This is an archive of past discussions on NJA's talk page from the beginning of January 2009, through the end of June 2009. Do not edit or add to this page.
If you wish to leave a new comment, please do so by clicking here.
< 04 (Jul - Dec 2008) | 05 (Jan - Jun 2009) | > 06 (Jul - Aug 2009)
Thanks for uploading File:Pages3.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
iWork.com screenshot
Hey, I was just wondering if you could re-do the screenshot that you made of iWork.com. The way it's scaled or something really causes the text to look blurred. Althepal (talk) 06:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed and done. As for the text of the sample document -- it looks fuzzy even in the web browser so there's not much I can really do about that. This new upload is definitely sharper and matches what's seen in the browser almost perfectly. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 08:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm Spartacus! would like to nominate you to become an administrator. Please visit Wikipedia:Requests for adminship to see what this process entails, and then contact I'm Spartacus! to accept or decline the nomination. A page has been created for your nomination at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Nja247 2. If you accept the nomination, you must state and sign your acceptance. You may also choose to make a statement and/or answer the optional questions to supplement the information your nominator has given. Once you are satisfied with the page, you may post your nomination for discussion, or request that your nominator do so.
So do you think you are up for it? If you want to run, you should have a decent chance, the attitude at RfA is pretty open right now. If you choose to run, you might be interested in reviewing my essay Wikipedia:How to pass an RfA. The key things to remember, give complete thoughtful answers to your questions===this is an interview of sorts. Also, don't transclude your RfA unless you have 2-4 hours to baby sit it. People sometimes get impatient for answers when an RfA goes live. ---I'm Spartacus!PoppaBalloon03:30, 7 February 2009 (UTC) (formerly, Balloonman)[reply]
I absolutely do, and I appreciate your nomination. I re-read my answers from my initial RfA (2 months ago) and believe they still articulate what I'd say now. What do you reckon? Cheers. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 17:30, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A long time ago, I forgot to !vote in an RfA of a person I nominated. Suddenly, there was speculation on my talk page that I was waiting to be the 100th !vote on the person's RfA. While it started out as a joke, I do not !vote on my candidate's RfA's until the last day of the RfA or until they pass the 100 !vote mark. While I'm not superstitious, I don't want to jinx a solid tradition ;-)---I'm Spartacus!The artist formerly known as Balloonman05:50, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
LOL, and of course the 'artist formally known as' bit! It's good to have a little bit of a laugh at 6am. Off to the library now :( Bed time for you, no? Cheers. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 06:53, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations!
Congratulations on your RfA passing! Here are some useful links for you:
And congrats from me too, its been a strenuous job being the newest admin and making tea for everyone; especially with the diverse bunch we are, I can make tea American style (cold, salty, no milk) though there's a bit of a salt shortage here, but even here in London Yak butter is not that easily come by. WereSpielChequers09:34, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, thanks! I can't wait to really get to work after my assessments. Thank you to EVERYONE that participated. I promise that I will get to each and every one of you in due course, but right now I need to get to the library. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 09:35, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations. Here are what pass for words of wisdom from the puppy:
Remember you must always follow the rules, except for when you ignore them. You will always pick the wrong one to do. (See #5)
Remember to assume good faith and not bite. Remember that when you are applying these principles most diligently, you are probably dealing with a troll.
Use the block ability sparingly. Enjoy the insults you receive when you do block.
You've claimed two account requests at once on the toolserver at 14.28 and created both at 14.30 according to the wiki logs. But neither has been marked done on the toolserver. Care to log back in and complete the requests? Or should we mark them done for you? Personally I think claiming and completing one request at a time is a better idea. Cheers, Paxse (talk) 07:54, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Er... um... ooops... something unexpected came up on Friday and by the time I checked back on Saturday, you had already been promoted. This makes your RfA one of the few RfA's to pass without nominator support. Er, more like, a SUPPORT !vote---which I see as kind of redundant as the nom has already spoken---but just think, you can now brag that your nominator didn't support you at your RfA... The only other candidate that I know of to pass an RfA without his nominator's support was USER:Xeno... who I also nominated :( Anyways, congratulations... I have no doubt that you'll use the tools wisely.---I'm Spartacus!The artist formerly known as Balloonman18:24, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well then I'm honoured to be in your special category of elite nominees who've passed w/o your support. Thanks again! Can't wait to actually get to work. Nja24708:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, probably violating your talk page policy by responding here, but I can't leave gifts to other users on my talk page. :) Congratulations on your successful request for adminship, and should you go to the second Madonna concert in London on her current tour, I hope it goes as smoothly as your second RfA did. :) Best wishes. Acalamari20:16, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually half way through I realised that I should have said something about that as I don't plan to watch over 60 talk pages for replies. Oh well, I'm glad you popped over and said hello and since you brought the T-shirt I'll let the breach of Nja's talk page policy slide just this once! Nja24720:39, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your thankspam
... you forgot to close it, it will potentially overlap to the bottom of the page, which might confuse new users. Do you want me to do an AWB run and fix it en masse? — neuro(talk)22:00, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, please how stupid of me :/ Thank you I'm off to sleep and really appreciate the assistance. This 5am-11pm stuff for assessments is wearing me down. Cheers. Nja24722:38, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I have left a message on the request for comment page like you have mentioned. But to me it seems as though the page does not have very high rate of usage and that my complaint would not be attended to very soon. I fear this user will return to vandalize articles even further to try and discredit me even more. Its a worry PoorPhotoremovalist (talk) 07:29, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the worry. Requests for comment is well monitored, though if your concern isn't addressed as quickly as you'd like do get back to me. Cheers. Nja24707:31, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Smile!
