User talk:HiDrNick/Archive 1

This page 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.

Welcome!

Hello, HiDrNick, and

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a

Hi DrNick and thanks for reverting vandalism at Femur using the "undo" function.

Please be aware that the undo function only will revert the very last edit, but will not effectively revert multiple consecutive edits of vandalism (as was the case at femur). If necessary, see to it that the last good version is restored when reverting vandalism. Thanks very much. - Gilliam 20:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Sorry about the trouble, still getting the hang of it.

HiDrNick

05:43, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Now that you figured it out, can you help me? I'm having trouble with the persistent vandal at Disease, he's editing too fast for me to revert because of the capcha thing.Eggishorn 18:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Posted to the Admin noticeboard, so he should be blocked soon. He's a quick one, too. ➪HiDrNick! 18:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Eggishorn 18:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Please remove the speedy tag from Camp Alvernia. It does not qualify for WP:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#G11. Note that simply having a company, product, group, service, or person as its subject does not qualify an article for this criterion. Dhaluza 00:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

You are correct, sir. I've changed it to the advert template, since it does still read like an advertisement. I'll see if I can't help you flesh it out later. ➪HiDrNick! 00:30, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

happy vandalism is always welcome. Thanks for the humor! --Hojimachong^talk 01:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

thanks for the answer! ive never used the help desk, so i asked mailer, cuz he knows pretty much all. ;) i c you do too! cheers. the_undertow ^talk 04:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

You're quick! First time that I've been vandalised!! Thanks again, Lou 05:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

No worries, just trying to keep up with the vandals. ➪HiDrNick! 05:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Either you are a VERY fast learner or you are somebody's sock who is aggressively bucking to become an admin. If this is not the case I sincerely apologize. If it is, I sincrely hope you get busted. Good luck, love & kisses--70.171.22.74 05:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Ohhh, I'm extremely flattered; blushing even. I just run Vandal Fighter and read the instructions.  :) Thanks for the kind words, ➪HiDrNick! 05:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

If you think the deletion warnings are so scary, why don't you just rewrite them? I think it's just a point of view. I see them as informative and neutral. Hatch68 18:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh...I'd say that qualifies. Thanks. Kaisershatner 19:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry forgot to put User: in it. Bye! «razorclaw» 19:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey! I just wanted to say thank you for helping keep Wikipedia free from vandalism. And I have a suggestion, my suggestion is that you check out

Thanks. I've installed

WP:TWINKLE and will try it out for a couple days. ➪HiDrNick

! 01:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, your name rocks. I frequently come home by shouting "HI, EVERYBODY!" My roommates still haven't figured out what the correct response is. --Moralis (talk) 02:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your very quick help today. I'm currently clicking on 'random article' looking for articles with poor spelling/grammar to correct - is there a better way of doing this?

You may want to direct your attention to

Auto Wiki Browser makes this kind of thing easier, but you have to have made over 500 edits to qualify to use it. ➪HiDrNick

! 20:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Look here, at Interiot's edit counter. ➪HiDrNick! 23:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Dr Nick! You reply so quickly! Just hit 100! Im glad you're here. My girlfriend won't speak to me now all I do is edit.

Heh. I'm just bored, I have the day off and my wife's asleep. It's a fun way to pass the time.➪HiDrNick!

Can I change my username/signature? What about the colours?

Do you play

You can customize you signature in your preferences. You'll want to read the

Changing username. With so few edits though, they'll probably just tell you to create another account. You can always change your signature to reflect your preferred name, just point it to your actual talk page. And no, I don't play too many of the wikigames, but my wife does. ➪HiDrNick

! 00:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, HiDrNick. As you may know, VP is a very powerful program, and in fact the just released 1.3 version has even more power. Because of this we must uphold strict protocols before approving a new applicant. Regretfully, I have chosen to decline your application at this time. The reason for this is that: you do not have 250 mainspace edits. Please note it is nothing personal by any means, and we certainly welcome you to apply again soon. Thank again for your interest in VandalProof. Prodego ^talk 01:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Archive_1, thank you very much for your support in my successful RfA. I am thankful and humbled by the trust that the community has placed in me, and I welcome any comments, questions or complaints that you may have. Again, thank you for your support, and happy editing! Hemlock Martinis 22:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, HiDrNick! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply

I have tried to been a better Wikipedian. I've tried, I have. Thank you for the kind words! Can we start over? WikiMan53 t/s 12:29, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Some more thank you's to add for taking care of that "warning".--WhereAmI 23:23, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I do a sound engineering site geared towards the basics, I added relevant links to topic areas on wikipedia a site I have donated to, and provided content for. Nposs and cronies have taken it upon themselves to block my external links because it was felt my site looked professional. While doing this they have chosen to pass judgement on sites they have no expertise to decide whether or not. It is appropriate. Pedia is all well and good but sometimes people want an overview or geniune depth. I offer both on certain topic areas. Areas that this pedia doesnt get. Example microphones. And being from Trinidad calypso music etc. I want my domains unblocked, I do varied content that is readable. After adding links to wikipedia my visits went up but time per visit went up. While click through went down way down. So my pages where directly appropriate and being West Indian I understood knowledge areas like Dancehall etc. just look at these too links and it proves that my links were appropriate and proving useful. My time per visit will no doubt slide. but for a none commercial site that has donated monies and content, I do not want respect but the disrespect of NPoss and cronies is ridiculous. They have allowed full commercial catalogues to stay on. While links they have removed of mine have been more appropriate. No one wants traffic not interested in content. SPAM LINK REDACTED I have added my links appropriately and I know my domains of content. I have done a specific site. and it has its place in the external links. I am a knowledge engineer I understand what people want and how they want. Everyone has there place. For example you talk about samplers but skim over mpc1000 which are the main thing. In that area. —The preceding

Arnon Chaffin has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Arnon Chaffin 23:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

hmmm, it seems i have a lot to learn :) very well, i will start reading and leave the editing of articles for later. also, i have changed my username to anotherone i like better, being im new and still don't have too much history, so from now on i will be using that one, Poseidon4, please do tell me if that is a wrong move. Thanks again, --Merrmaidmaker 19:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I had already uploaded an image to the commons and i don't know how to delete it...

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Jana-Cova-02.jpg

sorry, :)

Thanks, take care.

