead of directing Deepak Shenoy to (file a request to) block the page, you chose yourself to write to Nishkid. And when you did message Nishkid to block the page, you did not message as an editor (which you could have). You deliberately told him you were an administrator (thus confirming your status) and requested him twice to block the page, which he, after a couple of days, did. His response must have been more positive because you are an administrator. Therefore, I put in a formal statement out here to request you to kindly not continue editing on this page or using your administrative capacities on this page. Ganesh, there is a clear and evident conflict of interest in your actions. If you agree, I shall not lodge a formal complaint. If you do wish to continue editing, I shall lodge a formal complaint and also let everybody in the Wikipedia community know such a conflict exists blatantly. I'll await your resonse. Regards, Mrinal Mrinal Pandey 03:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

desi power!

good job becoming an admin! Somemoron 03:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Reply from HighBC's to user Mrinal's message

Dear HighBc, I noticed you had commented recently on a wiki site of IIPM. I wished to find out from you how to complain against a wiki administrator who, I have reasons and proof to believe, is misusing his powers to support one particular editor. If you can kindly show me the appropriate forum, I'll lodge a complaint against the administrator. I searched wiki and have not been able to find a link for the same. You could perhaps also go to the discussions page on the IIPM site to see my viewpoints regarding this. Regards, Mrinal Mrinal Pandey 12:27, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

The admin's talk page is the best place to deal with this. Failing that you can post at WP:AN/I, however please have all of your evidence ready when you post there, and be sure you have already attempted to resolve this matter directly. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 19:50, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

IIPM article protection

Nish, I think it's okay to remove the protection on the IIPM article. The vandals and admin impersonators have been blocked. Since you are the original admin who protected the article, I wanted to request you to the unprotect it. Thanks, Ganeshk (talk) 05:03, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 26th.

The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 2, Issue 52 26 December 2006 About the Signpost
Seven arbitrators chosen Wikipedia classroom assignments on the rise
WikiWorld comic: "Molasses" News and notes: Stewards appointed, milestones
Wikipedia in the news Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist.If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.Ralbot 07:22, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Urartu article dispute

Hi Nishkid64. User:Dacy69 has made a request for assistance in the editing of the Urartu article. According to Dacy69, the dispute centres on differing views on the ethnic composition of Urartu. You are not named in the dispute; however, I note that you have been involved in recent editing of the article, so I would be interested in getting your views.

Dacy69's request is for "neutral wording of section "Ethnic Composition" of page Urartu". From my reading of the situation, it appears that Dacy69 would like information about the Hurrit tribe to be included in the article. It also appears that he has provided evidence that some scholars believe the Hurrit tribe did live in Urartu. Is the evidence he provides correct? If the evidence is correct, and some scholars are saying that the Hurrit tribe did live in Urartu, then what is your opinion on that information appearing in the article? SilkTork 11:42, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I'm no way involved in the matter. The only edit I made was fully protecting the article per request at WP:RFPP. By the way, let me know when/if the dispute is resolved, so that I can unprotect the page. Nishkid64 17:37, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

My Request for Adminship

Nishkid64/Archive 15

Thanks for your support on my successful Request for Adminship (final result 78 Support /0 Oppose / 1 Neutral) I have now been entrusted with the mop, bucket and keys. I will be slowly acclimating myself to my new tools over the next months. I am humbled by your kind support and would certainly welcome any feedback on my actions. Please do not hesitate to contact me. Once again, many thanks and happy new year! All the best, Asteriontalk 15:55, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Expired noms

The "expired noms" section tends to come and go as it's needed. It's mostly a holding area for those items that have received comments against them that are unlikely to have been read in time by the person submitting the article, either because the item was submitted in the final few hours of eligibility or because it wasn't commented on until very late in the day. It's mostly a courtesy to the submittors; for the most part, expired items just drop off the page without a note. I've no real objection to the section, it's just that in my experience very few items drop to that section without good reason. Clearing it is up to the discretion of anyone passing by who feels that the section has served its purpose for the time being. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 18:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

DYK

Hello and thank you for DYK nomination. I supposed to nominate it myself but you was quicker. :) Can one of the images used in the article also be used in DYK ? - Darwinek 19:03, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah sure. Feel free to add an image that you would like to have on the Main Page, and you'll most likely see it on the Main Page in a few days. Also, a lot of times at DYK, most of the articles chosen are nominated by someone who didn't even make the article. In fact, that happened to me yesterday with Gordon Canfield hehe. Anyway, feel free to add the image, and polish up the DYK accordingly. You could replace it with something else if you think you have something more interesting in the article. Nishkid64 19:07, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Augusto Pinochet

Because Gerald Ford is on the ITN. Both are former Presidents and, arguably, Augusto Pinochet is more notable because of the length of his time in office.--HamedogTalk|@ 21:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter anyway because Augusto Pinochet was included.--HamedogTalk|@ 21:24, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

DYK!

