User talk:Nishkid64

This talk page is automatically archived by EssjayBot III. Any sections older than 2 days are automatically archived to User_talk:Nishkid64/Archive 13. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

Archives

July 1, 2006 - August 20, 2006 August 21, 2006 - August 30, 2006 August 31, 2006 - September 29, 2006 September 30, 2006 - October 6, 2006 October 7, 2006 - October 12, 2006 October 13, 2006 - October 19, 2006 October 19, 2006 - October 27, 2006 October 27, 2006 - November 6, 2006 November 7, 2006 - November 14, 2006 November 14, 2006 - November 23, 2006 November 23, 2006 - December 3, 2006 December 3, 2006 - December 11, 2006 December 12, 2006 - Present

Contents 1 Excuse me!!! 2 Business and Economics Portal 3 was I banned or is it new policy? 4 1989 protection 5 Thank you 6 Thank you for voting 7 1989 unprotection? 8 hi - please help! 9 Werdnabot 10 Pinochet ITN 11 Signpost updated for December 11th. 12 How do you? 13 User:Professor Somerset / User:Welcomebot 14 Thank you!!! 15 Ongoing issue 16 Please see WP:RFP 17 Semi-protection for Kofi Annan 18 User:Inumetal 19 The Barnstar of Diligence

[edit] Excuse me!!!

I'm the one who blanked out the page on Bill Ritter --- there were only 4 words on the page (I can't repeat them), so deleted the words and got charged with vandalism. I'm sorry, but something's wrong with that picture.

[edit] Business and Economics Portal

Hi, Nishkid64. I took a look at the Business and Economics Portal, and overall, I would have to say it looks very good! :-) But, of course, I can't leave well-enough alone, so I messed with it a bit. The changes I made were primarily "cosmetic" – things I've been dinged for on review, and/or changes I believe improve the visual effect of the layout, IMHO. Feel free to revert any of these changes as you see fit. It's just easier to show you than to tell you about such things.

As far as recommendations go, here are my first impressions about what would help for making a featured portal bid.

• Add an archive to "Business news."
• Add an automated rotation design to the "Selected" sections – article, picture, economy and quote. The rotation could be on a schedule, such as monthly, or "random." Of course, my favorite is the randomized rotation. :-)
• Add a "Nominations" area to all of the Selected sections.
• After an items rotation system is established, consider editing the length of selected items to help even up the columns for the various display possibilities.
• Consider classifying pages to "Category:Business and Economics portal|{{SUBPAGENAME}}]]" to help track subpages.
• The only "content" recommendation I have is to expand the "Topics" section to match the level of detail for the "Categories" section.
• Get the above items under control then solicit more input from the band of featured portal reviewers and track their recommendations / actions taken on the portal's talk page to-do list.
• When the to-do list is under control, go for featured portal status! :-)

At first glance, that might seem like a lot to do, but I think it's totally doable. I also don't make recommendations I'm not willing to do myself. So, just let me know how you want to proceed and how you want to divide up the work. I'll be there to pitch in and get this puppy a bronze star! Regards, Rfrisbie^talk 03:41, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• By the way, "Featured" items on the portal are not Featured content. Those labels won't cut it at a "Featured portal" nomination. That's why the box template was changed to say "Selected this or that." Rfrisbie^talk 01:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• How about adding a few more images here and there? We got a much better response when we added stuff to pages like Portal:Science/Categories and Main topics. Rfrisbie^talk 03:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] was I banned or is it new policy?

I just clicked on wiki to check something out and wanted to see the discussion for the topic and I couldn't because it said I was banned by some mod named "clowns cry" or something.