A NobodyMy talk has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend, Go on smile! Cheers, and Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
This article already exists under the title Cadejo therefore a "merge and redirect" would be appropriate. Since I'm not familiar with deletion templates and its procedures I would like to ask you if you could take care of this. Thanks, --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 13:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The EL CADEJO article as it stands is unlikely to be simply merged into Cadejo as the former needs translation, etc. If you are familiar with what would be appropriate to be included into the Cadejo article then merge what you think is relevant (ie copy/paste) from El Cadejo. I'll do the redirect now and just blank the content in El Cadejo. The old contents will still be visible if you wish to copy/paste relevant items over by viewing the page history. Let me know if this is what you think is best. Nja24719:38, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also note that speedy deletion (ie CSDs) and proposed deletions (PROD) tags can be removed by anyone (except by the original author for CSDs). Thus in the future if there's a CSD and/or PROD tag and it's not your article feel free to do whatever if you think the article is not a good candidate for deletion (or simply needs a redirect as was the case here). Cheers! Nja24719:47, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking care of and thanks for your info. I have no intent to work on this article but maybe the original author does. I'll let him/her know in case s/he shows up again altough I doubt it. Seemes it was a "one day (edit) stand" :) , Regards, --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 14:00, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
greetings fellow [[category:Admins class of 2009]]
Radiant eh? Sounds about right :) I've been doing work in backlogs for now. Not as much as I'd like to do, and I have some editing and GA's to sort, but I've still been a little too busy. Things will wind down soon though and then I can get to work and mess things up. lol. Cheers. Nja24710:55, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
MB and MBA
My problem is the green background and white text (verbatim: "green and white", nothing about yellow). I don't even see the need to use colors to denote the current model. The default colors were fine and didn't cause any issues to begin with. But DON'T combine two bright colors together. It doesn't make it any more easier to read. If you're going to implement this whole color change scheme, you need to be more consistent and implement it for EVERY computer model that's documented in Wikipedia, not just to two models. Some things aren't even in table form. But that's something that needs to be made consistent as well. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 00:34, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You need to implement for every computer that's documented on Wikipedia for consistency. At least apply the same changes to all the current Macs. You're not a new editor; you should know better than to be selective to such an extent as to what to change certain elements for. You want to distinguish the new models? Do it for everything, then. On another note, I just hit the undo button, which would explain why the other edits end up reverting. Sorry about that. And I'm not particularly fond of leaving a conversation on only one person's talk page. Mostly because if it were on your talk page, I wouldn't remember to check back for new replies. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 00:47, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As you plan to discuss here: 1) No, I do not need to do that. It isn't standardised that the current colour scheme is yellow and green, so there's no reason grey and green need be. 2) I'm changing yellow to grey, a more subdued and default wikitable colour background. I do not see why this is an issue for you as I see your point on white text on green background as being bright and will now change it to back to black. Therefore everything will be as before, except the yellow is now grey. Hope this resolves any standing issue you've had with my relatively minor changes to the articles. Nja24700:51, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not actually trying to take ownership. I'm somewhat offend that you're insinuating that, especially since you're an admin. I don't even edit that article without some legitimate reason and I didn't object to the colorful headings to denote current models UNTIL you used white font. Perhaps that should serve an indication as to my stance on the colors issue and an indication as to whether I'm trying to take ownership of articles. As I said, my problem was with the white. The yellow and gray parts were unintentionally reverted; I didn't have any problem with that part, but laziness and business factored into me just clicking on undo instead of going in and changing the specific hex code that I was having issue with. I had already stated hat I merely used the undo button, thus your other revisions got reverted. As for other articles having the same change, this isn't even a case of me requesting it. You're an admin. Surely you recognize the importance of consistency across articles. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 01:22, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There was no insinuation at all. My comment was a friendly reminder to not be viewed as taking ownership; I never said you had as we've discussed it and sorted it (I think?). It's just the reverting that was the issue and could lead some to think otherwise. If you think my comments were anything else then do accept my apology and feel free to remove any wording I used that you don't like. As for the consistency: I agree. But surely you don't expect me to go about it myself? There's no current standard so what am I to do? On a positive not we've achieved consistency today with the grey/green which has been used on MacBook Air for some time now, and now it's applied to MacBook as well. Maybe we've started something that will take hold all across Wikipedia? Doubtful, but who knows. Cheers mate. Nja24701:33, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps. But getting the other Mac articles converted to a table format probably takes precedent. I'll see what I can do in that regard (and perhaps standardize the table format as well) when I can. Butterfly0fdoom (talk)
Ohh, no problem. I've accidentally deleted stuff myself before. I just don't understand why some people are so against including just a mention that a sizable number of people say X instead of 10. ZooCrewMan (talk) 01:58, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly the issue with that example is with 'a sizeable number', as there's no way to prove that. However generally as noted on the OS X talk page I don't see the fuss if worded well. Nja24710:54, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey... you're an administrator now? Cool, congrats. :-) We may not agree on everything but I'm glad you're still around and working on making the encyclopedia great. Warren-talk-23:04, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks mate. We're both trying to do the same thing here really, ie make things a little better. Anytime you need help with anything (adminwise or other) feel free to let me know. Nja24707:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could we possibly have the protection lifted? There's no real dispute- a few people (well, one person, who FPAS has blocked as a sock of a banned user) believe that the lyrics are public domain, but refuse to provide any evidence of that, simply making vague assertions about talking to lawyers and whatnot. The discussion has been ongoing for a few days, and it's clear where the consensus lies. Like yourself, I entered as an uninvolved administrator (from WT:NFC) but it's fairly clear that there is a "right" and "wrong" here- no real dispute. J Milburn (talk) 17:03, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What issues on the talk page? Blocked users throwing around insults, failing to grasp anything, and accusing other users of everything? It's clear what the outcome is here, I think the protection was a little strange in the first place. J Milburn (talk) 21:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There was a request for pp on the article in question and I blocked the anon from adding further EL spam versus protecting the page. Nja24707:29, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bad advice
Preserved to demonstrate how not to assume good faith
As a general rule, if you don't know what you're talking about, it's best not to be giving advice. To whit: yes, role accounts and using an account for spamming -- which creating a user page under the name of the product or service one is advertising certainly qualifies -- is against the rules explicitly and against common sense generally. And if adding only a dozen names to the WP:UAA causes problems, I'd say that the problem lies with the page and not with those who are reporting things on it. I'd also say that any admin who thinks it's a good idea to give a "strong friendly warning" for someone doing basic and uncontroversial clean-up work -- or, indeed, thinks that those adjectives even go together -- is an admin who needs a reality check.