Updated DYK query On 27 December 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Guy Bush, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thank you for your contributions! Nishkid64 21:29, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Reply

I have replied to you on my talk page. This message is in case you don't have my talk page on your watchlist, or you are an IP who doesn't have a watchlist. TeckWizTalkContribs@

I have replied again :) TeckWizTalkContribs@ 22:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Same as above :) TeckWizTalkContribs@ 22:18, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Reply

In this case I was going by the {{test4im}} that had been given at 21:37, 27 December 2006 (UTC), for bad vandalism to the article August 14. Sorry if it was in error, I didn't mean to step on any toes, and I'll take it into account. Cheers. Canadian-Bacon 22:37, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

The time frame was that I noticed the user adding blatant attack commentary to August 14 (Special:Contributions/81.145.241.195), and I sent him a {{test4im}}.I don't use {{test4im}} much; I reserve it for particularly offensive vandalism.He immediately made two more edits in the same vein, then went on to edit Tera Patrick five minutes later. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 22:47, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

That's perfectly fine, but I did not block the user because there was only one warning given today (which is why I left the note saying that I gave a t4 to the user).

Not to put too fine a point on it, but the idea of {{test4im}} is that your first edit was so egregious that you're not going to get a second warning.In this case, he continued to vandalize after a test4im.(It's not clear from the timestamps, but two of his August 14 edits were after I sent him the test4im).Those might be borderline...it's conceivable he didn't see the warnings until he clicked save.But the Tera Patrick edit was several minutes later, so there's no question he was adequately warned. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 22:55, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
If that's the case, then what's the point of t1-t3? The IP might have been shared for all you know, so going from t1 would seem more appropriate to me. Even when I see a test4im warning, I don't take it too literally. If I see that warning, I would require also seeing another t3 or t4 before I take any action. Nishkid64 22:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
For typical vandalism, I almost always run through t1..t4.Actually, for garden variety "teenager adding himself to the date pages" stuff, I give him a free pass for the first edit and just revert without any warning at all; most of the time, they only do it once anyway.It's not just about the number of vandalism edits, it's about the content of the edits.I won't quote what this person said in his four separate edits to August 14; you can review it yourself.But it was offensive enough, IMO, to justify a test4im. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 23:03, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Template protection

Another thing on Main Page protection: when updating DYK and there's a template used, please protect it (or consider subst'ing it) as well; there was a template included in the update of the DYK, and a vandal took advantage of that and placed a shock image on the template, which showed on the Main Page. Luckily, I noticed it as it passed by and reverted in less than one minute, but please be careful in the future. Sorry for dropping by here so often. :-) Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that there is any specific page, but {{mprotected}} and {{c-uploaded}} should explain everything well. In short, just protect anything and everything that can be editable and is shown on the Main Page. Don't take this one too hard on yourself; it was reverted extremely quickly, and we all learn from experience. :-) Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:08, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

It would probably be preferable to not add any templates at all, and instead just subst them (especially in the case of {{By}} and {{Baseball Year}}). --- RockMFR 02:36, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, thanks, but consider substituting the templates next time, especially in this case because of their relative simpleness. Thanks again! Flcelloguy (A note?) 04:02, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

This is an easy thing to forget. I've added it to the big list of warnings I made earlier in the week – Gurch 14:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Your congrats

Hi Nishkid64 :-) Thanks for your congrats and support. Take care, --FloNight 14:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Lake Chaubunagungamaug

How about just:

Did you know that Lake Chaubunagungamaug may have the longest place name in the United States?

You can also do [ [ Lake Chaubunagungamaug|Lake ] ] [ [ Lake Chaubunagungamaug|Chaubunagungamaug ] ] to split up Lake and Chaubun..ag...um...the other word!