His info said I hadto register to edit etc. but when I went to register it said my ip was banned! Then by luck, after searching help links and stuff I somehow managed to register a name (G2theF) for a talk page and now I think I can do all the things I want BUT DID THIS HAPPEN BECAUSE you have a new policy that we haveto register to edit? That is my question.

ty

G2thef 08:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)G2theF

What was your IP address? Also, there is no policy regarding creating accounts to edit. I believe your IP address was blocked temporarily, and the block had just expired, which explains why you were able to edit now. Anyway, please tell me your IP address, so I can verify this. Nishkid64 20:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 1989 protection

I was considering removing the protection on 1989. It's been protected since late November, and since protection is undesirable I felt removing it seemed reasonable. Since you're the admin who placed the block, I was hoping to hear your thoughts. --Scimitar 18:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

Thank you for your support in my recent RfA, which was successful. I will do my best to wield the broom wisely! | Mr. Darcy talk 18:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you for voting

Thank you for voting in my RfA which at 51/20/6 unfortunately did not achieve consensus. In closing the nomination, Essjay remarked that it was one of the better discussed RfAs seen recently and I would like to thank you and all others who chose to vote for making it as such. It was extremely humbling to see the large number of support votes, and the number of oppose votes and comments will help me to become stronger. I hope to run again for adminship soon. Thank you all once more. Wikiwoohoo 19:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 1989 unprotection?

OK, I'm confused on why the entry for 1989 was unprootected. It's my thought that as soon as it is unprotected, kids will start to vandalize it. Could you explain why you made the action you made? I'm in now way trying to chastise you, or question what an admin thinks is right, I just wanted to know.

Bkissin 23:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you cannot protect an article for an extended period of time, unless it's a high-traffic article such as George W. Bush, RuneScape, etc. Usually, admins protect pages per requests at WP:RFPP, and I believe that's how I first heard about the page. I saw that their was a high level of vandalism, and I hoped protecting the page temporarily would discourage vandals from coming back and editing the page. However, there are some good IP and newly registered users, who lose out when pages are protected. They cannot add their contributions to the page, and this is one of the reasons why pages cannot be protected for long periods of time. We want to stop vandalism, but we also want to keep the page open for everyone to edit. I mean, that's the point of Wikipedia, right? Hope that answers your question, Bkissin. Nishkid64 23:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanation. Am I allowed to re-nominate the page if the problem persists?

Bkissin 22:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, good. I'm glad that was resolved. On the subject of vandalism, I think I know of a user who should be investigated. Almost all of his edits are vandalism, and he has been warned several times to cease vandalism, at which point he doesn't listen. The user page is User:Thekostiknator. My questions are:

1. Does he fall under the mold of a New User just testing out wikipedia, or is it more than that?

-and-

2. What action should be done against him? I happen to go to school with this particular user, Should I speak to him about it?

Thanks Again

Bkissin 23:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you first try talking to him. From a superficial glance at his edits, I really can't see anything too bad, and I think he's just testing it out. Anyway, tell him to read some Wikipedia guidelines and such, so he can get more experienced with the concept of the wiki, and the policy and guidelines of Wikipedia. Nishkid64 23:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] hi - please help!

Please help me in preventing the vandalism on the Jat article. There has been non-stop vandalism of that article for the last 2 months now with the archived discussion being vandalized as well by this anon 213.48.46.141 he kept on vandalising. He has been warned from vandalism on other articles for the last two months. After you blocked him he changed his IP address to 212.85.12.211 and his continuing his vandalism. I do not have the expertise you have can you please do me a favour (I would be really greatful) can you get this anon permanent blocked or long temporary block. As you are expert on wikipedia it would take you minutes to do due to his consistent vandalism he has been warned many times, you can see on his anon talk page. Please help!--Indian50 00:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

It's a shared IP, and if I were to block that IP, I would run into many problems and possibly get in trouble. I'm sorry man, but I can't block the user. The multiple people under that IP address have been making both good and bad edits, and I don't see a block a really punitive measure right now. Nishkid64 01:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Werdnabot

I saw your edit summary on my watchlist. Per User talk:Werdna, Werdnabot is down temporarily. I believe one of the Essjaybots may be available as a substitute. Regards, Newyorkbrad 01:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh okay, thanks for letting me know. There doesn't seem to be that much discussion going on, so I can take over for the archiving until Werdnabot is functioning again. Nishkid64 01:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pinochet ITN

