Jump to content

User talk:Nsk92/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Hello Nsk92, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement.

Happy editing! Alison ☺ 12:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Getting started
Finding your way around
Editing articles
Getting help
How you can help

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, John Vandenberg (talk) 02:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


Edit

I am in "anti-vandalism mode" and cleaning up after vandals. Some times I will make mistakes as it may well seem in that instance. It was just reading this, "inasmuch as Treaty do not define belonging of Kuril Islands and Sakhalin. " which makes no sense. Anyway, I have reverted my own edit so all is back as it was now. Have fun. ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 03:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree that Wilderr's edits were a bit fishy but probably not vandalism. I have removed the "inasmuch" sentence (in fact, it was not a sentence as such but some kind of strangely hanging grammatically incorrect clause) that he added, but left the rest of his edit intact for now. Regards, Nsk92 (talk) 14:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, seems they are going to insist on adding the line. But unfortunately it is poor English. I have reverted it again. Maybe a message needs to be left on their talk page asking what they mean? ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 15:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I have already left a message at his talk page and also at Talk:Kuril Islands dispute. Let's see what happens. Regards, Nsk92 (talk) 15:48, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: proposal to merge WP:PROF into WP:BIO

Thanks for the heads up. I don't tend to watchlist discussion pages of guidelines that I use. Regards, Espresso Addict (talk) 14:13, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

You are welcome! Regards, Nsk92 (talk) 14:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

privacy policy

Regarding your proposed changes: While I have not read them, I wanted to point out to you something that you may have overlooked. When I was a legal intern for the foundation, I sometimes dealt with subpoenas from law enforcement. Nearly every one of those subpoenas (in fact, every single one of them if I remember correctly), included a court ordered non-disclosure of any information regarding the subpoena to prevent interference with the investigation. This obviously would include notifying the account that their IP data was turned over to law enforcement agencies: notifying the user would violate the court order. Again, I haven't read your proposal, but if it involves notifying accounts of when their IP data is subpoenaed, it can't be implemented.⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 07:35, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. This point was brought up in the discussion at Meta,[1]. As I wrote there, obviously some common sense provisors would have to be included in any change in the privacy policy, such as an explicit qualifier of the type "where legally permitted" or "unless forbidden by law or a court order", or something like that. That does not mean that the proposal "cannot be implemented". In fact, the specific language to be used in the privacy policy would have to be written by lawers anyway. I also wrote there that IMO it may be a good idea to add a provision allowing WMF to waive the notification requirement in exceptional circumstances. My proposal is aimed primarily at subpoenas in civil S.L.A.P.P. lawsuits rather than subpoenas from law enforcement. From what I understand, civil suit subpoenas almost never contain gag clauses. Regards, Nsk92 (talk) 11:08, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Revert an IP : first need to understand the change

See User talk:220.135.4.212. After what I have no position on this vote since 68.... haven't state his will. 220.135.4.212 (talk) 04:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

See request's talk page too 220.135.4.212 (talk) 04:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

RfC JzG2

Thanks for your comment about moving my comments to the primary page instead of the talk page. After being blocked indefinitiely, I have beome a little gun shy. Perhaps it might be better if someone else could reference my comments, rather than me moving it over? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Captain Nemo III (talk • contribs) 03:16, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it is appropriate for another user to actually move your comments from the talk page to the main page. Yes, some-one might reference them in their own statement, but this may or may not happen. I understand your trepidations, but I do not believe that your would/could be punished for participating in a public RfC discussion where everyone's opinion is welcome. You had a direct interaction with JzG in his administrator capacity, and a very recent interaction at that. From your comments at the RfC talk page it sounds like you have something relevant to say. The only thing is, you would have to format your comments correctly and in a way appropriate for the RfC page. That is, it should not be just an account of a particular incident but also contain some kind of a statement about the proposed course of action, that other users can either endorse or not. Regards, Nsk92 (talk) 03:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I saw that you posted your statement at the main RfC page. Two quick technical comments. First, I think it is better to rename the section you created from "Outside view by Captain Nemo III" to "Statement by Captain Nemo III". The phrase "outside view" suggests a completely uninvolved party, whereas you actually had a pretty serious conflict involving JzG. So "Statement by" would be better. Second, I think it would be helpful if you add to your statement some links/diffs related to the incident you describe, namely diffs or archive links to the AE board, showing your request for AE enforcement and the subsequent discussion, maybe links to your talk page showing the same, as well as links/diffs related to your block, your unblock request, etc. Having these links will make it much easier for those reading your statement to verify the information provided there. Regards, Nsk92 (talk) 12:06, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

