Thanks, but Stephen was only listed because there was a suggestion that the single edit that Steve had was enough to prevent usurpation. Other comments later suggested that wasn't the case, and the edit could be reattributed. So why Stephen not Steve? And can I get my Slf67 talk page and sub-pages moved too, when it's convenient. Or do I cut-and-paste them myself and redirect from my old talk page? --[[User:Slf67|Steve <sub> (Slf67) </sub>]][[User talk:Slf67|<sup> talk </sup>]] 09:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, but Stephen was only listed because there was a suggestion that the single edit that Steve had was enough to prevent usurpation. Other comments later suggested that wasn't the case, and the edit could be reattributed. So why Stephen not Steve? And can I get my Slf67 talk page and sub-pages moved too, when it's convenient. Or do I cut-and-paste them myself and redirect from my old talk page? --[[User:Slf67|Steve <sub> (Slf67) </sub>]][[User talk:Slf67|<sup> talk </sup>]] 09:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
:When I raised this on the [[Wikipedia talk:Changing username/Usurpations#One edit in 6.C2.BD years|talk page]], [[User:rdsmith4|Dan]] said he had no issue in giving the account away. --[[User:Slf67|Steve <sub> (Slf67) </sub>]][[User talk:Slf67|<sup> talk </sup>]] 10:35, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
:When I raised this on the [[Wikipedia talk:Changing username/Usurpations#One edit in 6.C2.BD years|talk page]], [[User:rdsmith4|Dan]] said he had no issue in giving the account away. --[[User:Slf67|Steve <sub> (Slf67) </sub>]][[User talk:Slf67|<sup> talk </sup>]] 10:35, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
::So where can it be discussed? On the CBrown usurpation it was stated as just a technical limitation on user logs being difficult to usurp, on the talk page discussion two 'crats didn't see it as a policy issue. --[[User:Slf67|Steve <sub> (Slf67) </sub>]][[User talk:Slf67|<sup> talk </sup>]] 12:02, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Please do not reply to topics more than 3 days old. I may miss it. If you wish to revive an old topic of discussion, copy the entire text of that topic (including any WikiSyntax) and put it at the bottom by following the edit link above.
I will usually reply on your talk page
I usually archive every 15 days or if the page size > 30kb.
Thanks!
Thanks for processing my name change, appreciate it ;) FelisLeoTalk! 15:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Plans
What's plan for Sir Creek? You can seriously consider an article Sir Creek dispute, rather tha Sir Creek for FAC. Geo info on the creek will be very hard to get/cite.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, not much time to commit. Rather prefer to review then when in FAC. =Nichalp«Talk»= 17:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned fair use image (Image:Airtel-logo.svg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Airtel-logo.svg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. — Rebelguys2talk 05:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You were right. Instead of comenting we should prefer improving it. This thing should be also followed when we nominate an article for FAC and users opposes it rather than trying to make that article a feature. If you can rewrite that one line, not good looking stub into a new fabolous article then think about those articles which are currently classed as B grade articles. I was really surprised seeing that article. Sushant gupta 01:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is the template you inserted on the page appropriate. There in the template, I didn't find any link to Koyna sanctuary. Yes it is related to the topic but can we insert the template the way you did.Sushant gupta 02:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(I am asking you a question regarding Wikipedia, this is not a comment)
The article contains many vague things. Take a look @ the Trivia section of this article. Well I don't know that can we write such nonsence things. I could have removed such things but I fear that if it would been considered vandalism. Thanks Sushant gupta 02:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bot approval
Hi. I've requested for bot approval to create villages/towns in India. We've discussed about the templates to be used for this page in Indian cities talk page. It is mentioned on bot approval talk page that approval could be delayed unless confirmed from someone familiar with that area. Could you please comment on this bot and confirm whether it can be approved or not. --(Sumanth|Talk) 04:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question, help
Hi Nichalp. Does it matter my 'comment' was counted as a vote for 'netural' in User:MiddleEastern's RfA [2]? The comment itself explains that I'm not voting, but if it is important in some technical way, could you change the discussion to reflect my intention not to vote? I ask you because I noticed you did it for your comments, and the discussion is now archived and I'm not sure if my changing it now is appropriate. You seem to have more experience here, and I'd appreciate your help/advice. Thank you. Tiamut 18:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your explanation and help. Tiamut 18:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A CHU request
