Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:36, 21 July 2013

{{ConfirmationOTRS|source=URL|otrs=Long Number}}

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	For your prompt and sensible actions to try to end the dispute....Keep it up! TheStrikeΣagle 13:16, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Antiochus the Great (talk) 13:20, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Hakan Erbaslar at AN

Hi Nick. For the sake of peace now that you've dug out some references for them, I'm going to ignore his battleground mentality and his refactoring of my comment. De728631 (talk) 16:22, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I'd be generous and just put it down to the inadvertent edit of an inexperienced editor. It's for the best, I hope. Nick (talk) 17:04, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Nick, I trust you on this subject. By the way, you demanded an apology from both sides, and I made an apology for unhelpful language. However the other party is still trying to give lessons, and made no apology. Please tell him to drop this arrogant and unhelpful language, and please force him apologize as I did to him.--Hakan Erbaslar (talk) 20:13, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I apologize from unhelpful language and I hope the other side apologizes to me for unhelpful language as well. I Trust you on the update of the article as your proposals.--Hakan Erbaslar (talk) 22:53, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I am not obliged to offer any apologies towards Hakan.Antiochus the Great (talk) 00:36, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Nick, he wrote this to my talk page.--Hakan Erbaslar (talk) 17:00, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid I cannot force any editor to offer their apologies. I'm disappointed there isn't a more collegial attitude, all I can suggest is you put this whole episode behind you and move on. It'll be a talk page archive soon enough and it's really not worth caring about, to be honest. Nick (talk) 17:06, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

He continues to attack me on admin board. Please tell him to drop this attitude otherwise I will start to be aggressive against him and drop my positive attitude.--Hakan Erbaslar (talk) 17:11, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Please check admin board topic and write your comments there thanks.--Hakan Erbaslar (talk) 17:11, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I am thinking to deactivate my[REDACTED] account. It seems some people feel they have any right to be aggressive against everyone.--Hakan Erbaslar (talk) 17:27, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Check admin board. There is a 3rd person with aggressive language and he feels free to say anything he wants.--Hakan Erbaslar (talk) 17:38, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

He started calling buddies to admin board. I think you should give a warning to him, because it's forbidden to lobby on[REDACTED] talk page. Thank you.--Hakan Erbaslar (talk) 17:56, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Are you there? I think GB_fan is also his buddy. He is calling people from the UK come to this discussion and defend him :)--Hakan Erbaslar (talk) 18:00, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I am not his buddy. I am not from the UK. I am a fan of the Green Bay Packers football team from Green Bay Wisconsin, USA. And to be clear I didn't defend him, just pointed out that the questions that you asked multiple times had already been answered.GB fan 18:06, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Hakan, again

Hakan has once again deleted the second table from List of countries by military expenditure now claiming it is your decision to remove the second table (obviously not true). I don't know why he feels the various discussion pages are a place to do battle rather than communicate in a productive manner and to be honest I am not too keen to engage in any sort of discussion with him. He has a very contentious attitude and myself and other editors have already tried to reason with him. As other editors also feel the same as I, it cannot be all my fault can it? At the moment I am currently active on various other articles and article talk pages and I don't really have time to update the second table as per the updated SIPRI citation you provided, but I will get around to it soon. Thus far, Hakan has clearly shown he has no interest in updating the second table but rather he just wants it deleted without consensus.Antiochus the Great (talk) 19:48, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Hakan has also resumed his personal attacks towards me; here "You're a hopeless case, kid." He also purposely (slightly) refactored my comment before that. Additionally I did not call him silly as he claims, I said; "This is silly now" in reference to him again deleting the second table.Antiochus the Great (talk) 20:05, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Hey, you know what I recently saw some very helpful and positive comments made by Hakan on another AN. This has significantly changed my opinion of him as I can now see he does have good intentions and a genuine desire to be good. Therefore I would like you to ignore the above two posts of mine. I have also made an apology toward Hakan at his talk page and praised him for his recent constructive comments - I think things between us are good now. Cheers.Antiochus the Great (talk) 22:00, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Super, that's really good to hear. Good luck editing the article, all those numbers to change look like a pretty unenviable task. Cheers. Nick (talk) 22:11, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Roger Windley's scrapyard