John Gallaher AfD

I'd invite you to revisit this AfD, as I've found evidence that Gallaher has been a finalist in several other awards including the Walt Whitman Award. Thanks, Espresso Addict (talk) 06:48, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


Arul Chinnaiyan

Thanks you for your edits in this article. I will try to add more info as soon as I have some time to do that. vcpk (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 13:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure, you are welcome. The article still needs substantial further improvement by an expert. I am a mathematician and know nothing about cancer research myself. The info I added was to demonstrate notability and make sure that the article survives the ongoing AfD discussion. Regards, Nsk92 (talk) 14:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

/* insert nonexistant barnstar name here */

Hey, I figured you deserve some sort of a barnstar for having so many edits to such a wide range of topics despite being an SPA. Alas the tireless SPA contributor barnstar doesn't exist (yet). Best Regards, Pete.Hurd (talk) 04:05, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

He-he, thanks! Regards, Nsk92 (talk) 09:40, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Dwyer close

I guess our comments on Cbrown1023's talk overlapped? Anyway, go to Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 April 27#John Dwyer (professor). —David Eppstein (talk) 19:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, thanks, I have just made a post in this deletion review discussion. Nsk92 (talk) 20:09, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Dwyer DRV

Yo, I corrected my comment on the DRV. You were right, I was talking about the keep votes --Enric Naval (talk) 17:12, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Nsk92 (talk) 17:28, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


WP:TOV

Thanks for your thoughtful and kind note on my talk page. I wonder if you might take a visit to WP:TOV and see about supporting it to become a guideline? Bstone (talk) 23:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

RE: Hindemburg Melão Jr.

Yes, I've restored the article. Feel free to list at WP:AFD if you desire. - Rjd0060 (talk) 03:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I'll probably list it at WP:AFD but I'll need to learn how to do this first (not having nominated anything for AfD before). Nsk92 (talk) 03:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Help

{{helpme}} Hello, you used the {{helpme}} tag. How may I help you? When you've asked your question, please put the tag back so we know to check back. Alternatively, you can join the #wikipedia-en-help IRC channel to get real-time help. (Click here for instant access.) Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 04:50, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

help requested with listing an article for an AfD in the AfD log

I need help with listing the above article for an AfD. I though that I followed the instructions correctly. I have paced an AfD tag, then created an AfD discussion page Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hindemburg Melão Jr.. Then I tried to add it to the AfD log at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 May 8 but for some reason my nomination appeared there without a section header and a title. I'd appreciate some help with fixing this. Thanks, Nsk92 (talk) 04:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC) I'll fix it for you. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 04:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Great, thank you!! Nsk92 (talk) 04:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Afd fix

No problem. There's a preloaded debate in the {{afd1}} template that you can click on. Or you can go into your user preferences and install Twinkle, which makes AfD listings much easier as it does all the work for you. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 18:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

The Original Barnstar
For making significant contributions to the Afd process. Cheers! Eustress (talk) 16:28, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't think I have earned it yet, but thank you! Nsk92 (talk) 16:36, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Log instead of, or next to poll

I'm thinking maybe we can pause the BLP discussion for another week, and let people simply submit more evidence in the form of a log (like this one: Wikipedia_talk:IP_block_exemption/log.

--Kim Bruning (talk) 18:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Meh, I've just gone ahead and also set up the log proposal in parallel. What's the worst that can happen? --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC) Famous last words
Sure, that is fine with me. I'd just like to move the debate along in some sort of structured direction. As I said, I don't actually have a position on the BLP/3RR issue myself (at least not yet). Nsk92 (talk) 19:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
<grin> Believe it or not, I'm actually neutral too. I'm just acting in a systematic way. I saw a small possible issue, and did a quick query/challenge on it, to see if all was actually on the up-and-up. Should have taken say 7 minutes, maybe 70 on a slow day. --Kim Bruning (talk) 11:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC) Talk about famous last words. :-P