Yikes! Whether I agree with all of it or not, Nja247's comment to you, Calton, was certainly friendly and did not justify the snappish tone with which you just responded to him. --A. B.(talk • contribs)04:34, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect way to start my day. Thanks for the bad faith and lesson in grammar! Although I can assure you the advice wasn't bad, ie use of a company name itself is not a blatant violation warranting reporting to UAA. There were several notes about your reports to UAA prior to mine, thus the strong friendly warning. Nja24707:15, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Calton, saying "Wrong. Check the deletion logs for the User pages. A little homework before giving advice is always good." and "[You need] a Reality Check" is hardly assuming good faith. Even though I was wrong because I didn't notice their deleted contributions, it's hardly my fault. Try to be a bit more friendly, please. Thanks! Cheers. Imperat§ r(Talk)21:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes customised warnings take a little longer, but I don't think 5 minutes was excessive. I have already, or will leave notes to those involved. Nja24718:35, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Twisting the knife
I'd like to keep things with OrangeMarlin from snowballing. To this end, could you have a word with User:Abd? He has continued to inject himself into OrangeMarlin's talk page after being told that OM did not want to hear from him, and edit summaries like this are rather unhelpful. It's hard to see this as anything other than gloating over OM being blocked. I'm asking you because Abd doesn't tend to take advice -- it might carry a little more weight from you since you're the one who blocked OM. Thanks. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:31, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have attempted to vanish from wikipedia. My account was used, not by me, for the purposed of personal attacks. I apologized to the editor, yet he is insistent upon leaving this up even though the username no longer exists. I use that username for personal and professional correspondence and I do not wish it to be linked to me. Please examine the tone of Duke53's edit history to see what I am referring to. I am attempting to retire from editing and will do so once this matter is resolved. How do you suggest I proceed? Thanks Hoopsphanatic (talk) 09:36, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would humbly request that you also check the 'tone' and substance of this guy's edit history, under any usernames he may have used at WP. Editors other than myself feel that his " ... my roommates did it ..." excuse is akin to the old " my dog ate my homework" excuse used by many, many school children through the years. It would be much easier for him to simply walk away now and forget his involvement here. I can find no 'professional' connections for his old username, even after searching at LexisNexis. Cheers. Duke53 | Talk18:15, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've noticed that when you made a username block for User:DEATHTOCLOWNS you also applied an autoblock. I'm not questioning the username block but generally most admins think it's a good idea to block that account only. Leave off the autoblock so that the user can register a new account and contribute. It's obviously a judgment call but this user's name isn't so terrible and there are no contribs so I'd expect a good chance that the user will try to contribute positively given the chance. I hope you don't mind that Ii'm going to go ahead and undo the autoblock so that the user can reregister. Oren0 (talk) 07:38, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I also modified the block to remove the account creation restriction. Obviously I'm not trying to wheel war with you in any way but I'm just assuming you left the blocks checked as they are by default. The important thing is the username, not to ban the person from WP for life. Oren0 (talk) 07:46, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No issue, but remember the account creation restriction is only for 24 hours. It's only the IP restriction that's permanent (and note that I didn't check that option). It wasn't a good faith name, ie a name of a company, thus I figured a 24 hour restriction wasn't a bad idea in this case, though I'm not bothered. Thanks. Nja24707:53, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have checked the edit history of the sock investigation Sockpuppet investigations/Mwalla and it appears that of the people who contributed opinions (outside individuals) that none are administrators. How can I or we get an admin to look into this? Could you look into it and pass a decision? Nobody seems to be actively reviewing the sock investigation.--Literaturegeek | T@1k?11:36, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The final conclusion needs done someone specifically with WP:Checkuser rights. The most I could do is temporarily block any disruptive accounts whilst the investigation is underway for anything they may do that falls within the blocking policy. Nja24714:03, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah right yea I forgot about checkuser rights. I just read this blocking policy. Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Evasion_of_blocks and I think that as an independent BOT which I assume must have checkuser capabilities detected two new sock puppets and the fact that not only are they evading your 1 week block but are continuing to be desruptive and trying to create conflicts that all of their sock puppets should be blocked and that the block should be extended to 1 month on all of their suspected sockpuppet accounts, certainly at least the two new ones which an independent BOT detected and the Mwalla account. Closeindex and Freerangeraider are their two new sock accounts. If they were not being desruptive I probably wouldn't be too worried about them evading a block I am just getting tired of their nonsense.--Literaturegeek | T@1k?15:38, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please help [2]. 100% all edits by this IP is reverts, edit war and vulgarity. Please block for him (forever).
This is a permanent IP. LUCPOL (talk) 18:06, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked but further vandalism (personal attack and trolling) by him [3]. Please, block for him - blocked indefinitely for repeated vandalism. LUCPOL (talk) 18:36, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi i'm pretty new to adding web content to wikipedia my page has been deleted for breach of copyright i am the creator of the data on the website and i also own the domain whihc the data is stored on, all data which is stored on this domain is in the public domain and is freely distributable, can i get the site reinstated
Why wasn't it? I doubt the comments about monkey balls and a named person abusing drugs and having a small penis will be missed in the page history. Nja24719:05, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't object and certainly won't miss it, just seemed unusually harsh and "extra-efforty" for how those types of vandalisms are usually dealt with. DMacks (talk) 19:46, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly it was. I'll take extra care next time when I'm thinking about removing that type of vandalism in that manner. Cheers. Nja24719:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose, but I wanted to drop you a note so you know it's not a reason to start any edit wars or break 3RR since it's not obvious vandalism. I've always used percent myself, but whatever. Nja24719:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm just curious as to why you removed my UAA report of UAA:Lazor poop as non-blatant. Granted, I realize he/she hadn't made any contributions, but it is still a blatant violation of WP:U, many editors (myself included) find having a scat term such as poop or shit in a username to be offensive and distracting, and usual practice has been to block newly created accounts that include the term poop. Thanks! -Senseless!... says you, says me16:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Templated. Could be a good faith contributor, best to just uw unless it is blatantly an account name that is intended to be disruptive (as opposed to just being a new user which is unfamiliar with WP:IU). — neuro(talk)(review)19:02, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Saying "usual practice" implies no admin discretion, and I'm not of the view that poop itself is offensive. If the user is editing in good faith there is no violation to me. And if there's no edits then we should assume good faith unless a blatant violation. Granted poop may imply an intention to be disruptive, but it's in no way offensive and I'm not 'welcoming' them to Wikipedia with a block without evidence they're actually going to be disruptive. The term poop in a user name is not the same as shit would be. Nja24719:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, I figured it was sysop discretion... though I disagree that a block with a polite request to create a new account in this instance would be bitey. There is a violation of WP:U if enough users find the username offensive or disruptive. -Senseless!... says you, says me19:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you believe it would be a good thing that any user should be blocked simply because it's possible that enough people (who may be overly sensitive) could find it to be offensive -- even though there's no evidence that they will disrupt Wikipedia? I understand it could be accompanied by a 'polite request', but truly how polite and welcoming is it to be blocked? It's better to do as neuro has and template the user and if you're really concerned watch their edits for actual disruption and then report as then there's no question of whether there's an offence and further they've demonstrated they're not going to be acting in good faith. Note I'd agree with you if the word was indeed shit. Nja24720:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Almost every other example