--Merrmaidmaker 19:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

About the warning on WhereAMI talk page I was just kidding.--FG90 23:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. And I agree with you on the articles about band members & albums. I should've read the guidelines more carefully. And I will make sure to post the references. —The preceding

Thanks for cleaning up after me. I wasn't intending the speedy or the unref tag for that article at all. I think it must have happened due to my carelessness with too many WP windows open at the same time, and I tagged in the wrong one.Professor marginalia 20:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

How do you change the name of an article? I created

It looks like someone has reverted your changes to the

List of recurring characters in Friends instead. To answer you question directly, you rename a page by moving it. Look for the move tab at the top of your page and follow the instructions. ➪HiDrNick

! 23:43, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I left an explanation on your talk page

Mthastings25, only major characters are entitled to their own article, feel free to ask me if you would like any help or further explanation.--Jackaranga

23:49, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

No, I agree. I didn't want to make you out to be the big bad reverter. ➪HiDrNick! 23:51, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

The page did not assert notability when I added the tag last night, and I am still not convinced that it asserts notability. It is nothing more than a biography of a lobbyist. The speedy deletion tag might be deleted but I think as the article stands now it would not survive and AFD. —Ocatecir ^Talk 16:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Still having trouble with images. My picture on my userpage and a picture I uploaded for

Heyo. The content of Wikipedia is licensed under the

GFDL, a free ([in speech, not beer

]) documentation license. This makes for some interesting rules regarding images.

1. The image on your userpage has been deleted by an administrator. I'm not an administrator, so I can't undelete it. You may as well just upload it again. If it's a photo of you that you took yourself then you own the copyright to it, and can release it under the GFDL, or into the public domain or another free license. Upload it to Wikimedia Commons and follow the instructions there. Remember that fair use images are forbidden in the User: namespace.
2. The image that you uploaded to Zoltan Toth (soccer) is a fair use image, but is still not allowed on Wikipedia. Fair use images that can be easily replaced by a free image are generally forbidden. Since it's possible to take a free photograph of a living person, you can't upload a fair use image of them and expect for it to stick around very long. A image of a cartoon character or of an artwork is generally impossible to replace with a suitable free image, so they are allowed.

I hope this helps. ➪HiDrNick! 22:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I have noticed that the image I uploaded of the

Thanks! The portal was gone before I had the chance to clear it. Steveo2 11:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate you clearing that up. I didn't know the policy. I just saw that other sites were listed. What makes them OK? Some of them are for-profit. It seems rather arbitrary. Any insight would be appreciated. I just thought it would be a very relevant link.

Please see talk:Barenaked Ladies TheHYPO 05:17, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

PS: The reason why not to take it up on the talk page is mainly because for this kind of edit, a) in the past, when actually taking it up on the talk page, very rarely does the editor bother to read or respond to it. and b) most of the time, the revert with explaination is clear enough to explain to the editor why they might be mistaken about their edit. TheHYPO 05:24, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm curious what the problem is (and I didn't add them) with your deleting the new sites, both official band sites, from the article. I'm not saying you're right or wrong, but you didn't explain yourself at all in your edit, so I'm curious why you deleted them. TheHYPO 20:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Nah, I saw that you didn't add them. They were added by Nettwerkmusic (talk · contribs), whose contributions consist entirely of adding external links to articles. As an occasional recent change/new page/external link patroller, I tend to set the bar for new external links pretty high. If they are official band pages, they should be linked from the band website, which is linked in the article. Anyhoo, I've unwatched the Barenaked Ladies article, so link away.  :-P ➪HiDrNick! 21:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey, Dr Nick! There is a huge blank space at the top of the 'First with fuel injection' section of

OK, fixed, but I had to remove one of the pictures. The interior picture is nice, but you can't see much at article resolution anyway. As near as I can tell, all images have to fit in a section, so the two images and the {{

-}} template at the end of the section to make the whitespace appear before the second header instead of afterward, which is not ideal, but still better than a header followed by a bunch of whitespace and then body text. As it is though, if you trim out the one interior picture and move the commons templates to the references section you have plenty of room for the rest of the article. ➪HiDrNick

! 16:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for this. Completely slipped my mind... Pascal.Tesson 04:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the response regarding the BLP issue. Cheers!!! -Zacharycrimsonwolf 01:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi – thanks for the message.

Since blocked editors can only edit their own talk page, and therefore can't post messages on the talk pages of other editors, sometimes they will blitz the blocking admin (and everyone else they can find) with emails. This has been a real problem for several admins, and the email blocking feature was implemented just a couple of weeks ago to prevent this kind of abuse.

Since HeadMouse was already liberal with his personal attacks, I chose to block his email access to prevent that. He can still email the unblock-en list and use the {{unblock}} template if he wants to appeal the block, but he needs to cool off and do something else for the next 72 hours. If you have more questions or need help, let me know. Thanks again – KrakatoaKatie 03:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your participation in my recent RfB. Though it closed with 72% support (below the required 90%), I'm still quite pleased at the outpouring of support shown by a fair percentage of the community.

I'm currently tabulating and calculating all opposing and neutral arguments to help me better address the community's concerns about my abilities as a bureaucrat. If you'd like, you can follow my progress (and/or provide additional suggestions) at User:EVula/admin/RfB notes. Thanks again! EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your support in my Request for Adminship. Unfortunately the nomination did not succeed, but please rest assured that I am still in full support of the Wikipedia project, and I'll try again in a few months! If you ever have any questions or suggestions for me, please don't hesitate to contact me. Best wishes, --Elonka 05:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I am trying to find a proper title for a section in an article I am rewriting. Is "city government" a proper term? --SevenOfDiamonds 20:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Can you fix the layout on I Wish My Brother George Was Here? A bit beyond me, I'm afraid. Matt Adore 17:32, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

HiDrNick,

Hello LanceBarber. I'll answer you on your talk page in a moment. Cheers, ➪HiDrNick! 03:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the Barnstar!!!!! A very nice suprise! With so much going in my life/family, this has really cheered me up!! LanceBarber 03:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I will take your recommendations and work the image in another section and/or Talk page. Thank you for your review. Lance... LanceBarber 04:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Eaefremov, thank you for your message. I apologize if my warning you and not warning

WP:3RR warning earlier (diff), so reminding him of the rule would have been redundant and unnecessary. Had he continued to revert, he would have been blocked from editing with a quickness. I don't doubt that you were making a good-faith effort to improve the article, but revert-warning over any change is not the way to do it. Constructive discussion on the talk page is best. Still, I see where you would be upset, and will try to be more even-handed in the future. Cheers, ➪HiDrNick