No no. I'm just confused about why you're holding the poll now. I'm absolutely certain that your intent is not disruptive. --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, thank you for that. As I said, the reason for the poll is to see if there is a current consensus (call it local consensus rather than global if you like) to remove the 3RR exemption clause from the BLP policy. Also, as I said, if you think that the proposal to remove the 3RR exception needs a an actual formal sponsor, I am willing to be such a procedural sponsor myself and to remove my earlier vote in the poll. Nsk92 (talk) 17:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not a formal person. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 18:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


I think your advice is sound, thanks :-) .. I'll be taking a break from BLP for a couple of days. :-) Have a nice morning! --Kim Bruning (talk) 06:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I'll take a break from the BLP stuff myself also. Nsk92 (talk) 11:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Introduction to genetics

Hi there, I've been doing some work on this article, could you take another look at it and the AfD discussion? Thanks. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I've thought about your comments and I'm now trying to make the article a much more broad introduction to the set of more specialized articles, such as DNA, Gene, Genetics and Mutation. Hopefully this will make it a bit more useful. Thanks for your help. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:43, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Modern poetry

I've left them a note to choose where to redirect it where it is best for them although both ideas seems to be good, but as far as the technical note I'm not sure of the problem. I've rewrote the subst templates but it doesn't seem to work.--JForget 00:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

OK it was those /poem lines that caused the problem.JForget 00:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Nsk92 (talk) 00:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Constructive criticism

Hi Nsk92. Action on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laurence Clancy has now been finalised satisfactorily so it is appropriate that I should communicate with you directly. Thank you for contributing valuable information and Wikilinks to the deletion debate. I appreciated them because they helped me put together my best case for keeping the article.

However, some parts of your responses were puzzling. You opened your second contribution with “I am sorry, but are you seriously comparing Clancy to George Batchelor?” I was left with the impression that a mood of annoyance or anger was at work. This response was not provoked by anything anyone had written on the site so I assumed some external cause was most likely. If we are under a lot of pressure Wikipedia encourages us to take a rest.

Your third contribution said “I am not even talking about your comparison of Clancy with Lev Landau, a Nobel Prize winner and a scientific giant. Preposterous, don't you think?” In posting this contribution on the site you were in breach of the principle of assuming good faith at all times. Please read WP:GOODFAITH.

I see you do a lot of good work for Wikipedia. Out of consideration for all the other Users you will communicate with in the future I ask that you read this.

I am writing this to you in the spirit of improving Wikipedia. Where we see inappropriate behaviour the best thing to do is to draw it to the person’s attention in an objective and helpful way. I will have no objection if you delete this as soon as you have perused the above two Wiki articles.

Keep up the good work, and happy editing. Dolphin51 (talk) 10:51, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I am not and was not questioning your good faith, but your arguments. Sorry if you found my comments upsetting. Nsk92 (talk) 11:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Mattbroon

Don't worry about the AfD thing, I've nominated it for him as a third party. asenine say what? 16:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks! I cleaned up the May 17 AfD deletion log too as right above Elino there was still a residue of the abortive attempt by Mattbroon to create AfD for Spartak!. I think it is all fixed now. Nsk92 (talk) 16:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Reported to AIV. :) asenine say what? 17:33, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
OK, thanks. I still think this was just a user having a very bad hair day. Still his manual manipulation of the time clock for the prod on Neil Kinnock to make it look like the prod has expired was clearly beyond the pale. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nsk92 (talk • contribs) 17:41, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
That was a little over the line, but when coupled with the fact that he was blocked before for disrupting RfA, it was way over the line. After looking at his block log and the edits that led up to that, that's why I blocked him for two weeks. —C.Fred (talk) 20:06, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Linking to MathSciNet from its own article

In this change, did you also intend to make an article for MathSciNet separate from Mathematical Reviews? Because in its current state, the two go to the same place, so "MathSciNet" should be bolded in its first occurrence in the article (as it was) rather than linked to itself (as you changed it to be). —David Eppstein (talk) 14:46, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Oops, sorry this was my bad. For some reason I did not realize that Mathematical Reviews and MathSciNet are the same article. I'll revert momentarily. Nsk92 (talk) 14:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
OK, done. Thanks for catching this quickly. Nsk92 (talk) 14:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Automatic centre