Hi Nick. A useful update at the Pan Am Flight 103 article. But are we now in effect saying that the Daily Mail story was false? Or is it just that the acrapyard storage is no longer considered notable? Both of those possibilities seem a little unlikely to me. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:21, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

When I read the Daily Mail report, I just assumed the AAIB had kept the bits of the fuselage that exhibited bomb damage and which were vital to the investigation, and that the remainder that wasn't regarded as being essential to the investigation going to Roger Windley's scrapyard. Nick (talk) 11:59, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I think I had too. Do we no longer need to make any mention of the scrapyard, then? What has changed? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:08, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I think as the scrapyard story is well referenced and has photographic evidence, it definitely provides good further reading for the reader. I believe all that has changed is the location where the part of the fuselage damaged by the bomb is stored, but it's important to discuss this in the article too, especially in the context of the ongoing police investigation by Dumfries & Galloway Police (now Police Scotland). Nick (talk) 15:50, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

(Belated agreement). Thanks Martinevans123 (talk) 19:18, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I did find a supporting reference for our thoughts - bulk of the material at Roger Windley's and the bomb site still with the CAA/Police, but I'm not comfortable using it as it suggests Roger Windley's son was involved selling parts of the aircraft from the scrap yard. Its from the Daily Star, so a reliable source, but it doesn't appear anywhere else hence why I've not done anything with it. Nick (talk) 20:14, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, I'd say he Daily Star was about as reliable as those used aircraft parts. Never mind. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:16, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

???

I am not "boasting" or "gloating" about blocking or banning users. I saw someone else do it, I figured I would, too. I do not brag about it, though. Alex2564 (talk) 01:01, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Who else does it ? Nick (talk) 01:21, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tayside House, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Refurbishment (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:33, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind...

But I changed the bullet into a numerical for your neutral comment at Legoktm's RfA. It seems clear to me that you had intended as such to begin with, and I went ahead and fixed it for you. If this was in error, feel free to revert my edit. =) Kurtis 04:20, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you

The new notification system made it impossible to properly communicate with the IP.—Ryulong (琉竜) 10:39, 3 May 2013 (UTC) Thanks for deleting survivalcraft, the page I made. I couldn't find a way to do so and it was bugging me since it was a useless page Techbrewson (talk) 19:04, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Notifications

Just stopping by to say thanks for your kind words on the talkpage :). It's a rather rough atmosphere, and commentators like you are one of the things keeping me sane. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 14:20, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Thanks for dishing out those two blocks - I've put a block notice on the IP's talk pages for you. Thank you again!! Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 16:11, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the Creation of page "SCAD College of Engineering and Technology"

hi you have speed deleted the page i have created on "SCAD College of Engineering and Technology" due to some copy rights problem, so now i am unable to recreate that page. how can i create that page now and i assure you that i will follow the rules will creating that page....GentalMan (talk) 03:13, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I will not make any copyrights issue, for that you can see this page (simple:SCAD College of Engineering and Technology) which is also created by me, so now can you allow me to create that page, RegardsGentalMan (talk) 05:56, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Please go through the normal articles for creation process, where your submission will be reviewed prior to going live. Nick (talk) 09:10, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello Nick Can u please grand me the permission to create that page, i want to create that and the page created in Simple wiki is also not visible in google while searching, so can u grand me permission..GentalMan (talk) 06:28, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid as I'm not able to tell whether the page, regardless of copyright violation, meets our guidelines, I'm unable to approve it. That's why I suggest going through the normal article creation process, see Misplaced Pages:Articles for creation. Nick (talk) 09:50, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Project Qworty

Hi there. You've been in discussions on my talk page regarding Qworty, so might wish to contribute ideas, etc., to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:NaymanNoland (section: "Project Qworty"). If you haven't read today's Salon article addressing this disaster, it's here: http://www.salon.com/2013/05/17/revenge_ego_and_the_corruption_of_wikipedia/ NaymanNoland (talk) 22:06, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I was in the throws of reading it when you left this message. Just off to read the remainder. I'll leave you some thoughts once I've had a chance to reflect on what I'm thinking right now and see if that changes in the morning (I'm in the UK, so it's approaching midnight as I write this). Nick (talk) 22:14, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

In response to Rak-Tai's accusations

I wrote the following on Rak-Tai's talk page a few days ago after he had reposted his rant against me for the umpteenth time:

"Please lodge a complaint at WP:ANI if you think you have a real problem with me instead of posting your rants against me on your user page. You seem to be very vindictive towards me due to me reverting your censorship on the Pattaya and Mission (Christianity) articles, and reverting other instances of your manipulation of Misplaced Pages for your own goals, as well me putting your wholly unreferenced article on Worldwide Faith Missions up for deletion. Please stop your vindictive attacks. These unproven, vindictive attacks are seen as harassment per WP:AOHA. As I have written to you many times before in the past few years, if you think that I am truly harassing you, please begin a case against me on WP:ANI and have me banned from editing here on Misplaced Pages instead of posting your vitriol on your user page. - Takeaway (talk) 17:51, 16 May 2013 (UTC)"

Rak-Tai also accuses me of "enlisting fellow cronies" to harass him. I assume he is referring to the people who were involved in the AfD discussion concerning the Worldwide Faith Missions. I can't prove this but I have never met or contacted these people prior to the AfD discussion other than to inform them (because they were involved in another AfD discussion on an article that Rak-Tai had written) of this new AfD. I contacted all parties involved, also those who voted "keep" for the Johannes Maas article. Strangely enough though, in the AfD's concerning Rak-Tai's articles, new users and IP-users, who have never edited before or thereafter, suddenly crop up in support of Rak-Tai's articles....
In all the discussions that I've had with Rak-Tai, I have always openly admitted to (loosely) follow his edits after I first discovered his censorship on the Pattaya article (see his comments on Talk:Pattaya#Sexual_and_prurient_references), especially after his repeated reverts of well-referenced content on that same article (see Talk:Pattaya#.22Nightlife.22_is_what_for_a_large_part_defines_Pattaya). I view actions like this as verging on vandalism and that is when I started researching his edits, not to annoy him out of revenge for something he had done to me personally because he hasn't, even though he did post a few annoying things on my talk page (such as this nonsensical warning and this remark), but to see what other damage he had done on Misplaced Pages. I came across more instances of his special style of censorship such as in the aforementioned "Mission (Christianity)" article (see the following edits by Rak-Tai: 1 and 2), on the article Prostitution in Thailand (see for instance this act of censorship by Rak-Tai where he uses a false argument to remove "unwanted" content from the article), in the article Rice Christian (see this act of censorship where he completely twists the truth in his edit summary) and also here in the A.A. Allen article.
He also spuriously put articles, that are actually referenced, up for deletion with the strangest of arguments (see for instance Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Deeper Christian Life Ministry, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Skyline Church and ].) One can only assume that user Rak-Tai personally dislikes these organisations and/or people because, seeing that the articles are all based on reliable third party sources, there couldn't be any other reason to have these articles deleted.
I have tried to curb Rak-Tai's edits where needed, as have other editors. But it would seem that in his mind, I am his one main enemy here on Misplaced Pages, probably because I was the one to have nominated his "prize article" for deletion as well as having cleared most of Misplaced Pages from Rak-Tai's numerous insertions of the name of a non-notable missionary, something for which he was warned repeatedly by several people to stop doing a few years earlier (see 1 and 2). - Takeaway (talk) 19:33, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I think this needs to go to ANI, I'm not sure it's something I can help with on my own. It's too far beyond what I know about and am happy/comfortable dealing with, really, I'm afraid. Nick (talk) 19:48, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I really don't understand why Rak-Tai has chosen to voice his concerns directly on your talk page while he actually had the chance to respond on the ANI procedure that I had started about his constant attacks against me. Well, if he wishes to, he can start an ANI procedure to complain about my behaviour towards him. I could of course also begin an ANI procedure against Rak-Tai for his tendentious editing but as far as I know, there isn't a rule that states that I have to, though there is a rule that states that Rak-Tai has to do so if he persists in voicing his accusations against me. - Takeaway (talk) 20:16, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Article notability notification

Hello. This message is to inform you that an article that you wrote, Mathew Knowles, has been recently tagged with a notability notice. This means that it may not meet Misplaced Pages's notability guidelines. Please note that articles which do not meet these criteria may be merged, redirected, or deleted. Please consider adding reliable, secondary sources to the article in order to establish the topic's notability. You may find the following links useful when searching for sources: Find sources: "Mathew Knowles" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images. Thank you for editing Misplaced Pages! VoxelBot 19:45, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Message

I left you a message on my talk page.

Matty.007 16:23, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

A pie for you!