! 00:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Regarding this article, it seems someone removed your comments about cleanup. (I believe it was User:ByeNow, as shown in this diff). I left a note on his page telling him not to do that, but it seems very sock-y over there. --Bfigura ^(talk) 18:38, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Dr. Nick for the help. All this started when I just happened to come across the article and tried to clean it up; personal attacks came my way. You might also be interested in this:

Kat, Queen of Typos

02:07, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Please give me a heads up if this sort of thing happens again.[1] Durova^Charge! 04:52, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Ha! I was grumbling about bothering the checkusers; I was going to go through with it anyway, but he saved me the trouble. Thanks, ➪HiDrNick! 04:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Footnote: while one account is blocked, if the other sock does any editing, that's block evasion, a strong reason to request checkuser. - Jehochman ^Talk 10:37, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I responded to your comment on Allstarecho's talk page. Your statement was incorrect. -- JLaTondre 11:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Ooops, I stand corrected. ➪HiDrNick! 16:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I am the principal author of the Karlson and McKenzie article. I read your argument against the article, supporting its deletion. To clear up any misunderstandings, my intention was not to create a "35K advertisement" for the morning show, nor have I asserted the show's notability in the article. As for sources, I am currently working on acquiring proper sources for the content in the article. If you have a problem with the way in which the article is written, please contribute some constructive criticism on its talk page; while I understand your point of view on the article, I strongly disagree with your assessment that it just "advertises" the Karlson and McKenzie morning show.

As for the show's notability, here's a list of U.S. radio programs that most likely contains articles on some equally "local" radio shows.

Also, the show itself has acknowledged both the work put into the article and my efforts to collect legitimate information on the show and its members. The K&M show has even contributed, on several occasions (in a positive manner), to its authorship.

I implore you, in no disrespectful way, to allow me to clean up the Karlson and McKenzie article as is required by Wikipedia's standards and to add appropriate sources where needed.

Preston47 19:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I just wanted to drop a line with my new name! Thanks for all your help with everything. I'm going to start my article this afternoon once I have all my sources and formatting layout. I hope you'll come see it when I'm done, maybe offer some advise just in case I missed something :) PTFE 17:05, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi! Thank you for the barnstar! Good to know my work is being noticed. ;) -- ALLSTAR ECHO 22:40, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

It should be noted that the edits you vandalized were not in violation of

Removing the entire section -- including the very relevant quote from ADL director Abe Foxman -- is essentially vandalism and suggests my claims of censorship are correct. If the quote is being "taken out of context" as you claim, you should add more of the quote so that it is "in context". This doesn't mean removing what Foxman said, just adding more of what Dawkins said so that it's more fair. --RucasHost 05:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you read

blp2}} warning... in fact...  – ornis⚙

07:19, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the protection: I've got a long-form answer at Talk:Richard Dawkins, but the gist of the answer is, the protection of the article put a halt to the edit war and got discussion going. I've seen enough to gauge what the consensus of the community is, and I've unprotected accordingly. Those who want to change established consensus have been advised to do so through the talk page rather than editing the text straightaway. —C.Fred (talk) 23:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, ➪HiDrNick! 00:52, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you are aware but when a admin blocks a user he has to chose one of several default tags wich are all very generic for example "vandalism", "uncivility" and "violation of the 3RR", in this case this user was edit warring with another user across several different articles and he used blanking as his way of doing this, now he was clearly engaging in a disruptive edit pattern and the comunication attempts before that urged to stop and discuss had apparently failed, he was reported and I accessed the situation and had two options either block as vandalism per his blanking of material or block by uncivility per his disruptive edit warring, regardless of that it is not in my hands anymore he has a unblock request on his page wich needs to be attended by a admin besides the blocking sysop. - Caribbean~H.Q. 07:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

The default tags are a convenience and should only be used when they actually apply to the situation at hand. "Vandalism" is clearly defined by

closing the door on them in this manner.

You did not have only two options: you could have engaged the user in a constructive discussion about his editing either on an article talk page or on his own talk page.

As the blocking sysop is it always your prerogative to unblock at any time. His pending unblock request is irrelevant. ➪HiDrNick! 07:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

The only way I would unblock is that both of the users agree to stop all editing related to this content dispute until they resolve the matter in a civil conversation, no further edit warring or any attempt at payback. - Caribbean~H.Q. 07:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for supporting my RfA, which unfortunately didn't succeed. The majority of the opposes stated that I needed more experience in the main namespace and Wikipedia namespace, so that is what I will do. I will go for another RfA in two month's time and I hope you will be able to support me then as well. If you have any other comments for me or wish to be notified when I go for another RfA, please leave them on my talk page. If you wish to nominate me for my next RfA, please wait until it has been two months. Thanks again for participating in my RfA! -- Cobi^(t|c|b|cn) 02:05, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Please refer to the fact that I have a very reliable source to the Dawkins controversy (http://www.economist.com/world/britain/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10024412)~~user:Marfan8 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.232.238.67 (talk) 23:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Heyo. While that is an interesting article, it mentions the Dawkins quote in passing. We've been over this again and again on the article talk page. Please feel free to contribute to the ongoing discussion there if you feel you have something new to add. Cheers, ➪HiDrNick! 23:24, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your support, and your candor. I admit to not having handled the UNOI business as well as I might. Michaelbusch 06:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

No worries. Good luck, ➪HiDrNick! 06:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I've responded to the question you posed on my candidate question page. Please let me know if you would like any further information. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Cheers, ➪HiDrNick! 19:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

HiDrNick:

Thank you for the kind offer, and the vote of confidence. It is something I've seriously considered over the past few months; part of that involved a decision to wait for a nomination offer (rather than self-nominating.) I'm pretty sure I'll accept the nom, but I'm wondering if it would be OK to take a bit of time to review the process pages first. Thanks again. --Ckatz^chat_spy 01:21, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

No worries. Waiting to be offered an nomination by another editor is a sensible thing to do, and the peculiar process of RfA can come as a bit of a shock to the uninitiated. You may want to take some time to figure out your answers to the standard nomination questions (What admin work do you intend to take part in? What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why? Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?). Let me know when and if you decide you're ready to give it a try, and I'll get the ball rolling. ➪HiDrNick! 02:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the nudge... I've thrown my hat into the ring. We'll see how it goes. Cheers! --Ckatz^chat_spy 22:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello. You recently added a nomination for adminship of another user on the Wikipedia:Requests for adminship page. Nominations must be accepted by the would-be administrator before they can be included on the main discussion page. Cheers, ➪HiDrNick! 02:35, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your correction, I guess I was just a little excited! –DavidJ710 (talk) 02:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

