User talk:Jone Rohne Nester

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Jone Rohne Nester. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: DYJA

Hello Jone Rohne Nester. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of DYJA, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not unambiguously promotional. Thank you. Mz7 (talk) 07:28, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hinesight

Not notable, huh? Just because you never heard of him? The Pink Panther tickle me 09:28, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Trekphiler:, thanks for your feedback but I'm not sure what are you trying to say and how am I'm connected to the page you are referring to? thanks Jone Rohne Nester (talk)
You don't recall deleting the original version as "not notable" without any discussion at all? Short memory. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 14:31, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decentralized application

Please read this notification carefully, it contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

A community decision has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to the blockchain and cryptocurrencies. The details of these sanctions are described here. All pages that are broadly related to these topics are subject to a one revert per twenty-four hours restriction, as described here.

General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

MER-C 11:44, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Jone Rohne Nester. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions alert for articles and content relating to post-1932 American politics and articles and content relating to living or recently deceased people

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Doug Weller talk 19:31, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Dapp Life

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Dapp Life, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Atlantic306 (talk) 11:53, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Dapp Life for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Dapp Life is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dapp Life until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Praxidicae (talk) 13:02, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Famousbirthdays.com as a source

Hi Jone Rohne Nester. I noticed that you recently used famousbirthdays.com as a source for biographical information in Yianni Charalambous . Please note that there is general consensus that famousbirthdays.com does not meet the reliable sourcing criteria for the inclusion of personal information in such articles. (See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_153#Is_famousbirthdays.com_a_reliable_source_for_personal_information). If you disagree, let's discuss it. Thanks. --Ronz (talk) 18:12, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @Ronz: for this link, I was not aware of it. I have nothing against it if that source would be removed and date of birth would be removed until someone will find more reliable source to verify that. P.S. I've also reverted your edit as it's not clear to me how did you come up with the conclusion that the article is written like an advertisiment while it has only a few sentences that are literally fact statements based on highly reliable sources such as The Guardian? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jone Rohne Nester (talk • contribs) 23:13, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If the only sources were of the quality of The Guardian, I doubt there would be any problem. Such high-quality sources are required. Why are the other sources there at all? --Ronz (talk) 23:29, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what's your point here? You are more than welcome to go out there and find better sources instead of complaining on my page about the "quality" of the sources, which by the way are exactly the same ones as seen in majority of bios on Wiki. I've added sources that verify every single fact I've wrote in the article, so where exactly do you see advertisiment? If you are unhappy with the sources such as the Mirror or the Guardian you can open a new discussion and I'll be happy to contribute there. Jone Rohne Nester (talk)
It's policy that poor sources shouldn't be used at all for BLPs.
The Daily Mirror is a poor source.
I've cleaned up the article. --Ronz (talk) 01:42, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Advice

Hi there. I wanted to give you some advice and reiterate advice that was given to you by Ritchie333 previously. First, giving you the benefit of the doubt, I'll assume your comment at this afd is misguided. You should be commenting on the content and not the contributor, something you've been told several times. Nothing in your keep is an actual deletion argument or pertinent to the discussion at hand. I don't know what issues you and Biwom have but they are also irrelevant to the discussion. Second, immediately prior to your comment, you went and nominated Biwom's recent creation, Christine Gouze-Rénal for deletion with a bogus rationale. You cannot claim no significance when this person is the first French female producer. I am not commenting on her notability in general but that statement, which is sourced and easily verifiable is enough that an argument the subject is not significant has absolutely no weight, but that subject aside it gives the appearance that you nominated it as a grudge. I'd highly recommend you refrain from following Biwom's contributions if you two do indeed have a problem but I'll note that I don't see any substantial interactions between you two aside from Biwom's appropriate tagging of the article. Praxidicae (talk) 22:37, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Praxidicae: Thanks for your feedback. I'll quote your own words written on your page: "No need to give me the fire-and-brimstone warnings of your god" - Praxidicae. I like it. It sort of tells you that you are insignificant and replacable. Which is kind of true and apply to all of us on Wiki. Today is you, tomorrow someone else. I'll treat your comment in exactly the same way. Thanks for your time, your comment noted Jone Rohne Nester (talk)
I'm not sure you're understanding what is being said to you - future comments like you've made on that AFD are likely to result in going to a drama board. That's also not a quote from me, as you'll note in the attribution. I certainly hope you'll heed that warning, though. Praxidicae (talk) 23:08, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Being said to you"? sounds kind of aggressive and very imperative. Then I guess see you in the future on drama board, no need to reiterate, I understand and as I've said your comment is noted, now if you don't mind I have some editing to do....Jone Rohne Nester (talk)

Signing comments

Hi there! As a friendly reminder, please sign all your talk page comments with three tildes (~~~). Thanks! Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk

Hi

Hi, i saw you placed a merge tag and also said "Can't objectively validate any of this" [1]. Are you saying that i made it up? What do you mean as the sources are RS and i wrote it through those sourrces and also they are accessible for everyone. Also why a merger ? This is a song and popular meme on the internet among the right wing and it has a history. Can you elaborate on what you meant? Thanks.Resnjari (talk) 21:09, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Resnjari: it's quite simple, you either create a page without connecting to the main event as basis of your argument(main subject of the page) or you merge the page as part of the main events. It seems that your article is purely based on the credibility of main events and it wouldn't stand alone. So it either will be deleted or merged unless you can substantiate that the song alone somehow important (which I think it isn't) and by no means I'm saying that you've made it up but it just one way or the other. Thanks for stopping by Jone Rohne Nester (talk) 21:18, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A stopover is always good. Nonetheless wp:idontlikeit is not a sufficient reason. I have linked the page to the page about the shooting. This song/meme is not a result of the shooting, but a cause. The song was a war tune during the wars of the 1990s that whipped up hatreds and has continued to do so many years after for the right wing. There is much more content in this article (2 thirds) that would be cut out if merged because it would not be relevant to the shooting article. This song has existed for some time (over 2 decades) and sources have only become more available due to the shooting but also due to reports on right wing communities. Look if any editor thinks that the article ought to be deleted they are more then welcome to open that discussion and put it up for a vote. However this song/meme topic is notable in its own right and i've seen articles with much less sources and content survive. Best.Resnjari (talk) 21:31, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are topic banned from blockchain and cryptocurrencies

The following sanction has been imposed on you:

Indefinite topic ban from blockchain and cryptocurrencies, broadly construed

You have been sanctioned for continued promotional editing (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dapp Life).

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator as authorised by the community's decision at WP:GS/Crypto, and the procedure described by the general sanctions guidelines. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions for that decision. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction at the administrators' noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. MER-C 21:46, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]


ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:21, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]