I've seen of a user with "poop" in their username was blocked on sight, regardless of whether they were acting in good faith or being disruptive. My understanding was that consensus viewed "poop" as offensive, and if that isn't the case anymore, I'm sorry for bringing this up and now I know. Regardless, its done now, lets see if anything comes of the UW tag. -Senseless!... says you, says me20:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I admit to occasional outbursts of frustration in dealing with the dozens of sock puppets routinely created by this permanently and multiply-banned user. But I can't say I find your suggestion of dispute resolution helpful. In what sense is there a dispute over the proposition that banned users aren't permitted to edit Wikipedia? JQ (talk) 08:01, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SPI is the proper place for suspected socks, not edit summaries or talk pages. Outbursts will not solve the problem, rather reports to the proper forum. When you feel too frustrated it's a good idea to walk away and take a little break. That's what I do! Cheers. Nja24708:05, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I went to WP:SPI and got nowhere. By the time they even got around to filing the report, six more socks had been created and banned by admins with a more flexible view. Semi-protection is the only measure that has had any effect at all, but apparently that's out too. JQ (talk) 08:10, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protection is suited against high levels of vandalism, but not that by a single user. In that case we need to block that individual, not the entire world from editing. It's really not too difficult to press the undo button and report issues as they appear. Nja24708:16, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you go back to the start of this, I anticipated responses like yours and asked admins to look at the dozens of socks created by this persistent troll. He has been permanently blocked for well over a year, to no avail, and will edit-war continuously, creating new socks as needed, until the article in question is semi-protected. Your advice to undo is totally ineffectual, and leads to accusations under 3RR. Can I ask you to confirm that you've reviewed at least a sample of his sock edits before jumping to conclusions on this matter? JQ (talk) 11:04, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As a further minor note, the IP editor with the most recent edit to John Maynard Keynes is almost certainly KiK, taking advantage of your decision against semi-protection (several IP socks with the same top-level IP have been blocked already). JQ (talk) 11:19, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So that is my fault? It's not difficult to undo, report and block. Protecting a page just for one person is not the best way to handle this. Nja24711:41, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm bowing out at this point. Perhaps, as a gesture of goodwill, you might handle the "undo report and block", at least for this article. I've done this a few hundred times already. JQ (talk) 11:46, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Any sysops who plan to jump in, or who believe that the page should be protected against one user, please by all means go for it as I won't be offended or consider it a wheel war. -- Nja24711:51, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello
You left me a message just now, however i'm not edit warring I'm trying to avoid an edit war by requesting help against vandalism and WP violations. Sorry for the misunderstanding. Please see my last few contributions. Greater Syria (talk) 08:02, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Building a concensus on the talk page doesn't protect against edit wars. Someone always just comes along and starts one. I have spent a lot of my time seeking out and adding reliable sources which are being deleted without any good reason. I expected more support from fellow wikipedians in a situation like this. Greater Syria (talk) 08:13, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus is the whole basis on which things work mate. The fact that the article's talk page had nothing from you about this issue until my warning shows that you may have been going about it the wrong way. If you discuss the proposed changes first then there won't be anyone coming along and deleting it without an good reason because it will have been agreed upon. You have my support if you're going about it the right way, which you were not up until now. Nja24708:19, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If a concensus is not based on facts then it's not valid, see WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. If statements can be reliably sourced then they are valid, see WP:RELIABLE. I don't agree that I have gone about things in the wrong way as I have sought dispute resolution [4], used the talk page [5], and i'm following wikipolicy. Greater Syria (talk) 08:37, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why you're preaching to me as I'm not in the content dispute with you. And yes it's a content dispute which must be addressed on the talk page, failure of which is an edit war that will get you blocked. Further, whilst I'm glad you're now using the talk page, the one post today after I warned you to do so is not a very illustrative example. Cheers. Nja24708:51, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
JQ and Keynes
Hi Nja! I'm a bit concerned about your handling of the RPP by JQ. Your decision not to semi is a matter of personal weighting - the rate of edits is not currently very high, but if you look carefully, you will see that there is indeed a pattern of a whole cloud of SPA socks pushing a POV over and over again. With this background, the warning you gave to User:John Quiggin is a bit over the line. He actually knows something about this topic, and about what he is doing. If his patience with the endless stream of socks wears thin, who can blame him? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:57, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry, but there is nothing over the line with my note that blanking pages and calling others a troll is disruptive. I've explained above how this situation would be best handled, and his actions whether out of frustration or not are particularly troublesome as he's not new here. Sometimes people need to know when to walk away to cool down instead of making the situation worse. Regardless I respect your opinion, but there's really no excuse for those examples of behaviour and he was entitled to a notice that further examples of that type of behaviour could lead to him being blocked for disruption. Nja24710:38, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Others" in this case being a cloud of socks that actually do troll. Conflict resolution can work between established users, but it cannot work between a user and an cloud of socks. As far as I can tell, CR has run its course, and the sockmaster has been blocked. What now needs doing is effective enforcement of the result of the CR process. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:00, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'ld like to back Stephen up here. KiK is a very persistent and rude troll, with a long history and an extensive collection of socks. He has repeatedly insulted various long term contributors. I agree that JQ's actions are a little over the line, but you should consider that KiK has repeatedly insulted many of us, and that tempers have sometimes gotten a bit frayed. LK (talk) 11:21, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I understand how frustrating things can get, which is why I said all along that sometimes you need to just step back and relax and press the undo button and file proper reports where needed. Overall you need to have a thick skin and try not stoop down to their level. I hope we can all just please move on now as I'd like to begin my Easter holiday soon ;-) Nja24711:41, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just to note that it was filing reports in (what I thought was) the proper place that got me into trouble with you. I won't try that again in a hurry. JQ (talk) 12:04, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be getting irritated with me because of a decision which was mine to make. I've given my reasoning for the decision, which you're free to disagree with. You're not in trouble with anyone, but I felt you deserved to be told that certain disruptive behaviour regardless of how frustrated you are could get you in trouble. My note on your talk page had nothing to do with your actual report, but your past behaviour. You shouldn't be discouraged or feel victimised because of this or due to my decision that page protection was not the answer to the problem. I have mentioned what I felt to be the most appropriate ways to deal with issue and therefore I won't bore anyone by rehashing. -- Nja24712:20, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, just want to let you know that we're not trying to second guess your decision on page protection. As you rightly point out, it's your prerogative, and we accept it. I left a message because I didn't want you to go away with the impression that JQ had been unfairly persecuting KiK. KiK is prolific, and rather than read through everything to identify good vs bad edits (which often have personal insults mixed in as well), a group of us have just been blanket reverting his edits whenever another sock is identified. Also want to say thanks for your admin work, which I know is a hard and thankless job. LK (talk) 11:31, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article is a copyright violation from its very first edit, and whinging about 'good faith' is utterly immaterial. Copyright violations are deleted, full stop, and sparing your feelings and/or undergoing pointless--and, in fact, incorrect--processes doesn't enter into it. The tag is correct--indeed, required--so discussion is pointless and your 'warning' utterly misplaced. Strive to do better in future, please.