No worries. ➪HiDrNick! 02:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - I know you meant well. But I think I gave the IP a clearer understanding why his or her earlier edit was reverted, s/he understood and apologized, alls well that ends well. There's enough conflict on WP already, we don't need to add fuel to it. Thought I'd explain before I put it back up on my user page. It's not hurting anybody, and I appreciated the apology. Professor marginalia (talk) 22:57, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I guess I missed the part with the apology.  :-) Cheers, ➪HiDrNick! 22:58, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Nick, Thank you. You are right, they should have put a barnstar in the Resolution. What were they thinking (smile)/ Tony the Marine 18:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Thought you might find this hilarious (or not) :)

Heh. I hadn't noticed. Too bad my picture is licensed under the GDFL, he might make millions! Maybe I can get a cut of the loot from my personality rights. I won't hold my breath, though. ➪HiDrNick! 13:33, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Remember this guy? Check his contribs for today. I swear he's stalking me. :X -- ALLSTARecho 04:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

You got a Christmas card! → → →

Wishing you and yours the very best of the holiday season. May the coming year bring you peace, joy, health and happiness. God bless us, every one! -- ALLSTARecho 21:25, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand the message that SteveCrook has left me. Matt Adore (talk) 23:43, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

		The Editor's Barnstar
		Commendation for bold initiative and hard work which you put into Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Scooter for Yaksmas Gavin Collins (talk) 13:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Awww, thanks. ➪HiDrNick! 16:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

You reverted this [2] edit because it was unconstructive. The article needs coordinates? Are you blind? I'm trying to add a tag here. UniversitySchool08 (talk) 13:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

This is an example of an editer abusing the rollback tool. UniversitySchool08 (talk) 13:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, I had an edit summary "+tag" are you just going to ignore that? UniversitySchool08 (talk) 13:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello? Can you explain this revert? UniversitySchool08 (talk) 13:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Here is the edit I made to this page, to remove vandalism. Sorry, you don't get to make a edit changing the school mascot to the "Poopers" and then a constructive edit and cry foul when they both wind up reverted. That's how rollback works. Cheers, ➪HiDrNick! 13:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

No, you have to be more careful and see beforehand which edits to revert. You can just revert the last one, without using rollback. That's part of the responsibility involved. UniversitySchool08 (talk) 13:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

We'll just have to agree to disagree here. Please refrain from making nonconstructive edits to Wikipedia in the future. ➪HiDrNick! 13:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok. I reverted vandalism off your userpage, so that'll fill the dont make non constructive edits. I'm sorry for the vandalism. Just be more careful with rollback. UniversitySchool08 (talk) 13:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Please stop reverting this blank. This page is being improperly indexed by Google and this issue was resolved by Wiki-SysOps. Wiki is using these trademarks without authorization. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Popperian (talk • contribs) 20:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

WFD doesn't delete anything, it only spawns 50 more pages with 50 more people arguing. This issue was ALREADY RESOLVED months ago. The result was delete the articles and courtesy blank the pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Popperian (talk • contribs) 20:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Could you show us specifically where this issue has already been discussed and resolved? ➪HiDrNick! 20:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

It was discussed heavily in the deletion page for the trademarked term that we are trying to remove as well as on the pages of like 15-20 other wiki-edictators. We want nothing whatsoever to do with Wikipedia and you people keep recreating pages. We tried to do something helpful inline with the rest of the NMS community and nothing but misery has resolted from it. Please delete and/or courtesy blank all of these pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Popperian (talk • contribs) 20:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Links? ➪HiDrNick! 20:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The links themselves are the problem and they contain trademark violations. Wikipedia is prohibited from using any of our trademarks. The shortest path to finding the original discussion is to search my username history and it's IP history and more importantly the original deletion discussion of the original article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Popperian (talk • contribs) 20:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, honestly I've better things to do than to scan your contributions for a link you don't like to provide. There is much vandalism out there, I prefer to attend to it. Blanking pages without reason isn't allowed, of course, and it's up to you to provide the reasons, not to us to do the digging. If there have been a previous discussion on the matter, I'd be happy to review it and take the appropriate measures, but it's not up to me, Nick or whoever but you. By the way, can you kindly sign your posts by using ~~~~ (four tildes). Regards, Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 21:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

With all do respect DrNick, I have long since lost any respect for "wiki-processes". We already had this issue resolved and here you are resurrecting it and undoing the resolution. These edits have one purpose and one purpose alone ... to clean up and terminate all involvement with Wikipedia ... permanently.

Fair enough ... but please stop using our trademarks, the point of this deletion is to remove them and you are further and apparently intentionally aggravating the matter.

You can't use people's trademarks against them in a slanderous manner with the intent to injure. Accusing us of CoI and spamming is intent to injure in our view and we have already prohibited Wikipedia's use of our trademark because we believe you are slandering our company. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Popperian (talk • contribs) 22:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, you added "Add page to watchlist" to huggle's requests page. Could you be more specific? Which watchlist is this, and how would pages be added to it? How about removing them? – Gurch 12:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking of a button with a hotkey to add the currently displayed page to your Wikipedia watchlist. For example, when I tag a page for speedy deletion, I usually add the page to my watchlist as well so I can see if the creator removes the tag or recreates the article later. There could also be a configuration option to automatically add any page that you edit with the tool in a way other than reverting (tag, speedy, prod) to your watchlist to save some clicking. ➪HiDrNick! 14:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

(!) You are absolutely right. I can't believe I forgot to change that. I'll fix it right away. Thanks, `➪HiDrNick! 20:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Care to say why edits to Otley Run were considered vandalism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.30.65.97 (talk) 02:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		For reverting the page blanking and vandalism placed on my talk page. Thank you very much! talk ) 16:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

No trouble.  :-) Cheers, ➪HiDrNick! 16:09, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

i seem to have these warnings in my warning box I guess if you count it as that.

it says I have edited parkway drive and judas priests things. I have never edited those pages

but I have edited A7X as I know a former member of the band it keeps getting edited and I seemed to be blocked for it for some reason.

can you look into this

thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.75.201.149 (talk) 06:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks for your courtesy in letting me know that you were contesting my block of Equazcion at AN/I. However I am less than happy about you misrepresenting the reason for my block as "insolence". It is not a word I ever use on Wikipedia, nor did I use it here. Perhaps you would be good enough to clarify this. Thank you. --John (talk) 22:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do. I didn't intend to offend. Cheers, ➪HiDrNick! 22:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your strike-through. No offence taken at all. --John (talk) 23:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Reading through your posts, HiDrNick, I think you may want to work a bit harder at not giving offense, because I think you're skating pretty close to it, if you haven't already, with statements like "Yes! How dare you defy the admins! You must be civil and cooperative and do as the admins would have you do! It's really getting rich in here." ++Lar: t/c 17:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused - did you write or did you delete the Karlson and McKenzie page? I'm a fan of the show and went searching for the page to find out why one of the producers is no longer with the show, only to find out that a very informative page has been deleted! Please help clarify why that page isn't fit to live on Wikipedia when pages on other radio programs and TV shows are.