I added some references to Automatic centre. You may want to revisit Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Automatic centre. --Eastmain (talk) 02:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Nsk, I wanted to thank you for your participation in my recent RFA. I admit, I was a little hasty in applying some CSD tags. Fact is, NPP has basically become a race to tag the article. This is quite unfortunate, really. I'm glad that, as an admin, I'll have a lot more time to examine an article before hitting that "delete" button (or not hitting it - for that matter). I've also conducted an in-depth RFA analysis that touched on this, and other concerns. your comments are welcome. P.S. If you prefer Impersonal Templated RFA Spam™, I've left some below ;>. best regards, xenocidic (talk) 03:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations on becoming an admin! I very much hope you will be a good one, and wish you the best of luck. While I have a few deletionist sentiments myself, I very much dislike the aspect of WP:NPP that you mentioned. But even apart from WP:NPP, I have fairly often seen speedy deletion applied or invoked incorrectly (in my view) during AfDs. Since speedy deletion can occur quickly, with little oversight and is difficult to contest after it occurred, I hope that admins apply it carefully and with a strict adherence to the speedy deletion criteria (In fact, even with an ordinary deletion prod, I hope that admins think carefully if the reason given by the deletion nominator is correct, before deleting an article with an expired prod). In cases of doubt I would very much rather see an article go through a formal AfD debate than being deleted prematurely. I have just a few days ago seen a newly promoted admin speedy an article under A7, while an AfD was open, where the subject of the article had over 1200 google news hits mentioning him and quoting his opinions as an industry expert. I complained and the closing summary was changed, but the episode undescores my worries about the speedy deletion process. Anyway, I trust that you will be a thoughtful admin and wish you the best of luck. Regards, Nsk92 (talk) 05:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


Uppsala University

Just to inform you, I removed your part of the University of Uppsala article for the following reasons:

  • no encyclopaedic relevance (wikipedia is not a news site)
  • no general relevance to the whole of the University of Uppsala (only two people at the mathematics department)

Moreover:

  • the length of this section is inadequate in relation to the size of the whole article (too extensive)
  • the actual cause of the dismissal is not mentioned and the side of the rector is not adequately represented (not neutral enough)

Regards, Axt (talk) 20:14, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with your position and have restored the section of the article. See more comments at the article's talk page, where we can continue this discussion. Thanks, Nsk92 (talk) 20:27, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
I have just replied there. Axt (talk) 20:49, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murder of Joseph Didier (2nd nomination)

Thanks for coming in to help out on this AfD. I think this is one of the most drawn-out, strange, brain-draining AfD I've ever seen. User:Presumptive seems to be throwing everything but the kitchen sink — and if he can find some obscure WP policy about that, the sink will probably show up too. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 05:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Anticipation of etc.

Just call him Tony. He responds to it and it's what he usually calls himself. Dr. eXtreme 18:02, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Real ID

Hi NSK. Re: this article the main issues at the time of tagging had to do with the copyvio and other issues, specifically in these revisions:

by:

which have not been without a conflict of interest, as you can see. Perhaps it was the secondary article, Coalition for a Secure Driver's License, which needs to be whacked more thoroughly, in which case I apologise. I couldn't tell how much had been compromise with ad spam links.

PS: ENjoy your European travels, I love travelling. TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 19:45, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I am flying back home tomorrow and will take another look at the article when I return. Perhaps some of these links should be weeded out from the Real ID Act article, but, as you say, it is the Coalition for a Secure Driver's License article that is in the real need of attention. Regards, Nsk92 (talk) 19:53, 28 June 2008 (UTC).
Am happy to help, may well have been a severe case of over whack a mole, but I'll try to have another look at it today if I can. Storms coming through so I'm not sure whether my connection will last. TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 20:26, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Sure, no problem. Nsk92 (talk) 10:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
And I've surfaced. Clearly bad call on my end. I support your removal of my mis-tagging. I think the clean-up should stay, not sure about the tone as that will come with clean-up. Thanks for the heads up. Agreed re: the SPA -- just waiting for him to do something that warrants blocking as he's close but maybe he's learned. TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 16:04, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
OK, thanks. Have a good wiki-break. Nsk92 (talk) 19:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

My apologies

I'm a bit new to new pages patrolling, was working quickly (too quickly, as I made a couple of mistakes), and I was clearly in error. My apologies, S. Dean Jameson 04:34, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