"President" is NOT neutral. "Head of state" is acceptable. Please change. Thanks. ☆ CieloEstrellado 06:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Just in case you don't know, Presidents in Chile are not assigned a number as they do in the United States. Somebody placed the 30th thing in there and I haven't had the time or had the strength it would take to remove it. ☆ CieloEstrellado 01:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello. Can you please, at least, change it to "de facto president" or "de facto head of state"? It reads now like Wikipedia is taking sides. Only the pinochetistas call him a "president." If you read the international newspapers, all call him a "dictator" or "general" or "head of state" but never "president." Thanks. ☆ CieloEstrellado 02:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

There have been complains about him being called a "President" before me. See for example the comment made by Amorim Parga at Template talk:In the news#Augusto Pinochet. Also Thor Waldsen has voiced his complaint on the same discussion. I'm definitely not the only one. I really don't want to think you have a personal agenda here. ☆ CieloEstrellado 02:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Read Aecis' comment: Please keep in mind that WP:ITN, perhaps more than other parts of wikipedia, has to respect the neutral point of view. There's also no space on ITN to deal with all the nuances, sources, references etc. as to what constitutes a dictatorship, which definitions are used for a dictatorship, why Pinochet meets those criteria, etc. What we can say for sure is that Pinochet held the office of the presidency of Chile. Whether his policies constituted a dictatorship is not for ITN. I mean, if we were to add de facto head of state, we would have to add a reference for that. One problem. This is ITN, not an article, so references don't work. We have to keep it as neutral as possible. Also, Cielo, I understand what you're trying to say. I was the person who originally changed it to "dictatorial president", but then Aecis said that would need to be referenced. See President of Chile. He was first the chairman of the government junta, then supreme chief, then president. However, I'm thinking of changing it to "head of state". Would that be okay with you? I'm going to leave "de facto" out for now. Nishkid64 02:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I accept your proposal for "head of state." ☆ CieloEstrellado 02:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Signpost updated for December 11th.

Weekly Delivery

Volume 2, Issue 50	11 December 2006	About the Signpost

From the editor: New feature
Board of Trustees expanded as three new members are appointed	Wikimedia Foundation releases financial audit
Arbitration Committee elections continue, extra seat available	Female-only wiki mailing list draws fire
Trolling organization's article deleted	WikiWorld comic: "Redshirt"
News and notes: Fundraiser plans, 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 05:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How do you?

How do you get that vandal proof thing Water,ice&fire 06:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Professor Somerset / User:Welcomebot

How did you know?  Glen  23:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

A CheckUser was performed for Sheogarath, and William Shaksphere, Welcomebot, and Professor Somerset were all confirmed as sockpuppets. It's not surprising, since I know Sheogarath has tried to play tricks on me before (he's Molag Bal, but Martin and I decided to give him another shot). Anyway, I'm still discussing this with Martin via email regarding this whole situation. Nishkid64 23:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

FYI, Martin pointed out Sheogarath and I verified (he made a personal confession) that he was Molag Bal. I also knew Welcomebot was his bot, and I was considering shutting it down since his previous unregistered bot malfunctioned. Anyway, I blocked them now, but I'm still deciding about Sheogarath. Nishkid64 23:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you!!!

Thank you for protecting the Allen Iverson page. It has been the site of massive vandalism all day. Thanks again--Thomas.macmillan 02:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ongoing issue