Tvolkert (talk) 11:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)tvolkert

Heyo.

several policies about what sorts of subjects are permitted articles on Wikipedia; generally, only nationally syndicated radio shows are permitted articles. If other smaller shows happen to have articles, it's proabably because they just haven't been noticed yet. I hope this helps. Cheers, ➪HiDrNick

! 17:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

You may want to weigh in on my quotation of Bainbridge here [3]. It appears this painting is *not* copyrighted.

Hello Nick, first can i say thanks for editing wikipedia, as you may have noticed Waterboarding is very heated as it has been invovled in a four to six month long edit war. This means that good editors sometimes are not treated as nicely as they should, i'm sorry if you feel that you have been badly treated and hope you understand. I've tried to workout what licence i'm ment to be asking for but there are hundreds at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Copyright_tags and none for Cambodia. Which licence is going to be accepteble to you for keeping this very important picture. I know nothing about Copyright, and in trying to do this it has shown me how little i do know about the area. So i'm asking for your help to continue to document this piece of history. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 16:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Heyo. It really doesn't bother me, I've had waterboarding watchlisted for ages, so I know what all goes on there. commons:Template:CC-BY-SA-3.0, commons:Template:GDFL, and commons:Template:PD-author are all fine. ➪HiDrNick! 17:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much i've sent an email based very closely around one of the form letters, thanks for your help. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 19:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Just a minor issue: Your edit here left the section entirely empty. Without at least one '#' (also included in the preformatted RfA page),

Ooops, didn't know. Thanks for the heads-up. Cheers, ➪HiDrNick! 17:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Nick,

Appreciate what you're doing here. Quick check of the policy. There is an external link 'Free Brand Analysis.' it is blatantly promotional and delivers no knowledge value to the reader. Compare that to this link, which is all about branding and its content is syndicated to the Wall Street Journal, Google News, Washington Post and many others:

www.brandingstrategyinsider.com

This is the type of external link the founder intended. Helpful resources. Please compare.

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.220.180.59 (talk) 06:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I've removed the other spam link as well. Cheers, ➪HiDrNick! 06:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

i have recently been vandalising wikipedia, not realising a real person is putting in their own time and effort into wikipedia. i decided to see wether it is a real person and write in a site if you are well paid and if you enjoy your work.

i am sorry for causing you trouble on your sites and will always love you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.163.137.239 (talk) 07:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Apology accepted. Cheers, ➪HiDrNick! 07:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

please for the love of god, do not revert this page for one day back to its normal state PLEASE! I am making an edit that is perfectly legal and not ruining any current information that is posted ont his page.

Replied on your talk page. Cheers, ➪HiDrNick! 07:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Hi! Thanks again for the support, and the vote of confidence with respect to my RfA. I'll try not to inadvertently delete you when I save this note... Cheers! --Ckatz^chat_spy 04:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi there. I have seen that you use huggle by the fact that you have automatically updated the huggle white list(it does this when closing huggle). I was wondering if you would add the category [[Category:Wikipedians who use Huggle]] to your user page so that it fills out and we know who actually uses huggle. If you do not want to you do not have to. I am also sorry if i have already talked to you about this or you no longer use huggle but i sent it to everyone that has edited the page since mid January. I hope we can start to fill out this category. If you would like to reply to this message then please reply on my talk page as i will probably not check here again. Thanks. ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 18:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Done. ➪HiDrNick! 03:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeh, how does one get rid of the notices on the top of an article. They've been up there for months and I've revised my article as much as possible. Thanks, Sandra

Business-education partnerships.--Sanhealy (talk) 19:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi there.You are receiving this message from me as you have not added your huggle category correctly. At the moment on category here you can see that you are sorted under the letter U. To fix this please change the [[Category:Wikipedians who use Huggle]] to[[Category:Wikipedians who use Huggle|YOURNICKNAMEHERE]]. This will fix the problem. If you do not change this within a few days then i will do this for you but i would prefer to send you a message like this than just go and change your page. If you want to contact me then please use my talk page as i will not be checking back here. Thanks for your help. ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont16:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

at Talk:Dante's Cove, if you don't mind? -- SatyrTN (talk /contribs) 04:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Answered. Cheers, ➪HiDrNick! 04:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no reason to mark them for del you just are doing it because I am new at this. All of these drink companies are important the energy drink company is the only one in the world like it and the beer company is the only working one based in Alabama it looks like you just like to put thinks on real / imported info that means to me you don’t do your research before and that make you and others like you look a kid I am new at this and this is hard for me to do. I worked over 8hr on the energy drink today it would be nice if you would help people like me. I know the owners and they are good people that is how I I have the info on the companies. PAT LONG —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pat Long (talk • contribs) 08:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey Pat. I didn't mark those articles for deletion, another editor did. I just restored the notice to the page. If you'd like to discuss the deletion, you can participate in the debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emerald Coast Beer Company and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vulcan Energy Drink. I'll leave some more information on your talk page about writing your first article. Cheers, ➪HiDrNick! 08:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Who is the one that make the decision and why two of them have been up for about a year why now? Because I am doing more work. PAT —Preceding unsignedcomment added by Pat Long (talk • contribs) 08:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Deletion discussions usually run for about a week and are decided upon by an experienced user called an administrator. You are allowed to improve the articles while the discussion is going on, but please don't remove the notice from the top of the pages that tell other editors about the discussion. The easiest way to show that this article should stay in Wikipedia is to find news stories about the company or the product and show us where they can be found online. If no news sources have written about the company yet, there's no way for us to tell if everything in the article is just made up or not, so we will probably delete it. On the other hand, if you can find several articles about the company or it's product, the article may be kept. One way or the other, I will not make the decision. Good luck. ➪HiDrNick! 08:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