  • I was beginning to notice that (the "bloodsport" thing). I'd be looking into the article topic, I'd refresh the page, and there would already be a tag on it. As for AfD, that's what got me interested in doing some new page work. While I think I've commented as a "keep" as many times as I've commented as a "delete", some of the articles being discussed there were mystifying to me. One was about some checkers player, who probably never should have had an article to begin with, and another was almost certainly a hoax. I started thinking "these things should have been speedied when they were first created", so I started patrolling new pages. If you really think I need to step back for awhile, though, I will do so. Thanks for taking the time to educate me on how this all works. I feel like I'm getting better and better, but (as you have seen), I still make mistakes from time to time. Regards, S. Dean Jameson 21:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Ultimately, it is, of course, your decision but I do think that stepping back for a while from placing speedy tags and concentrating on AfD discussions instead is a good idea. As I said, there are lots of people doing WP:NPP, so new articles that really need to be sppedied are unlikely to be missed, at least not for long. And, in general, participating in AfD discussions is a better way to learn about the nitty-gritty of the deletion policies since you do get to present more detailed arguments and also get to see what kind of arguments other people make and where actual consensus regarding the meaning and implementation of the deletion policies is. Regards, Nsk92 (talk) 22:44, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

re:Colin McAllister and Justin Ryan

Just to let you know, I replied on my talk page. I like to keep discussions in one place. Regards, Parsecboy (talk) 13:12, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note

I've reconsidered my position a bit, but still find myself believing that the article should be deleted. In the alternative, I'd support a page move (and rewrite) of the contents to an article about the museum itself, but as I said at the AfD, the only notability of this man is derived from the Museum, and the fact that he was convicted of money laundering, neither of which makes him notable, in my (very) humble opinion. S. Dean Jameson 15:23, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Nsk92 (talk) 15:24, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Pornography

I disagree with your perspective stated that the lead image for pornpgraphy is a reasonable image, at least until a better image comes along. I am a strong advocate for good lead images, as they set the tone for the article. In this case the lead image, although a nice image, and obviously related to sexuality, is a picture of a sex shop window with a blow-up doll and sex toys, including dildo's. That's cool, it is just that it has nothing to do with pornography. There are no magazines or books, no dvd's, CD's or video tapes in the imatge. The image, basically would be a great lead for a "Sex Shop" article. Based on the content of the article, and the long history of erotica and pornography, this image has essentially nothing to do with the topic. One could stretch to say that in some places, sex shops sell pornography, and the image implies that pornography is available in some indirect way. Clearly alhough it may illustrate many things well, it does not illustrate the topic, pornography well. Atom (talk) 16:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I have somewhat mixed feelings about the lead image, but I am glad that you restored the other one (which shows the making of a movie; that one is certainly on topic and directly relevant). A sex shop is where pornography is sold, so the original lead image is relevant, even if it is somewhat indirect. The problem with this topic is that it is difficult to find a lead image that would be directly relevant and illustrative of the topic on the one hand, and not veer into indecency and actual pornography on the other hand. So showing a cover of a pornographic magazine could be problematic on those grounds; at least one would have to be rather careful with chosing such an image. That being said, I do not have terribly strong feelings regarding this and I am certainly willing to leave the article in its current form, with the leade image removed. Nsk92 (talk) 16:15, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Well the history of erotica and pornography is long. The selling of Pornography at sex shops was prevalent in the 60's through 90's, and with the advent of the Internet, much less common nowdays. In fact in my area, few sex shops have anything other than DVD's (no magazines or videos), just sex toys and clothing, where magazines was quite common ten years ago. I think that finding the right image of the cover of a magazine would work, as the cover of a magazine is fair-use. Also, the article is about Pornography, and so it would be fair game. If we can find an image that is appropriate to the topic, and yet not likely to be offensive to most people, that could work. I will keep an eye out for such. Atom (talk) 16:23, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Would you be interested in adminship?