Also, I have no intention of watch-listing other people's pages, so if you have a reply, you'll have to actually leave it where it can be read. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 15:13, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your absolute disregard of bed-rock rules of Wikipedia and copyright law and of ordinary rules of discourse and courtesy are not merely saddening but actively worrying. Reverting an edit has nothing to do with and says nothing what-so-ever about faith--good or bad--especially corrections of mistakes regarding objective and clear-cut criteria. Your leaning upon claims of 'good faith' as a defence against being reverted for doing something that is wrong is not only utterly irrelevant but intellectually dishonest. If you view having your obvious mistakes reverted as some sort of attack upon yourself, perhaps you should either cease making those mistakes to avoid being disappointed or learn to deal with correction: meaningless claims regarding 'good faith' offers not the slightest immunity from scrutiny nor correction. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 22:49, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst there were edits, there weren't three reverts in an edit war within 24 hours. Overall you and the other user need to discuss the content dispute so as to not disrupt Wikipedia. Blocks are meant to prevent disruption, not to be punitive (see our blocking policy. I've spoke with the user you've reported, and they seem keen to discuss the issues, and I hope you'll do the same. Cheers. -- Nja24718:07, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again I spoke to the user who said they wish to work out the content dispute, which you are part of and therefore you should also work with them to resolve. Your time would be better used doing that rather than trying to argue to me that someone deserves a 12 or 24 hour block for an alleged 3RR violation that would have happened many hours ago. Blocks are not meant to be punitive and the user is currently not a threat to warrant a block to prevent disruption. Nja24718:47, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the edits 218.186.8.246 made, compared with edits this user made. Elemental of Truth has been proven as a ColourWolf vandal before. The only difference between the two edits is the absence of a link to a website, operated by ColourWolf (the website has been taken off the net as of late).
I wanted to thank you again for your efforts to settle the OS X debate. I am sorry that 1) I lost my cool with everyone else on that discussion page, and 2) that I kind of dropped out of the discussion half way through. I had been traveling for work and was without internet access.
I really appreciate your efforts, but sadly, I think the whole experience has really turned me off to the whole idea of wikipedia. I still intend to use it as a reference tool, but I don't think I'll be contributing anymore.
Thanks again for your help, and keep up the good work!
re:
11:45, 5 April 2009 Nja247 (talk | contribs) deleted "Megan Olson" (G12: Blatant copyright infringement: Also A7)
Greetings, I'm writing on behalf of the american artist Megan Olson (www.meganolson.com). Ms. Olson came across her wiki page in a recent gooogle search. She has not ever created a Wikipedia page, and is curious if you can let us know who created the page and what it contained? If there is a way for us to view the originally submitted content, and if you have any information about who created the page, we would be grateful if you could forward us any info you have.
Dear nja247,
I am rather disappointed to see that you have deleted the list of Presidents of the Law Society that I worked on last night for Wikipedia.
There are certainly other examples of lists of members of particular societies on Wikipedia (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Fellows_of_the_Royal_Society) and many Presidents of the Law Society are certainly 'notable' people and some already have biographies in Wikipedia.
Can we have a discussion about this? I could setup a different page that was the list of Presidents that would not make the main Law Society page so long (I realise that visually I did not lay this out very well).
Best regards,
Dr Gavin Thomas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GavinThomas (talk • contribs) 09:14, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Gavin, I will certainly work with you on this. I know you did work on the list and I personally know how it feels to have stuffed removed from articles, although I assure you that I did not do so for an arbitrary reason. The issue is Wikipedia's guidelines on notability. It's an encyclopaedia, not a directory and/or repository of information (see what Wikipedia is not). The example you gave exists (admittedly by a thread) due to notability guidelines being marginally met, though I think even that list needs some attention. Anyhow if notability guidelines could be met here then it could be re-added, though I'd think by use of a well drafted table rather than a long list of names. Regardless I'm unsure how past president's of the Law Society are really going to be notable enough for inclusion into an encyclopaedia. This is not to say that a particular president individually may be notable for something extraordinary that they've done, which means they could be added. However the lot of them as was done is unlikely to meet the guideline. Nja24712:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No mistake, there was not a 3RR violation. I've given sufficient direction to the other user and hopefully now things will be sorted. Nja24711:05, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed no 3RR violation. But an edit war there was (as you indicated yourself in your warning to User:Wikiaddict8962). Shouldn't the "result" parameter reflect this? At the moment it reads only "No vio" which seems to implicate that nothing untoward has been detected. Debresser (talk) 13:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm wondering if you would consider an unblock of User talk:Ladysybilla to allow a chance to at least make their argument before the article is deleted. I'm confident that it's not likely to find any WP:RS and will likely be deleted but those edits were not the most horrible thing we've had. If the promotional conduct continues afterwards, then a reblock can be done. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:24, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't have considered this due to the clear guidance found in the username policy, however the latter comment gives me confidence that they are aware of policy and are unlikely to disrupt Wikipedia. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Nja24707:34, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I thought about that, but overall the edits were pushing a specific gaming site and thus in my view disruptive to Wikipedia. However I'm completely fine if you have an alternate view and wish to revise things. Cheers. Nja24719:21, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually what I meant is that the edits seemed to be pushing the organisation the article is about, in particular implying affiliation with it personally. For example here 'our members' 'our community' 'we', etc. Nja24719:30, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there! For your information, I tagged this as G3 and not A7 because it is a copy-paste of Gandhi's biography, in other words a blatant hoax. That's my opinion, anyway. decltype (talk) 20:15, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Saint Thomas Aquinas High School (Fort Lauderdale) & Gerard Schaefer
I added Gerard Schaefer back to the page, and added a link to back up my claim.
Please let me know if this is acceptable to you.