Does that fit?Thanks for considering my submissions.I get a great thrill from having them accepted. House of Scandal 02:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, we have a merge proposal.Would you like me to merge before you DYK post it?House of Scandal 02:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Is this good? [1] Nishkid64 02:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks for accepting my submission! Are we waiting on the merge or want me to do it? It shouldn't take more than 10 minutes. HouseOfScandal02:54, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

The Lake Chaubunagungamaug article is good to go.It is better after the merge, I think.I found some new material about the origin of the name and cited it. I also expanded the Nipmuck article in ancticipation of people following that link.HouseOfScandal04:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I had to shorten the DYK. It still affected the main page, so I left it as: ...that Lake Chaubunagungamaug is often cited as the longest place name in the United States? Nishkid64 18:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Cool.It's great to be on DYK.I've noticed that you're a very active DYK contributor as well and have enjoyed your interesting and well-written articles.HouseOfScandal18:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Portal Peer Review

Hey, Nishkid64! Check out Wikipedia:Portal peer review! You may want to request a portal to be reviewed or review some portals there! —sd31415 (sign here) 17:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Gerald Ford full protection denial

I understand your reasoning for not granting full protection. But, if you would, please keep a watchful eye on this article, as some users are deleting useful information based solely on opinion rather than consensus. As the state funeral approaches, I'm afraid there may be edit wars, and vandals too. Check out the talk page for reference. Thanks. Veracious Rey talk ↔ contribs 19:25, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. By the way, your watch list may get bogged down. The posting over there is crazy! Veracious Rey talk ↔ contribs 19:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

An article which you started, or significantly expanded, Riggs Stephenson, was selected for DYK!

Updated DYK query On December 28, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Riggs Stephenson, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid64 22:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

An article which you started, or significantly expanded, Sakati syndrome, was selected for DYK!

Updated DYK query On December 28, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Sakati syndrome, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thanks for your contributions! ++Lar: t/c 22:08, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmmmm

Hey Nish,

I just noticed that a ton of links on Wikipedia are turning red all of a sudden, as if somebody is deleting the pages. The most obvious of this is the Wikipedia donation fund bar that I currently have at the top. A few minutes ago, all the links were blue and working. Now, about half of them are red. I'm not sure how anybody could have screwed it up (it's a template, for one), but I assume it's pretty seriously, as everyone who hasn't pressed the "dismiss" button now sees broken links. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 01:55, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

All interwiki links were temporarily broken, but the issue has been fixed now. Thanks! (and sorry for coming back here again, Nishkid64! ;-) ) Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Unprotect Harry Potter

Please unprotect Harry Potter.It has been over a month. I think it's time for another try.Thanks, John Reaves 14:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Emma Watson as well.John Reaves 15:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Did you know main article section

Hi i have a question do we nominate those so it can be displayed? Nareklm 23:10, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

You nominate at T:DYKT. Be sure to read the requirements, though. All articles must have been created/expanded (no stubs!) within the past 5 days. Also, you need to write a DYK that's interesting, and if it's successful (it's successful like 95% of the time), then it will be on the Main Page in a few days. Nishkid64 23:52, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks i was thinking about this one Trdat the Architect he helped build the Hagia Sophia but it needs alot of work maybe a week ill be done with all the research etc. Nareklm 00:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
You could definitely submit that to DYK now. My only suggestion is that before you do it, copyedit it because there seems to be some English problems in the article. If English isn't your thing, I could give you a hand here. It's a well-sourced, and good article. =) Nishkid64 00:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Yeah if you want you can help me :) Nareklm 00:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Oh yeah forgot those ill tidy it up a little. Nareklm 00:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Yeah i guess removing it would be appropriate. Nareklm 01:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Also can you give me the direct page for entries please? I didn't seem to find it. Nareklm 03:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks I've added it but who nominates these lol its confusing. Nareklm 23:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you! Now hopefully it will be chosen :) Nareklm 23:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

dyk

Backlogged.Bakaman 18:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

An article which you started, or significantly expanded, Gordon Canfield, was selected for DYK!

Updated DYK query On December 29, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Gordon Canfield, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid64 21:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Gerald Ford request

I strongly disagree with your decision. First, this is a highly publizised current event, and featured on the front page of Wikipedia. Second, go look for yourself at the history page. There has been vandalism by IP users and registered users just since you denied my request. Veracious Rey talk ↔ contribs 22:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