This is not vandalism nor a product of it, so please be reasonable. We are simply trying to create a factual piece of information about the Hyper Magazine Forums. If you don't believe that the majority of the forums do not read the magazine you are welcome to go to the site and compare the number of posters who actually discuss the magazine to the number of posters who are active in other areas of the community. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.111.81.74 (talk) 09:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Got your back... --Ckatz^chat_spy 09:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Heh. ➪HiDrNick! 10:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, adding appropiate and legitimate links to wikipedia articles is a clear right of every user. I am deeply saddened that there are individuals within the Wikipedia community threatening to ban my posts, given my proof that my additions are in fact legitimate. I will be contacting Wikipedia's organizers with a formal complaint should your threats be honored. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmatadeen (talk •contribs) 04:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

How is adding the band Blood, Sweat and Beers to 'Cleveland Steamer' possibly vandalism? It is a popular band that has a song titled "Cleveland Steamer." This makes no sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.166.84.73 (talk) 09:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Dear Nick, thank you for taking part in my RfB. As you may know, it was not passed by bureaucrats.
I would, however, like to thank you for taking the time to voice your support, despite concerns cited by the opposition. Although RfA/B isn't really about a person, but more about the community, I was deeply touched and honoured by the outpouring of support and interest in the discussion. I can only hope that you don't feel your opinion was not considered enough - bureaucrats have to give everyone's thoughts weight.
I also hope that the results of this RfB lead to some change in the way we approach RfBs, and some thought about whether long-entrenched standards are a good thing in our growing and increasingly heterogenous community.
I was a little miserable after the results came out, so I'm going to spread the love via dancing hippos. As you do. :)
I remain eager to serve you as an administrator and as an editor. If at any point you see something problematic in my actions, please do not hesitate to call me out. ~ Riana ⁂ 13:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Alas, sir, by the preceding posts on your page it appears that you have deleted edits by others who claim them to be legitimate as well. (See edit history on my "Ginger Kids" article edit.) Although I appreciate your vigilance in trying to keep articles pure of inappropriate content, you should not go overboard and simply blacklist good-faith edits as "unconstructive" or "vandalism" without discussing why the edit doesn't belong. Even if an edit doesn't belong, i.e. is not "notable", it is not necessarily in the same category as spamming/vandalism. That's my spiel. Wykypydya (talk) 03:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure. The edit you are referring to was in fact not constructive, which is exactly what the template said about it. The template does not say anything about vandalism. Disambiguation pages are not intended to list every article containing the disambiguation term. No one expects that a user who searches for the term "Ginger" is actually expecting to see the page about that particular episode of a television show. Dab pages loose their navigation utility as more and more cruft is added to them. ➪HiDrNick! 03:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

That has to be the most unconventional reasoning I have ever seen about why to exclude something from a disambiguation page -- I have always thought that disambiguation pages admitall pertinent articles and it has nearly always been my experience that disambiguation pages contain as many pertinent references as editors can think of. Also, it has happened on many occasions that I would look for a very specific instance about a certain encyclopedia topic, and it wasn't listed in the disambiguation page, and I was quite frustrated yet took the initiative to add it myself, or on the converse (this situation), I would find an article that is not referenced by its disambiguation page and improve it that way, or inversely, that Idid find something very specific in the disambig and it was quite helpful.

Could you perhaps cite a Wikipedia guideline that makes that recommendation? Maybe there has been some kind of new decision I don't know about. (They tend to change sometimes.) --Wykypydya (talk) 03:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

They are a moving target, that's for sure.

WP:DAB

has some info about what not to include in disambiguation pages. In this instance, I think that "partial title matches" applies. There's also a section of the manual of style linked from there as well.

It's not a black and white issue though, by any means, and I do tend to get in a hurry when reverting--it's part of the whole nature of keeping up with the changes. I assure you though, most of the people further on up the page are spammers and cranks.  :-P I know that you were editing in good faith, and a "warning", however worded, is bothersome. ➪HiDrNick! 04:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• What are yoiu talaking about?Are you insane?I Didnt made any wrong edits to
  talk
  ) 04:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)}

This edit makes a wikilink where only half of the word is linked, which is not something that we usually do. What does "Untitled gelo Movie" mean? ➪HiDrNick! 04:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• gelo is a loveteam pair of
  talk
  ) 04:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)}

• Anyway do you know how to lock pages.I Want that
  talk
  ) 04:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)}

Sorry, I'm not able to keep pages from being edited; since this is a wiki, anyone can edit it. After all, maybe someone will come along and make the article even better.  :) ➪HiDrNick! 04:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

But why is it that the wiki of

talk

) 04:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)}

Oh, you're thinking of semi-protection, which prevents anonymous users from editing the page. I've requested that that protection be removed from the Zac Efron page, it's been there for much too long. Generally administrators will only semi-protect a page that has had very heavy vandalism, and then only for a short time. It looks like this one was just overlooked. ➪HiDrNick! 04:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia restricts free speech! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.68.207 (talk) 06:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Could you block this user. This user had a final warning before vandalizing Ranga. Footballfan190 (talk) 06:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Man, you're quick. Before I could delete the text you had already saved the corrected version. Mad props. I sent a copyright infringement notice b/c of the mention of the specific torrent file system, mixed with the direct link to the album. Wouldn't want a controversy. InvisibleDiplomat (talk) 06:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• Can you request me to have a protection the
  talk)} —Precedingcomment
  was added at 07:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

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/Betacommand 2/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/Betacommand 2/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 15:40, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi there. Just wanted to point out a minor inaccuracy in your evidence. You said "Betacommand also claimed that "removing deleted/non-existent categories is something that BCBot has been doing for a long time," but has been unable to provide any diffs to substantiate this extremely unlikely claim" - in fact Betacommand has now provided at least one set of edits, and I think people are analysing BetacommandBot's contribs to find more. I'm referring to

this thread, and the edits here. Feel free to submit this in your evidence section. I won't have much time to submit evidence until after Easter. Carcharoth (talk

) 21:19, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Between Betacommand, Betacommand2, and off-wiki communications, I have a hard time keeping up with everything that Betacommand says. :) ➪HiDrNick! 21:24, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

im trying to post a definition of the name Powell on here because it is a definition that my family has lived by for generations but it keeps saying that its not important ur it isn't needed but I feel that it is. How can i get it to stay up and be legitimate. the other definitions are no better than my familys. —Preceding unsignedcomment added by Nicknooo (talk • contribs) 06:34, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I declined your recent

I am using Huggle, I'll look into it. ➪HiDrNick! 06:47, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

"Tymike07 (talk) 03:58, 19 March 2008 (UTC)"