Template:Allmovie title/doc
Hello, NJA …
Thnx fer the administrative cleanup of this doc page … I'd forgotten that it was still on my watchlist until it went redlink. :-)
You're absolutely right, in every respect. I will be more careful in the future -- I think I've got to slow down and maybe stop using Huggle for a while, it's too easy to do the unthinking thing. I'll put an explanation of what I did wrong on his talk page tomorrow morning (when I'm awake and can think of the right thing to say). Again, thank you for your guidance. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 04:13, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for listening and taking my criticism constructively. Overall you do fine work and it's most definitely appreciated. Stick with your plan and I'm sure you'll continue to do brilliantly. Cheers. Nja24708:51, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Grsz11
I wanted to alert you to this, this, and this. Despite attempts at legitimate discussion, designed to promote stability and minimize disruption, Grsz11 (talk·contribs) has begun pushing through his own POV, without the support of consensus. Since I have been blocked and warned repeatedly for the same exact thing, I was hoping something could be done about this. -- Grant.Alpaugh04:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like a single revert to me. A lot less than Grant, who has been given a final warning. I won't edit it again now, but I hope you keep your word Nja. Grsz1104:50, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Grsz, restrain yourself from engaging in edit wars also, or you may become subject to sanctions to prevent disruption to Wikipedia. The best course of action for you at this point is to engage in discussion on the request for comment regarding Grant.Alpaugh. This is the best place to place all your thoughts and experiences rather than exhausting yourself on numerous talk pages. That way everything is centralised and the community will be able to come to a consensus on the best course of action to take. This however doesn't mean my final warning issued yesterday is invalid. Nja24708:41, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would also like to emphasize my numerous attempts to further discussion (as my contributions page will attest to), which Grsz seems completely uninterested in. The fact that Grsz11 immediately reverts any comment I leave on his talk page, further underlines his unwillingness to hear other opinions. I feel that Grsz11 is attempting to exploit my recent sanctions in order to push his own POV, and would even argue that he has attempted to bait me into violating my 0RR by making controversial edits. Please apply the same standards of behavior to Grsz11. -- Grant.Alpaugh05:01, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Grant, I have tried discussing with you. Every effort proves useless because you're so caught up in the "I'm right and everybody else is my enemy" mentality that it's impossible for others to deal with you. The RfC will now take over from here and we'll see what happens. Grsz1113:38, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I just thought it was done pretty regularly, no need to have two pages with the same template and only that template, but I really don't care either way. Also, would you mind if I e-mailed you regarding something? Grsz1119:09, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, I can see your point but I think it's best to allow talk pages to be exactly that and not redirects. And yes I have an email address registered and don't mind receiving them, Nja24719:12, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like Grant wants his IP address unblocked. I left a note telling him to get away from Wikipedia for awhile, but probably should have an admin deny his unblock request.[6] --Bobblehead(rants)22:41, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
another editor about 3RR block on 70.71.22.45
Dear Nja247,
I am not sure I'm doing this correctly, but I wish to add some comments about the situation that created the 3RR, and hope that you will reconsider the block on 70.71.22.45. I would have posted them earlier, but I did not know about the block on 70.71.22.45 until today.
Thanks, being that the block ends in under 4 hours I think it's late for it to have been brought to my attention. However thanks for doing so regardless. Nja24706:54, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Taiwan edit war
Hi, Nja, this is regarding the AN3 report I filed the other day about Taiwan, in which you suggested contacting you if the edit war resumed. Well, the two editors (contributions and contributions) are at it again, and though neither have broken 3RR, they're exactly at 3 reverts. It seems likely, given their very recent warning that they'll just continue as soon as 24h rolls over. Could you look into this and see if any action is warranted at this point? Sorry if this is premature. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 20:17, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see that you deleted the CrashPlan PRO article. I ask you to reconsider because I modeled this article based on the format and content used in the currently posted article about Backblaze. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backblaze
I believe that in a list of remote backup services CrashPlan and CrashPlan PRO should be included.
Not sure what is missing in the CrashPlan PRO article that makes it a candidate for removal. Please offer specific suggestions about what needs to be changed.
I thought about replying on the AIV page, then decided it was better to take it to your talk page so as not to annoy anyone else.
To the point... I really don't mean to insult your knowledge of policy or anything, but I wasn't reporting because the user was ignoring warnings. I was reporting the user because the account has only been used for vandalism, and from WP:VANDAL, "Note that warnings are not always required; accounts whose main or only use is obvious vandalism or other forbidden activity may be blocked without warning." If you don't think the user has made enough edits to consider that then I would understand, but that isn't what your reply says. I don't understand why the user needs to edit after the final warning in this case. KhalfaniKhaldun07:09, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what you were reporting, but I've seen much worse offenders and therefore I think it's best to wait and allow them a last chance via the last warning you gave. If they continue to edit in a disruptive manner then they will be blocked without question. If that happens, report them to AIV or to me and it'll get sorted. Thanks for your work! Nja24707:21, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion of Michelle Knight
Hi, can you tell me why the page was deleted and what must be done to rememdy the situation please. The links were all to active content after reading the G8 link on the notes. Many thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Msknight (talk • contribs) 07:44, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK - so what must be done to remedy? I'm having a hard job finding the right things to do. I thought I've moved it from user page to discussion as requred to mark the page as a biography. How do I get the page back and put it up for discussion? I also need help putting in a "bio" box with small picture but I can't find how to in all the options. I just seem to be going around in click circles! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Msknight (talk • contribs) 07:50, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well actually to be honest it would have been deleted anyhow as the article has issues fulfilling biography inclusion criteria, further it seemed promotional and also your user name implies you're connected with the person which is a conflict of interest. Consider all of these policies and decide what to do, however keep in mind continuning to edit with a conflict of interest will result in sanctions. Nja24707:58, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes exactly. Also it isn't about just being able to prove it, but also whether the person is notable enough for inclusion into an encyclopaedia. This latter bit is usually easily satisfied through a reliable third party source. But regardless editors should have no connection to avoid conflicts. Nja24708:12, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You know ... I can see both sides to the morality of the situation, but in practice is it honestly good to have a position which is unenforceable? All I'd need to do is get an e-mail addy on another domain and hop on to a remote server to make edits. Sounds to me like the honest suffer, while those with no scruples can publish what they like as long as it is true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Msknight (talk • contribs) 08:16, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well we don't want an encyclopaedia which reads as a personal web space. Note there are many keen editors and policies in place to discover this type of behaviour and block or ban those who engage in it. Nja24708:20, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So, the only other question is am I notable enough now with some TV and media appearances, a couple of fiction books, etc. or would it need to wait until after the film is finished and out? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Msknight (talk • contribs) 08:26, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Also, i've read Michele Knights page and there aren't any links to anything that back up what is claimed there, just external links. How is what is written, confirmed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Msknight (talk • contribs) 08:29, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have tagged the article and will bring it up in later in the reliable sources noticeboard for discussion, however this will be later as I'm now going offline. As for your former query, please again consider everything I said and those policies and guidelines noted. Nja24708:36, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Nja, I'll keep an eye on here and if you could provide a link to the discussion so I can watch (I don't expect I could take part) I'd be grateful as I'm still having a job navigating this site. Also, in terms of significance, does it relate only to "fame" or does the part I played in the transsexual publicity movement and support also count? There is more information on that here http://msknight.com/index.php?page=39 - plus other things I'm involved with! I hear what you're saying about some of the links sounding like advertising; I did remove a couple of the links but I needed help with the others, as it is a difficult think to draw the line between supporting what is written and seeming to tout for business. ... or should those links be at the bottom in External Links? Catch you when you're back online. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Msknight (talk • contribs) 08:43, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
LOL I'm honestly going out the door, but quickly -
Other article: Yes I'll let you know about discussion on the article once it's opened.