Thanks for your help with my edit count! Matty.007 11:30, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Need help

Hi, I am editor on the duchess of Cornwall's page and recently got into the edit war with another editor, you also posted on the articles talk page on the incident, anyways the other editor just recently deleted half of the article's contribution which I and others editors made, basically the editor is saying all those information was copyrighted, I thinks its best if a third party intervenes, and I am wondering if you could so to solve this out this is what the editor deleted (Monkelese (talk) 21:13, 8 June 2013 (UTC))

Narendra Modi

Hi Nick, can you please add protection template on that page? -sarvajna (talk) 19:09, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Done. Nick (talk) 19:20, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Block request

Can you please block User:Daredevil7 with an expiry set of indefinite, because its user was vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.171.176.131 (talk) 01:33, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

That looks like a content dispute or disagreement, and not vandalism. I'm unable to block on that basis, I'm afraid. Please discuss the changes you've both made. Knowing album sales information, it's probably that you're both looking at different sources and you'll need to decide how to present the different information you both hold. There are other examples of how different album sales information is presented with the bigger selling artists, perhaps that can assist in your dispute. Nick (talk) 09:58, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Blah

Test Nick (talk) 19:17, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Talkback - SDPatrolBot minor issue

- Kingpin (talk) 00:09, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Precious

clarification
Thank you for quality articles on chemistry such as Whisky destilleries in Scotland, for images, for offering a place where "crying is ok", for closing the unclear (less "apparent" than the title suggests) and seeking clarification, for edit summaries to the point, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:30, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Deleted article talk page left live?

I'm referring to the the Montagu article. Talk pages go away when articles are deleted/redirected. See no reason for an exception in this case, particularly given how the talk page is being used at the moment.Dan Murphy (talk) 20:32, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

The talk page re-appeared, created by a bot after I deleted it, I just assumed this was a new clause hidden in the depths of some obscure bit of policy. It's actually down to how I created the redirect and how pages were moved around by myself and Scott Martin before, during and after the deletion.

I've deleted the page, the thread drift there isn't helpful and is certainly close to crossing the line with regards to BLP, and was getting to the stage where it was recreating some of the article on the talk page, which defeats the purpose of the AfD closure in the first place. Hope that helps. Nick (talk) 20:52, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Exactly what was "close to crossing the line with regards to BLP"? Every comment on the talk: page of a newly-created redirect was no more than is already at the AfD discussion (or are you going to blank that next?), the links to support each comment are plentiful, and none of the comments at that talk: page were ever seriously challenged in the AfD.

This sort of censorship-on-demand is very poor behaviour by an admin. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:59, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

The page was turning into another biography of Alexander Montagu, it was effectively circumventing the closure of the AfD by providing a venue to present some of what was in the article. Alexander was judged to not be notable and the project shouldn't really have any need to be discussing newspaper reports about him at any venue, although if it absolutely is essential, could it be done at Talk:Duke of Manchester, in order that there are more pairs of eyes to deal with any really problematic links to very dubious material.

I'll be heading off for the night soon, could you and Dan perhaps get together and compromise if there are still issues needing discussed (stemming from the AfD) such as redirects etc and if it requires any administrative action, give me a shout. Cheers all, Nick (talk) 21:28, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Alexander Montagu.2C 13th Duke of Manchester and canvassing at Wikipediocracy. Thank you. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:35, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Alexander Montagu, 13th Duke of Manchester

Before the ANI discussion becomes overheated, I'm going to suggest that you reverse your deletion of the article. You made a clear and critical error in your close. As one of the news articles cited in the discussion pointed out. the subject was a member of the House of Lords as a result of the title he held prior to his (supposed) accession to the dukedom. This article is an AP piece (out of Canada) (see ) and clearly qualifies as a reliable source. As both DGG and I pointed out, this demonstrates notability as a member of a national legislature, and your close recognizes that standard (but erroneously presumed that his membership hinged on the dukeship rather than his prior title). Since no one disputed either the fact of his prior title nor his membership thereby in the House of Lords, the article should have been kept. All the huggermugger over his status as Duke of Manchester was irrelevant, and obscured what should have been the determining issue. Any content issues could have been resolved by routine editing processes. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:57, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