For upcoming wrestling events: the articles are just direct copies of the official website. This caused one page to get locked, and a compromise to happen: which really didn't solve much. I don't know if it falls under copyright violation or not, but there is simply no excuse for a Wikipedia article to look completely like the event's official website preview. NPOV is part of the problem here as well. Talking on the talk page of the events does very little, since the pages are either empty or only a few users actually check and respond to it. RobJ1981 02:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm...can you show me some comparisons? I just want to see the differences and similarities between the pages. Also, wouldn't it be reasonable that most of the article looks the same as the official website? The event hasn't occurred yet, and if there are no external resources available, then it would be reasonable if they looked a bit similar. Anyway, I need some website vs. article comparisons to make sure. Nishkid64 02:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Official website- [1]. Article: WWE Armageddon#2006. What's the point of a Wikipedia event preview if it's just a copy of a website? Granted: the preview wont be around much longer (since the Armageddon is this Sunday), but that doesn't make it right to be a copy. Here is another: site- [2]. Article- WWE New Year's Revolution#2007. Other upcoming things: such as movies and video games, aren't copies of sites... a future wrestling event shouldn't be an exception. RobJ1981 02:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't really think that's a copyvio at all. I mean, if you guys could find some external sources that preview the match or detail it somehow, that would make it more dissimilar from the official pages. Anyway, it's just small sections, so it's no big worry. Copyright violations are really bad if it's like a large section (a few paragraphs, at least). But this is just some match titles, so that's not really something bad. Nishkid64 03:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please see WP:RFP

Hi ... I noticed that you have blocked some of the involved vandals ... can you protect Michael Vick, DeAngelo Hall, and Roddy White? All three have been getting massive vandalism tonight. Thanks. BigDT 03:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I protected Michael Vick and Roddy White as they have been heavily targetted today. DeAngelo Hall seems fine, as it doesn't seem to be that frequently edited. Nishkid64 03:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your fast work ... DeAngelo Hall was being hit by the same group of vandals ... just not as frequently. But that's fine ... I will re-request it if it continues. Take a look at [3] ... it was obviously a coordinated pattern. I'll keep an eye on that page and say something if there's anything more. --BigDT 03:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Semi-protection for Kofi Annan

Thank you so much for coming through on that! It took three tries, but it was worth the effort. I am relieved that Mr. Annan will be spared further racist abuse -- well, at least here in Wikipedia... :)

However, there are hundreds (thousands?) of other such pages which are also being subjected to ongoing racist vandalism by anon. users. I am very concerned that if this continues WP will acquire a reputation for articles on Africa-related people & subjects that are contaminated with offensively racist comments, etc. I'm especially concerned that WP will get tagged with a bad rep among African-Americans (and other people of color), who may not hear anything about WP except, "Oh, yeah. That's where they've got all those articles about Black folks that always have nasty racist garbage in them." If that happens (and I hope it hasn't already!) it's gonna be awfully hard to persuade people otherwise.

Basically, I think we need to be pro-active on this issue. IMO, there should be a presumption in favor of semi-protection for all similarly afflicted articles. I'd really like to know what you think about all of this. Thanks again for your help with K.A. Cgingold 03:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

It's a noble idea, and I appreciate your care for such articles on Wikipedia, but I doubt anyone would actually follow through with your idea. I mean, it's not just African-related articles that get hit with vandalism; it's all sorts of articles! The purpose of Wikipedia was so everyone could edit, and by semi-protecting pages would hurt Wikipedia even more. Besides, it's not Wikipedia that's posting libelous material on articles, it's people like you and me. It's our job to stop these people from doing so. Basically, all the racial sentiments in the world (against Asian, Mexicans, Africans, Jews, etc.) carry over on Wikipedia, and it's tough to deal with it, but we're such a strong community that we have people who are constantly monitoring these pages so people won't see such racial epithets or slurs and think negatively of Wikipedia. We can only hope, but face it. It's human nature. People have prejudices and they'll take it out on others. Nishkid64 04:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Inumetal

Recently you have blocked User:Dnangelfreak2 when I had requested to protect my user page (User:Pikminlover). Since I know the owner of that account, I told him that he might be blocked, and he said, "So. I'll just make a new one." That is excactly what he did. This is just to tell you that User:Inumetal is a replacement for User:Dnangelfreak2. Also, it is pretty much useless to kepp blocking his many accounts, so I am making another request to protect User:Pikminlover, for the reason that all his accounts will be less than 4 days old when blocked. Thank you. Pikminlover 17:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Barnstar of Diligence

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For your herculean efforts at keeping Alexander Litvinenko and Alexander Litvinenko poisoning free of useless information, well balanced, and well written over the past month or so. RHB 21:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)