Conflict: I think if you were an unconnected person you would likely be able to meet notability guidelines. However being that you're connected it's completely prohibited to edit on this subject.
Help: Aside from reading over the links I posted on your talk page, note that if you have general queries that you cannot sort out after having read the guidance, then you may post them at Wikipedia:New_contributors'_help_pageorWikipedia:Help_desk. Though again, remember not to not edit in conflict of interest or you will be blocked from editing. Nja24709:06, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks NJA, I've been having a think and to me, it is more immoral to ask someone unconnected to me, to post the article on my behalf and make it appear as if it is their edit; to me that's even more false than anything else. So I guess I'll have to stay an unknown in the world of Wikipedia :-)
Many thanks for the effort in helping me and I'd still like to follow the conversation; it looks to be an interesting one! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Msknight (talk • contribs) 09:10, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
The more I think about it, Nja, the more I can't fathom it. Surely it would be better spending time policing the encyclopedia nature of an article than stopping people from posting things on articles about themselves? Far better to introduce a system of providing proof to senior editors than to miss out on information that otherwise wouldn't be known? Reading Michele Knights page, the facts there would either have come from someone connected to Michele or else probably come from someone who read her auto-biography ... which is just the same thing anyway! It isn't making sense to me. Far better to police the encyclopedic nature of the entries and for some picture upload so than people can provide proof of documentation which is then reviewed and deleted; that has much more integrity to something rather than someone unrelated copying something that has been published in an auto-biography anyway. Am I making sense?--Msknight (talk) 13:54, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
I mean, think about it. If I published my auto biography with a load of, "fatcs," in it, and then you were to buy the book and make a wikipedia article from it; where is the integrity in that?[reply]
If someone were to put something from an autobiography in to a persons wikipedia page and a senior editor asked for proof; the person submits a picture of the page from the autobiography and the senior editor can kick it back.
Now if I wanted to put a fact about myself on the page, say when I changed my name, the senior editor could ask for proof, I could submit a picture of my statutory declaration and that has far more integrity to it. Pictures of the books I've written, copies of my status as a Union grievance and disciplinary rep and negotiator ... the pictures of the articles I've appeared in ... how more solid and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedic article could someone get? See where I'm coming from?--Msknight (talk) 14:06, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You make some points raised before, but that's just how it is I'm afraid. I'm only here to alert you of policy and ensure compliance to the best of my ability; not discuss its flaws or changes to be made. The place to check out proposals and discussion on policy, etc is at Wikipedia_Village_Pump. If you have specific examples from the article noted above then do collect them so it can be raised at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard. Cheers. Nja24714:14, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK - I've got it. "Writing an autobiography on Wikipedia is strongly discouraged, unless your writing has been approved by other editors in the community. " so I can write an autobiography and then submit it for approval. Now to find the process ... and the code for the square that normally appears in the top right for a simple picture and basic details. I'm starting to get the hang (very slightly!) of reading this site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Msknight (talk • contribs) 14:33, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm honestly not sure, but that place (ie your user space) is better than on the encyclopaedia itself. I'd put a note at top that it's a draft and you plan to seek consensus so that it's not deleted. I think a safe bet would be to consult immediately eitherWikipedia:Editor_assistance/RequestsorWikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard on what you plan to do. I'd try the former first. Choose only one forum at a time however and if it's the wrong place then move on to where you were told the better place would be. Hope it all works out. Just ensure you've got that consensus from the community that it's okay so as to avoid immediate blocking due to conflict of issue. Good luck. Nja24714:46, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Adding and removing tags without discussion is not helpful, and can be seen as disruptive. Where there is disagreement, both sides should attempt to discuss the situation rather than play whack-a-mole. Though I'll look into it. Nja24722:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bit quick on the delete there! I was just about to suggest redirecting the title to List of shipwrecks in 2009 where the sinking is now adequately covered for Wikipedia purposes. Essence (yacht) has been created as a redirect. Mjroots (talk) 10:35, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was easy to see where it was going (ie WP:SNOW). Regardless I've added that redirect as I don't see anything wrong with that suggestion. Cheers, Nja24710:43, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Yep
Heh, I was just trying to locate a reference for that when I got your message ;-)
It did occur to me that it was Question Time, not Newsnight, however. I'll keep hunting and hopefully add a WP:CITE shortly.