The newspaper report appears to be incorrect and refers to an (incorrect) courtesy title. Alexander Montagu, 13th Duke of Manchester (or whatever his actual title is or isn't) has never been (as far as I can tell, and I did a lot of research into this, his titles, the Roll of the Peerage etc before closing the AfD) a member of the House of Lords, his father, the 12th Duke was until 1999, Alexander succeeded to the title in 2002 on the death of his father, 2 and a bit years after hereditary peers had been disqualified from sitting in the House of Lords. Nick (talk) 22:20, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Can you supply any sort of sourcing or referencing to indicate the AP was wrong? And I'll also point out that your comments about "doing a lot of research" etc make your close seem like a supervote, since you weren't evaluating the arguments of editors, but doing an independent analysis. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:28, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

My closure was based on whether or not Montagu was notable based on heritable titles and involvement in the UK legislative process (which would stem from his inherited titles), if he had served in the House of Lords, I would have closed the discussion as Keep with the subject being regarded as a notable person, as it with any other peer who has sat in the House of Lords and any past or present MP.

It has been claimed that he is not entitled to the title Duke of Manchester (resulting in the page being moved to Alexander Montagu during the AfD - not by me, I hasten to add). The AfD has a link to the Role of the Peerage, an official UK legislative document that records all peers who have sat in the House of Lords or otherwise registered to appear on the Role. That was a little too convenient for my liking, so I double checked it and found a minor issue.

There are a couple of loopholes I needed to check out first, it's possible for a hereditary peer to sit in the House of Lords in broadly two ways, they can be elected or they can be awarded a life peerage, so I had to make sure Montagu hadn't entered the House of Lords by one of these routes, and he hasn't. He has never sat in the House of Lords and has never had any involvement in the UK legislative process, as I stated in my closure of the AfD and the principal reason I concluded the arguments stating Montagu weren't notable more persuasive. If you visit http://www.college-of-arms.gov.uk/peers-roll-contents, his absence from the role confirms he has never sat in the House of Lords (if he had, he would be included under the clause "Hereditary Peers who up to 1999 received a Writ of Summons".)

Hope that explains it all, it's really horribly complicated and has probably got worse now that the AP seem to think he has sat in the House of Lords. A quick search I've just undertaken of Hansard turns up no evidence of Montagu having sat in the House of Lords under any subsidiary titles http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/people/mr-angus-montagu/ (his father) and he http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/people/mr-alexander-montagu/.

Cheers, Nick (talk) 22:56, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

It seems utterly implausible that the AP claim is correct. 2002 is too late for this, without it being recorded through the Roll. Yet no-one at the AfD was ever claiming this, as a reason for notability, so it just doesn't matter anyway.

There is still a serious problem in that no-one has reconciled the discrepancy between Burke's and Debrett's describing him as a duke without him having been listed on the Roll. Just what is his status? Andy Dingley (talk) 23:15, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Just a quick note - it's midnight here. I'm more than happy to continue this discussion tomorrow, but if any administrator wishes to reverse the deletion because the feel notability has been established (especially if it becomes clear Alexander Montagu has sat in the House of Lords or has had some sort of legislative role in the UK), please feel free, just let me know and let me have a source, this whole thing has rather piqued my interest somewhat. Nick (talk) 23:01, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Arbcom case

I cited your statement about IRC canvassing at the current ArbCom case (request for arbitration).

Unfortunately, a clerk who already has participated in the case as a community member hid it.

I believe that your witnessing was important and should not be hidden, but I cannot cite it without it being hidden again.

Perhaps you can cite it? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:20, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I will try and obtain logs, and get them to the Arbitration Committee. I only have logs for the most recent incident involving the same user (unfortunately it was in relation to an administrative action I had taken) and will get them to the relevant people, the incident was recorded on Misplaced Pages by another user. If I cannot get logs, I know that I wasn't the only person canvassed to delete one set of your comments and other administrators should be able to confirm they were also canvassed by a couple of people to delete comments and support an indefinite block against you. Nick (talk) 09:39, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

They don't need logs now. Logs could be cited during the evidence phase.

Just a statement that IRC canvassing has occured in my or another ANI discussion. I gave the diff and quoted a fragment of your statement from my ANI discussion.