I know we disagree on the checkers player article, but I've been very impressed with your demeanor, and the work I've seen from you in our brief interaction. Your contributions to the project have been great, from what I've seen, and I was wondering whether you'd be interested in standing for adminship. I'm not certain I have enough standing, with only 6 or 7 weeks on the project, but I could probably find someone to nominate you if you are interested. Just let me know if you're interested. S. Dean Jameson 04:35, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, but no. I still have way too much to learn and, to be honest, I don't think I have enough free time necessary. Maybe in a year or so I might give it some thought, but not yet. Nsk92 (talk) 04:41, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
I really wish you would reconsider. We need able new administrators, and it's truly not that big a deal. You don't have to be perfect to be an administrator, and you're both knowledgeable and helpful. Again, I'd ask you to reconsider. S. Dean Jameson 04:48, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Again, thank you, but no. I have seen quite a few RFAs and I know that being an admin requires quite a bit more experience, and in more areas, than what I have. For example, one needs more extensive article building experience and skills, more experience in administrative areas (such as WP:AIV, WP:ANI), more experience in conflict resolution and greater knowledge of WP policies and guidelines (in my case there are lots of them that I still know little about). I have only been an active editor on WP for about 6-7 months, which is far too short a time. As I said, in time I might give it some more serious thought, but it is far too early now. Thanks again, Nsk92 (talk) 05:06, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, color me disappointed then. I believe there have been admins that passed with your levels of experience, but if you don't feel like you're ready, I can respect that. Regards, S. Dean Jameson 05:09, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles Walker (checkers player)

Thanks for your well argued message regarding this AFD. I can quite see your point and if it was just a decision between keeping or deleting then I would be inclined to leave it open as it is quite possible a consensus to keep might have formed. Equally though it could have remained no consensus as I think the keep opinion by Albion moonlight was a very weak argument and two of the delete opinions stayed as delete after your changes and the nominator only moved to neutral. It's not a vote count and I think there remained enough disagreement among those who considered the article after your changes to justify a no consensus close.

I am also reluctant to reopen the AFD because I just do not believe it would be worthwhile. The end effect of a no consensus or keep closure in this instance are the same. With the new sources and good rewriting of the article you made I think it very unlikely someone is going to renominate the article in the future and even less likely that it would be deleted.

I have however made a minor change to the wording of my closure emphasizing that it was leaning more towards keep than delete. p.s. I hope you will reconsider going through adminship in the future as offered above as I can think you could make a good candidate. Davewild (talk) 20:56, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks, you are probably right. We'll leave it be. Regards, Nsk92 (talk) 20:58, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
I think that when one editor who strongly disagreed with your AfD position (me), plus the closing admin at the AfD encourage you to consider standing for adminship... well, at least think about it, okay? I think you'd make a solid administrator. S. Dean Jameson 01:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
I have considered it carefully and I am certain that I am correct: now is not the right time. I know myself quite well, including my own weaknesses and the limited nature of my contributions to the project so far. If you still feel the same way about me as an admin candidate in about 8 months, you are welcome to ask me again then. As I said, I do appreciate your offer. Incidentally, I don't really subscribe to the WP:NOBIGDEAL idea, which seems to me to be rather obsolete. In 2003-04, when the project was much smaller, such an approach was reasonable. But Wikipedia has grown much bigger since then. The problems, conflicts and issues that routinely arise are now more complicated, there are many more policies to know about and to follow (e.g. all the stuff about copyrights, dealing with non-free images, fair use concept, etc; an obviously important area these days that I do not know much about) and in general more is required for being a good admin than was true even two years ago. Regards, Nsk92 (talk) 01:58, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Link to Newsmakers article on Charles Walker

I apologize. I won't delete it again. Thank you for the explanation. I'm pretty sure there must be a standard wikipedia way to deal with this, but I'll be damned if I know what it is. Your interim solution seems good. I think the hyperlink should be deleted because it doesn't really help. (Indeed, as I've inadvertently demonstrated, it can mislead certain dolts.) One model to follow might be the one used on the Phill Lewis page for a source (Jet magazine) that's not available online. Check it out, if you're interested. Cheers! David in DC (talk) 13:52, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I'll look into this issue further. You are right, there must be some standard way of dealing with links to newsarticles which require payment for access. Originally I put this link in (and probably a few others on the same page as well), thinking that it will make it easier to verify the information cited for those users who really want to (it is easier to pay $3.95 to see the article than to have to go to the library; with the current gas prices it may be cheaper too -:). On the other hand, as you say, sometimes the effect may be misleading. Also, providing footnoted links to sites that require payment to see an article, might look like some form of advertisement or commercial endorsement. So it may be better to remove the link on those grounds as well... Regards, Nsk92 (talk) 14:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Tweak on JL talk page

I made a slight tweak on your ANI notice (piping in a direct link to the section). Just thought I'd give you a heads up. –xenocidic (talk) 16:46, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

That's fine, thanks for letting me know. Nsk92 (talk) 16:57, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nsk92/Archive_1&oldid=1136157171"