In addition, there were perfectly fine edits to this article when the page was semi-protected. Why was it removed in the first place??? Veracious Rey talk ↔ contribs 22:55, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
It's a current event article, and someone felt that semi-protecting such an article would not be beneficial. It was only protected to temporarily prevent vandalism. If you look at the article's history, there are IP users who have made contributions to the article. If there are 20 IP vandals, and 4 good editors, I would never protect the article. It defeats the purpose of Wikipedia. Nishkid64 22:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
You're the boss, but I'd still go ahead and protect it, since Ford is in the news currently. Anyway, any new info mostly likely would be added to his death article, not the main Ford article. And I haven't noticed 20 IP users making constructive edits. Maybe a handful. Veracious Rey talk ↔ contribs 23:09, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
My fault. By the way, I've been dealing with more vandals tonight. I'm not sure what your waiting on. I mean, the article was already semi-protected before some admin removed it. There wasn't a problem then. So why not protect the page now, especially when Ford's death constitutes a current event. For example Saddam Hussein is semi-protected. This is a current event due to his death. This will be my last post (you're probably sick of them), but I'm pretty sure I'm right. Veracious Rey talk ↔ contribs 02:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you! Sorry to be a pain about this, but I've worked pretty hard to get this article in shape, along with a few others, only to see it undone by IP cranks. I appreciate it. And if anyone requests to unblock it, I suggest at least waiting a week or so until the funeral and other related events are over. Veracious Rey talk ↔ contribs 03:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Have I Seen the Vandalism?

No I haven't. Most of the anon edits on Saddam Hussein are adding the death date. That's not vandalism. Annoying... yes. Vandalism... no. -- tariqabjotu 02:49, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

New Year


Wishing you a Happy New Year
from S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 04:25, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

DYK

Updated DYK query On 30 December 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Charles S. Joelson, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.
--Sam Blanning(talk) 13:05, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Desysopping

As you may know, WP:COMPRISE, which will surely be tagged as policy any day now, provides that any editor who employs the comprised of formulation in any DYK item is to be desysopped directly.In view of the presence of such solecism in the Riggs Stephenson item, I would imagine that you should turn in the admin bit straightaway. :) In reality, I write in order that I might offer my sincerest compliments on your recent work at DYK—relative both to the procedural work thereof and to your substantive article creation and expansion; good on ya...Joe 04:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Lol, you scared for a second there. Thanks, Joe. =) Nishkid64 17:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Many thanks for having taken care of the cricket item with such celerity.Because I can't imagine that I'd use the tools with any frequency, I've declined a couple of RfA noms, but when I encounter the rare main page solecisms I often wish that I should be able to fix it straightaway; you, inter al., are quite on top of things, though, such that I've no worries (except, of course, that I can't join in the ol' execution of Saddam Hussein ITN edit-warring; oh well...).:)Joe 21:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Derek Jeter

Hi, I think you need to have a look at the article Derek Jeter and its associated talk page as there is a bit of an edit dispute that you are involved with regarding the dive section. (You made a revert of this person, and they aren't too happy about it). Michael Greiner 16:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Blocking user page of Cascari

I am not rattling with you but blocking Cascaris page was wrong there are many information behind you dot not know and this has nothing in common with editwar. Kind regards And a happy new year.--Ekkenekepen 17:30, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

We're not here at Wikipedia to make rants/attacks on someone's user talk page. The user has not edited for months, so why are you even posting material they probably will not see? Nishkid64 23:03, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

RC Patrol

In the future, do you think there will be a function which all administrators will be highlighted with a special color? Bearly541 17:34, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Err...I doubt that will ever happen. What's the point anyway? If you're not sure if someone's an admin, look at this list then.[2]. Nishkid64 23:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Saddam Hussein

Hey, I was going to go in and request semi prot on the Saddam Hussein article due to heavy IP vandalism, and I noticed your comments saying it was already semi protected. If so, why are the IP's still able to make edits, or did I miss something? Caper13 22:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

See [3]. It was unprotected nearly 20 hours after I had protected it. Protecting/unprotecting will most likely occur periodically, so don't be surprised if it's protected again soon (and then unprotected). Nishkid64 23:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Trdat

Thank you! :-D Nareklm 23:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Princess Daisy

Just a quick note to say that the IP who requested unprotection earlier is actually a (semi-long term)vandal. I have no objections to unprotection (it had been protected a while, after all), just try to keep an eye on it. Thanks. -- Steel

Thanks for letting me know. I saw that when I was protecting the page, but I still wanted to unprotect the page to give some new editors another chance at editing the article. Nishkid64 23:47, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

An article which you started, or significantly expanded, George N. Seger, was selected for DYK!