Hi Nichalp. Although I could take care of it myself, I just find it common courtesy to come to you about a request which you handled. Recently, you denied this request on CHU (Computerbar is the username), on account of the user's short history. Normally, that'd be right, but in this case there are two factors: 1) and more importantly, because the username is an email account, and we rename those regardless, because it ensures privacy and prevents spamming of the e-mail accounts inadvertedly used as Wikipedia usernames; 2) since the user is requesting a username that is exactly his email handle, which was, of course, used in the previous account's name, he would most likely be prevented from creating it by the account-creation filters, which makes a rename the only way to get that account created effectively. For those reasons, but mainly for the first one, I would ask that you reconsider that request. Cheers, Redux 21:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thanks for the response. Actually, the user is currently blocked, and the requester in his lieu is exactly the admin who blocked him and asked him to e-mail an identity confirmation, which is probably why the whole thing was done via e-mail. This is not unprecedented, we've had admins who handle those blocks come to CHU and request a rename that was agreed upon with the blocked users (Netsnipe has done it a few times). In a case such as this, we are most likely safe to do the rename as asked by Pathoschild. Cheers, Redux 18:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No right to vanish
Hello, you recently changed my name. If the name change log were kept only for the eyes administrators and NOT visible to google and other search engines, then we would have a right to vanish. However, as it is, anyone can type in my former name + wikipedia, and the first thing that comes on search engines is...THE NAME CHANGE LOG...so much for vanishing. I have an unfortunate situation of a "stalker" who snoops out that former name (that I won't type again here and prefer you don't either) on the internet and tries to use it against me.
Also, the former name’s "user talk" page still exists when I click it from a search engine. Does it terminate after some time?
Can you submit to the "council of wikipedia" to make the namechange log visible only to admins etc... and people who request info on that only get it if they have a really, really good reason; down with the stalkers! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Batlinspil (talk • contribs) 23:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Could you please redirect the following pages for me...
...Since you have changed my username, i would need help redirecting following pages (I'm having a difficultly redirecting them because they require administrative access):
By city border, do you mean of New Delhi or of Delhi State? Unlike the Mumbai and Chennai map, Delhi is way too huge and extends extensively outside the state borders in the south while the north is sparse with few villages, so the map has been centred on the dense region, cutting off the upper parts of the state, i really dont see the need for having an outline border for the state as it has no significance. Im planning to do a political map of NCR region with different divisions an districts. I have marked the district borders in the present map but it has got lost with all the other details --PlaneMad|YakYak 13:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cant exactly mark the boundary as it overlaps the roads, but i can change the background colour. Or im thinking of colouring the other districts light grey, so that new delhi stands out like in the mumbai map --PlaneMad|YakYak 16:25, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As an new wikipedian, I am not sure what action to take in this. (rams81 15:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Fascism and Nazism as representative forms of socialism
I am sorry to bother you, but I really need some help. There is an ongoing campaign by a few editors to portray Fascism and Nazism as representative forms of socialism. As part of this effort (a debate that stretches back to 2004), there are a tiny handful of editors who revert and redirect National Socialism to Nazism. I believe a majority of editors support redirecting National Socialism to National Socialism (disambiguation). I realize we just had a poll on the Nazism page where I thought this issue was settled, but apparently the struggle is not over. Please consider voting in the new poll, or adding a comment at: Talk:Nazism#Survey:_redirecting_National_Socialism. Also consider notifying other editors with an interest in this matter. I am doing the best I can, but need assistance. Thanks.--Cberlet 17:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There have already been multiple debates, RFC's, polls, requests for mediation, and some of the minority editors in the past have been warned or put on probation. I just do not know what else to do. It is very frustrating. Some other editors just wear out over time and give up.--Cberlet 18:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Usurpation
Thanks, but Stephen was only listed because there was a suggestion that the single edit that Steve had was enough to prevent usurpation. Other comments later suggested that wasn't the case, and the edit could be reattributed. So why Stephen not Steve? And can I get my Slf67 talk page and sub-pages moved too, when it's convenient. Or do I cut-and-paste them myself and redirect from my old talk page? --Steve (Slf67) talk 09:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So where can it be discussed? On the CBrown usurpation it was stated as just a technical limitation on user logs being difficult to usurp, on the talk page discussion two 'crats didn't see it as a policy issue. --Steve (Slf67) talk 12:02, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