Hi, Nick! I hope you excuse my ignorance...I've been trying hard to understand the rules on copyrighted images, but it can be really complex. The album infobox has been removed a couple of times from the above article - is there a rule or guideline somewhere about this? If you can point me in the right direction I will leave a note on the article talkpage. Thanks!Nesodak (talk) 17:31, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Basically, I removed the infobox because the article is about the person, not the single. It really looks as though the box was just included to have a place to put a nonfree image anyway. I hope this helps, ➪HiDrNick! 18:27, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry - what was the policy or guideline covering this? Nesodak (talk) 18:34, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:NONFREE. I've posted on the article talk. I didn't realize that you were specifically concerned about the image. I should have paid closer attention. ➪HiDrNick

! 18:39, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I replied there, thanks! Nesodak (talk) 18:45, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

You probably shouldn't edit other people's comments, as you did here. I had no objection to this, especially since the user credited me in the comment. (It was GFDL anyway, so the user could reprint as he pleased). I'm not sure exactly why you deleted it, any explanation is welcome. Nesodak (talk) 22:21, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Cross positing other user's comments into deletion debates is not appropriate. I'm unsure of how to explain something so immediately apparent? ➪HiDrNick! 00:11, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Please see

WP:TALK#Others' comments - "Do not strike out the comments of other editors without their permission." What policy are you citing regarding your statement above?Nesodak (talk

) 13:46, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks [?] for the "edit war warning". If you would kindly take a minute to check the discussion page for Spider Solitaire, you'll see that there is an ongoing discussion as to whether it is appropriate to include links at the end of the article leading to non-commercial sites to play the games. I looked around Wikipedia yesterday and there are such links on literally dozens of Wikipedia pages to other games (Dominoes, Reversi, Canasta, Minesweeper, Pac-Man, and so on). If I am to be "warned" for restoring the links, is it not "fair" also to "warn" those who delete them??? An "edit war" takes two parties and it isn't right to disable the editing of only one side. Wikipedia needs to set a clear rule and have it be applied consistently across the board in such cases. In the absence of a clear rule, I think I have every right to restore the links any time anyone else deletes them. Thanks. If you want to email me, do so at [email protected] 206.74.61.67 (talk) 14:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Replied on your talk. Cheers, ➪HiDrNick! 14:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

HiDrNick: Now that I am permitted to be back on Wikipedia, I can respond to you. Your message on my talk page was offensive. To encourage me to register and help rid Wiki pages of the kind of links you know I support is condescending. You seem more interested in having your own point of view carry the day than you do in engaging in productive discussion (or else you would not have blocked me). Obviously two more Wiki-users have "reverted" the links since you pompously declared the debate over; this indicates to me that the debate continues. I believe I have every right to participate in it. Since such links to play the games are found on the VAST MAJORITY of game pages with no controversy whatsoever, it is inappropriate to make Spider Solitaire an exception, even if you are right about the question. Please don't block me again; you've reverted the pages just as often as I have and you wouldn't want to be blocked, would you? Perhaps the "golden rule" could apply here? I.e., don't block me for doing the same exact thing you are doing yourself! BTW, I AM a real doctor. Folks who pretend to have my hard-earned degree by calling themselves "doctor" are simply misrepresnting themselves in a way akin to lying. Since you were kind enough to give me the "step away from the dead horse" message, I'll respond in turn: Don't be a dick. 206.74.61.67 (talk) 18:21, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not an administrator, so I could not block you even if I wanted to. Your block log shows that you have been blocked twice for spamming, once recently by Orangemike (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), and in November by KnowledgeOfSelf (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). If you feel you block was not supported by our policies, you can air your grievances with them, although I assure you it was. It is clear from your contributions history that you've been attempting to spam these links from some time. If you do not stop, eventually the page may be semi-protected, will will prevent unregistered editors from editing the page in any way at all, or the link may be added to the local spam blacklist which will prevent any user from including it in a page at all.

As for my username, if you fell that it's inappropriate, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names is down the hall and to the left. Knock yourself out. ➪HiDrNick! 20:22, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a

Please see here. Is the page unprotection enough, or do you want further assurances from ST47? Carcharoth (talk) 19:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I wash my hands of the nonsense. The use of passive verbs in the action summary "(...disputes which caused protection...") makes ST47's position on the matter crystal clear. He still obviously feels that his action was appropriate, and Arbcom isn't going to tell him otherwise (that would require doing something about something, which seems outside of the Arbcom remit lately). Any attempt to force the issue is

futile. The Arbitration Committee is obviously disinterested in actually doing anything to resolve this or nearly any other problem coming out of this case, or really any other case

for that matter. I'm done worrying about this particular issue.

I do appreciate your sincere attempts to address the concerns of many editors on many sides of this issue. Thanks. ➪HiDrNick! 20:21, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks. I will link to your response over there. Carcharoth (talk) 01:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello HiDrNick,

I will appreciate if you kindly tell me what you found objectionable in my link on Nirvana and virtual reality [4]. This article was published as an editorial article in Times of India with 15 million circulation. I will appreciate if you please insert it as an external link.

Thanks.Akraj (talk) 14:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your support in my

The only subjective part of the rule seems to be whether or not information is "contentious"; in the past, casting on Doctor Who has been a hot issue... Christopher Ecclestonstormed out of a charity event after someone even mentioned the program to him - so I considered that putting actors in the article without reliable sources was iffy. Any thoughts? —TreasuryTag—t—c 16:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, couldn't resist. :) Protonk (talk) 16:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

➪HiDrNick! 16:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you can discuss removing such things on the talk page? That would be very useful. Bstone (talk) 21:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I belive you've already commented on Wikipedia_talk:Threats_of_violence#Jimbo_box, a thread which I started. ➪HiDrNick! 21:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello, HiDrNick. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion can be found under the topicWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Absolutely inappropriate edit to WP:TOV by HiDrNick. Yours, Tiptoety ^talk 05:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Initially I thought that you were the one to start the thread, which didn't seem like you at all. So belated thanks then. ➪HiDrNick! 05:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

No problem, I know that I like it when I get notified when a thread is started about me so I thought you deserved the respect of a notification too. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 16:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

When you sign your prsts with four tidles how do you get your name colorful like that? --RayquazaDialgaWeird2210 (talk) 23:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