It may be that the Arbs hatted my discussion because it was between other things that should have been arguably hatted. I would find it surprising if they all agree that this is not a concern. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:36, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. A short description of the problem and an invitation for the community to propose a solution was exactly what I'd hoped for. I think that my edits are watched enough that a notice of this conversation is superfluous. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:52, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Jetstreamer  21:58, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Page protection on Narendra Modi

Hello, Nick: the biographical article on Narendra Modi has been locked since 23 May 2013. I would like to request that the page protection be removed to facilitate changes to the page that are not under dispute. It is likely that the old disputes might flare up once again once the page is unprotected, therefore I would like to propose a one revert restriction (1RR) for all users be enforced for an indefinite period of time.

Additionally, we have consensus on replacing the present infobox image with a free licensed image available on the subject's Flickr account. Would you be so kind as to make the change?

— Nearly Headless Nick {c} 05:24, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Nick. It is possible that the page may require semi-protection, in the event of which, I will seek your counsel. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 07:48, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Regarding deletion of page PJ Norman

Hi Nick, We see that you've deleted the page for one of our artists, PJ Norman citing:

(A7: No explanation of significance (real person/animal/organization/web content/organized event))

We have to dispute this, Norman is a real person with documented proofs of his contributions in the fields of music, photography and literature.

If you feel the page did not fully explain the significance of Norman's work we would be happy to add to it along with any suggestions you might have.

Please kindly reinstate the page.

Many thanks.

100mrecords (talk) 20:12, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Um, you were blocked from editing. See User_talk:100m#Account_blocked. I've no doubt PJ Norman is a real person, but unfortunately there's no evidence presented in the article (or online, for that matter) to suggest he's sufficiently well known to be suitable for Misplaced Pages inclusion. You've been informed that your previous 100m account was blocked, and I explained why this was, I'll be blocking your new account and asking that you read the block notice I placed on your old user page (and linked to above). Nick (talk) 21:13, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Umm...

. Your interpretation of the blocking policy, especially for an admin with your tenure, needs work. Cheers. Doc talk 10:52, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes. I should have blocked you. Your behaviour is, again, entirely unacceptable. Please consider doing something more productive than trundling around Misplaced Pages trying to bait various users. Nick (talk) 11:04, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

"Baiting", widely construed, is not any sort of policy violation. It can be construed to be tantamount to harassment, which needs strong evidence. Your block of me would have been overturned. Read up on baiting before threatening good-faith editors with punitive blocks. Doc talk 11:08, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

If I had blocked you, it would have been to prevent you from causing further disruption to the project, it should be quite clear to you, thanks to the comments left on your talk page that many people (including Eric himself) considered your edits on Eric's page to be disruptive and your behaviour at that time to be unacceptable. The fact you failed (and I suspect still fail to understand what was wrong with your editing) makes any block to prevent disruption perfectly in accordance with policy.

Blocks for disruption can be placed against any account, there is no requirement to prove harassment, to demonstrate bad faith or malice, all that needs to be demonstrated is that edits are being found to be disruptive. Please refer to Misplaced Pages:BLOCK#Disruption for details on this section of the blocking policy and please consider what it was about your edits that I and other editors (some who are also administrators) considered to be inconsistent with a civil, collegial atmosphere.

I'm not sure why, when you commented on the issue of being blocked on your talk page on the 5th July, you've suddenly decided to roll up to my talk page and start all over again. The less charitable amongst us would consider it to be a repeat of the behaviour you demonstrated on Eric's talk page.

I would therefore ask that as you were not blocked, and that the incident occurred over a week ago, you move on from this and consider modifying your behaviour so as to mitigate against any risk of blocking in the future. Nick (talk) 11:31, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

You need the lesson on blocking policy, not me. After all: you're an admin and I am not. If you think my block log vs. my time here is due to me being "lucky" as a disruptive editor: that's pretty damned lucky. I am quite allowed to bring things up here, and elsewhere, in regards to this issue (or any other). But I suppose I'm being told to "go away" now. Duly noted. Doc talk 11:39, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Notice

Hello. Please participate in the current discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Disruptive editing by Darkness Shines. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 19:47, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Phil Mickelson

I saw you made the page locked down totally and reverted edits that had Mickelson winning the BO already. Fine, except you also inadvertently undid this edit of mine. As I noted on this person's talk page, Mickelson was eliminated with birdie not par at the 2000 Byron Nelson. Also by locking down the article, you're keeping a legit golf editor(me) from doing the necessary edits when the Mickelson win is official....William 16:36, 21 July 2013 (UTC)