Updated DYK query On December 31, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article George N. Seger, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thanks for your contributions! Why the hell does it end up that I have to congratulate myself lol? Nishkid64 02:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

DYK blurb

Thanks for telling me. The Pokela blurb is missing the word "on" between prison and Robben. I figured telling you here is faster than WP:ERRORS. Please fix, and again, thanks. Picaroon 02:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Interested to know

Hi Nishkid64, thank you for taking the time to study the RfA.If you have the time and inclination, I would very much like to know what persuaded you to vote oppose.Thanks.Sincerely, --BostonMA talk 03:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, there were a number of factors that persuaded my vote here. The noobie biting with the speedy deletion tags (even if it wasn't intentional at the time), inability to AGF, and I'm a bit worried about your answer to Q6. I'm sorry, Boston, but for all the reasons above, I had to oppose your RfA. Nishkid64 14:25, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi, Thanks for your response.I am having difficulty understanding what editors find objectionable about my answer to question 6, but that is not your problem :-).As for the AGF, perhaps sometime when things have quietted down, we can discuss it. Thanks again. Sincerely, --BostonMA talk 14:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello

I can't help but like your user page. I noticed you removed the protected status from the American Civil War page. While I hope the need for this is past, if there is a need to reinstate it, contact my user page if there are any questions or concerns. Jimmuldrow 06:22, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

DYK

Nishkid64, thank you for choosing T-Square and the CAD image for DYK. It is sad to think what it might have displaced or made expire. It meant a great deal to see it chosen. The blue artwork is by User:AdiJapan and the gesture was probably learned somewhere in the WikiProject Chess. Best wishes. -Susanlesch 10:15, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Nishkid! I'm just here to tell you that your work in DYKs lately is quite impressive. Happy New Year! ← ANAS Talk? 14:54, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

On the RfA

Hey mate, I saw your comments to BostonMA on his talk page, and I feel compelled to point out that many people appear to have misread his answer to no.6, myself included.It appears people think he is in favor of simply deleting articles that could use work, when in fact he says the opposite.

As a normal editor, [I] have tended to prefer removing spam and stubbification to outright deletion for bad articles about encyclopedic subjects. As an admin, I think I would tend to avoid deleting such articles. However, I would certainly respect the opinions and actions of admins who choose to delete any article that qualifies for speedy deletion. Perhaps I could be persuaded outright deletion is a better approach than stubbification. However, this is my opinion at the moment.

While your other concerns are perfectly valid, I thought I would try and clarify this aspect. Dåvid ƒuchs (talk • contribs) 14:44, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I opposed per Q6 because I doubt he would actually change his philosophy once he became admin. I don't know if that's what other people thought, but for me, that was a reason for opposing. Nishkid64 14:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
So let me get this straight: you opposed him because you want him to delete said types of articles? Dåvid ƒuchs (talk • contribs) 14:49, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
(P.s) You're status thingy blinking offline!

Your DYK nomination for Polish minority in the Czech Republic was successful

Updated DYK query Did you know? was updated. On December 31, 2006, a fact from the article Polish minority in the Czech Republic , which you recently nominated, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid64 14:50, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppet

I'm starting to suspect that User:Nimbat230 is a sockpuppet or meatpuppet, just not sure of who yet... His old account was that of MAR-C, which is similar to the established MER-C, although I don't think it is him, but rather somebody who was trying to impersonate him. Also, this user has added nonsense to wikipedia (see his contribs). S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 05:53, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't do anything yet. From the looks of the contributions, it looks like this is a pretty good user. I don't really see any vandalism (unless I'm missing something) edits by the user. By the way, if you have substantial proof that MAR-C is a sockpuppet of Nimbat230, then you should take it to CheckUser to verify. Nishkid64 14:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm starting to think that Nimbat isn't a sockpuppet/ meatpuppet but instead is just inept (ex. he's a noob). S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 19:42, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

— Question — ? —

Since you are a sysop, could you delete these two unnecessary subpages of mine — User:Sd31415/Sig and User:Sd31415/Thumb? My problem is that earlier, I transcluded these pages instead of substituting them onto some pages. Would you still be able to do it? Thanks. —sd31415 (sign here) 19:05, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I can delete the pages, but since you transcluded them, they won't show up on those previous pages in which you signed your username. I think it'll just show a time, and a red link for the page. Actually...do you transclude that page every time you sign, instead of actually doing the stuff in your preferences? Nishkid64 19:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
No, the last time I transcluded them was in November, when I didn't know about the preferences page. Thankfully I've learned now

. I don't mind if a red link shows up, since most of the pages that have these pages are archives.

Okay, done. =) Nishkid64 19:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks a lot! Happy New Year, Nishkid! —sd31415 (sign here) 19:19, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: RFA

Thanks, my face is red there. Just H 21:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

2006 Bangkok bombings on ITN

I removed the number of injuries as twenty is not an exact number (note that the bombings article itself estimates twenty-five). Adding at least was a possibility, but that is already used earlier in the sentence. -- tariqabjotu 21:49, 31 December 2006 (UTC)