If you click the "My Preferences" link at the top of the page, you can edit your signature. If you check the box that says "raw signature", you can use wiki markup to change the look of your signature. Cheers, ➪HiDrNick! 02:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

back 3 months ago the ECBC was DEL for know news i added news and it was DEL one more time this getting old i am told one then when i do it there is more BS can you help? Pat Long (talk) 03:42, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

If you're having trouble with an article you're creating being speedily deleted, it's often best to work up a draft in your userpage, and have it vetted by some experienced users before moving it to the main article space. Why not create your article at User:Pat Long/Emerald Coast Beer Company, and let me know when you think it's ready. Cheers, ➪HiDrNick! 01:11, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Now that the AfD is concluded, when does the article get deleted? Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Whenever an adminstrator gets around to it.  :) I'm not one myself, but the result of the debate was obvious, so I closed it, and tagged the article for speedy deletion with {{db-xfd}}. It should be deleted in not too much longer. Sorry about the confusion. Cheers, ➪HiDrNick! 22:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Has now been deleted. ➪HiDrNick! 00:08, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes ive decided to concede defeat in regards to this one. I'm getting it removed

For future cases please remember to give the uploader proper notice on his/her talk page when you add a CSD or fiaruse tag to an article or picture. Cheers,   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  11:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Since you've been edit warring over that image for several days now, I was confident that you were well aware of it's pending deletion, and saw little to be gained by cluttering your talk page up with further warnings. Cheers, ➪HiDrNick! 13:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I just came across your bot request, and noticed that you said it would run automatically every five minutes. Despite considerable googling, I've not worked out how to do this for PHP bots I run on the Wiki, as cron doesn't seem to be applicable. Would you mind terribly pointing me in the right direction? Thanks!Smith609 Talk 23:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I've not had any trouble with "php -f /path/to/script.php >> /path/to/outputlog " in the crontab. ➪HiDrNick! 00:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

There is a conflict regarding a known fake quote being cited as a real quote on a few Wikipedia pages. One instance of the quote can be found at the fifth bulleted quotehere. It states:

The objective [of the Wedge Strategy] is to convince people that Darwinism is inherently atheistic, thus shifting the debate from creationism vs. evolution to the existence of God vs. the non-existence of God. From there people are introduced to 'the truth' of the Bible and then 'the question of sin' and finally 'introduced to Jesus.'

I discovered reliable sources here and here that show the quote to be phony. I attempted to remove the falsely attributed quotes and cited those sources, but I now find myself falsely "reported" (read: "threatened") by Orangemarlin as a vandal. Again, actually, since he falsely accused me of the same before. Orangemarlin has also reverted the edits and refused to respond to my inquiries why, simply deleting my questions as supposedly "uncivil."67.135.49.116 (talk) 05:20, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Heyo. I think you've already done exactly the right thing here. You've raised your concern on the article talk page, where it looks like other editors have addressed your concerns. Do you find the new wording to be neutral? As of this moring, the quote was attributed to Rob Boston rather than Phillip Johnson. ➪HiDrNick! 10:30, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, HiDrNick. Thanks for helping out with the administration over at AFD however it is best practice to leave delete closures for admins so that the article can actually be deleted - see WP:Non-admin closure. I appreciate that you left a delete request & I don't want to sound too ungrateful as there is often a backlog over at AFD but if you could try to keep to obvious, snowball and speedy keeps. Thanks and kind regards, nancy ^(talk) 15:43, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Heyo. Could you please clarify: Are you asking me to stop because what I’m doing generates more work for others than if I didn’t do it (i.e., what I did isn’t helpful), or are you asking instead me to stop because of the suggestions at

WP:NAC, or some other reason entirely? Thanks, HiDrNick

! 17:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I guess it is a bit of both. If an admin comes across the article tagged for delete they would still have to go and read the AFD discussion & weigh the consensus to check that they agreed with the delete decision - it's their name that will be in the deletion log so they have to be sure - so it's kind of doubling up on everything. Also wanted to make absolutely clear that this is nothing about your judgment; I've looked back through several of your closes and I can't fault them on that score. nancy^(talk) 17:59, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I've always viewed it not too different from

WP:NAC", I'm happy to oblige. Cheers, HiDrNick

! 18:10, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - I do try not to hide behind policy if I can possibly help it :). I've just been reviewing your contributions and I am sure that it won't be long before get a delete button of your own; what you have done so far has been very impressive - civil, considered and intelligent all the attributes of a good admin. nancy ^(talk) 18:45, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I hope he got the message!Ardeshire Babakan (talk) 18:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I disagree (and strongly so) with your viewpoint, but we need more eyes, not less, on that RfC, so I appreciated your taking the time to have a look. I'd encourage you to look back over the discussion, and all the arguments made, but if you still support merging, I completely understand. Regards, S. DeanJameson 20:15, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

No worries. HiDrNick! 20:39, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

As you are a

Please familiarize yourself with the current controversy regarding Fair use; there was a lot of discussion over the weekend about another user who was blindly deleting images in lists. Please refrain from this until there is an actual policy. Thank you. Cbsite (talk) 22:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

You're very sharp! Unfortunately, I am apparently working alone on this article and am busy right now undoing all the vandalism. Time takes time!Cbsite (talk) 19:27, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Image:Julian.barratt.boosh.live.jpg already turned down for deletion for NFCC#8 just yesterday. You can't come back the very next day and try another line of reasoning. Cbsite (talk) 03:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC) Image is Creative Commons. Cbsite (talk) 12:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

...hey, I loved your comment in the AfD discussion for the alleged "My Fair Lady" remake. Great fun! Great job!

Thanks.  :) HiDrNick! 16:24, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone who participated in my RfA, regardless of their !vote. I have withdrawn the nomination as a failure at 19 supports, 45 opposes, and 9 neutral statements. As has been written and sung, you can't always get what you want, but if you try sometimes, you get what you need — and what I need is to go back to working on our shared project. Not everyone has to be an admin; there is a role for each of us. After reflection, I feel I don't have the temperament to secure community consensus as an admin at any point, and I will not be applying again in the future — and hey, that's all right, 'cause I stay true to the philosophy that adminship is no big deal: I tried, I failed, and now I'll return to doing what I've always done. I have an extremely strong belief in the consensus process, and the consensus was clear. I will be devoting my energies to volunteering at MedCab and working up a complete series of articles on the short stories of Ernest Hemingway, among lord knows what else. Thanks again to everyone who spared the time to weigh in on this one. It was made in better faith than it probably seemed. Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 14:56, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for supporting my lost cause there. I really appreciate the assumption of good faith. Onward and upward! Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 14:56, 4 August 2008 (UTC)