Smallish update: it was me who invented Newsnight - the IP correctly mentioned Question Time. I have to admit to being unable to find any refs; plenty of blog mentions but nothing from a WP:RS. I'll keep hunting... This flag once was redpropagandadeeds11:26, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ADHD
Hello NJA
The same issue has been consuming the ADHD pages (see also ADHD) for over a year. As you will quickly become aware if you read back in the history there have been arguments between Scuro and a number of editors including: myself Doc James, T@1k?, Abd, Ss06470, Clockback. This main issue IMO is that Scuro does not want any evidence presented which questions ADHD or puts it in a controversial light. I have started a content RFC in an attempt to deal with this issue but it keeps gettings side tracked. I understand LG frusteration. Hope you can help straighten things out. Thanks in advance. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:45, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well at least you're honest about past mistakes. The point is to move forward and it's brilliant that you're now trying to go about correctly. As for the linked to RFC, no that's not a proper RFC, rather a discussion on a talk page (though there's nothing wrong with it and it's still evidence of an attempt to resolve issues). I'd hold off for now on filing any proper RFC though as I've posted the alert on WP:WQA, which will hopefully serve the same purpose of an RFC, but quicker. Nja24714:17, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
About your removal of my comment directed to Doc James, Nja, it was reasonable, and I have no problem with it, to be explicit, but, again, it may be more efficient to just leave it, as Bwilkins apparently decided. I'll leave a suggestion for Doc James on his Talk as well, just to be thorough. --Abd (talk) 18:48, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On that topic, I have re-added some comments as I believe they may indeed be germaine to the discussion - it's good that discussion is moving (talk→BWilkins←track) 17:14, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Please keep in mind that, in general, AfDs should remain open for the full seven days; this also applies to relisting. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk00:21, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I recently nominated Make It at AfD. However, I had also bundled Movin' Out (Aerosmith song) with that nomination, and it appears that you may have not noticed that when you deleted Make It. If the consensus was delete, does that apply to both articles? If so, then Movin' Out (Aerosmith song) should also be deleted. Besides that, the AfD tag was still on Movin' Out (Aerosmith song), so I'm assuming that you didn't see it. I'm removing the tag from the article, as the discussion is closed, but feel free to let me know if you decide to delete it too.--DisturbedNerd999(Delete!)01:50, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it should cover both and I apologise for my rubbish attempts at closing AFDs today. Really. I will delete it now. Thanks for letting me know. Cheers, Nja24701:52, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please have another look at this and justfy or reverse your decision? Closing a discussion with 7 "delete" !votes, 2 "weak keep" and 5 "keep" as "keep" needs at least a rationale, especially when all the "deletes" are policy based, one "weak keep" is "full emphasis on the weak" and three "keeps" have been contested as irrelevant. I think it was a matter of judgement whether to close this as "delete" or "no consensus", and I imagine that you didn't look closely enough. The difference between "keep" and "no consensus" is very important in this case since some users are trying to game the system (see the 3 contested "keeps"). If artificially inflated articles about practically no relations are kept because 3 editors argue we should wait for a specific guideline rather than because of anything having to do with the article topic, this may lead to the guideline saying that such topics are notable when they are not – a "notability" that would stem from waiting for the guideline. --Hans Adler (talk) 09:00, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's no reversal mate, it's closed as a default keep due to no consensus. If you have issues with the decision or believe that some people unduly affected the outcome then consider taking it on to review. It may as well be that it should be deleted, however there wasn't a solid enough consensus for me to make that call. Again, closed for no consensus, please don't point to my close as a keep, in that it was a default keep due to no consensus. I realised it wasn't clear after being told of it, and I updated it to reflect my decision clearly, yet your asking me about the old version. Please only consider the current version. Nja24709:08, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do I detect some irritation in your response? I think I have reason to be irritated since you changed the result while I was writing the above message. There was no way I could know this since you deleted the relevant communication, which arrived while I was writing, before I clicked "Save page"; as I was adding a new section I didn't get an edit conflict. Perhaps you can take this experience into account the next time you act on a valid complaint. --Hans Adler (talk) 09:23, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've broken done this response to address each issue separately:
Your detection of irritation through a typed response - Really? No comment, though please AGF.
My deletion of 'relevant communication' - Well, no it's not deleted as you found it. I tend to remove things from my talk page when sorted, so please don't dream up stuff based on me doing things per usual.
Your valid complaint - I never said it was invalid and I invite questions on issues that concern you. I tried to give a concise reasoning as to why things are the way they are. It was meant to be too the point and without fluff.
Finally...going back to your complaint: you broke down the !vote figures yourself, and I would hope you would agree based on those, along with the content of the discussion on the AFD that there wasn't a solid consensus. Therefore it's closed as such. Nja24709:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. OK, so only I was irritated. I still think it makes sense to wait a little longer before deleting (of course it was deleted, and of course it wasn't oversighted) such a message; I would simply have removed mine in this case, immediately after saving it. If this is your general practice I imagine that you also run into occasional problems with complainants themselves, when they don't see your edit summary and don't realise you have acted. But that's obviously not my business. --Hans Adler (talk) 09:45, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well in the case of this discussion it won't be removed until I know it's sorted, however in terms of the note you mentioned from a fellow admin -- I knew there was nothing to discuss since I simply took his advice to clarify what I meant to do. Cheers nonetheless, and I do apologise for any confusion. That's certainly not my intention. Nja24709:50, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey NJA
I hope things improve and we can move forwards based no the research. Scuro sees the conclusion as being in his favor: "Administrators listened to my problems in a recent action called a "Wikiquette alert". The irony here is that the action was filled against me and in the end you could sense that they were sympathetic to the page ownership problems I have been facing on this article." Was this the intent? Thanks. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely not, he's reading in what he wants to into that admittedly failed process. The discussion was allowed to be diverted from conduct to rehashing closed issues and that's what I hoped to avoid. I believe that a proper request for comment should be filed by editors who have a long history with the user (I don't). If one gets opened, then find another user to endorse it and add in their examples and then link people who'd have an interest to comment (including myself). Nja24707:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Further it should be noted that I specifically requested in the WQA that he provide a listing of what he disputes and his sources to verify the claims. I have yet to receive any communication from him. Nja24709:17, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have a further concern. I nominated ADHD many months ago for the medical collaboration of the week to bring more eyes to the editing process. Scuro than adds "This page and it's sister page ADHD controversies has one or more contributors with HUGE ownership issues as documented by an administrator. Nothing has changed. Do not waste anyone's time with this article until the process of consensus is firmly established once more"[7] Scuro accuses others of all sort of ownership however I consider this a direct attempt to keep other editors away. Could this be justification for a topic ban? Also do all his accusations count as not AGF? Many thanks --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! for recognizing continued tension and for 'Re-opened, proposal'. I suppose I was responsible for this: "The discussion was allowed to be diverted from conduct to rehashing closed issues and that's what I hoped to avoid." Just wanted to see what happened when I took him absolutely seriously. Result? It is now suggested that I consider "suffer" to be biased, tho I said the opposite. - Hordaland (talk) 10:51, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the help in this matter. I find the insults from Scuro to be subtle and I can see how someone who does not look closely might miss them. It looks like the WQA unfortunately has failed. I know that you started this with the best intentions and appreciate the effort. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:41, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That was truly wrongly closed in my opinion, but this does not mean you shouldn't consider filing a proper request for comment if things don't pan out. It's difficult for me to continue spending my energy on this when people are ignoring the purpose of dispute resolution and treating things as a WP:BURO. Cheers, Nja24720:59, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see you put a decline on the request for semi-protection on the Bianca Ryan page, applying the "not enough recent activity" boilerplate. Like many other Wikipedia phenomena, this seems specious. So what constitutes "enough"? There are numerous examples of vandalism on this page. If you'll notice, the last 4 edits on this page were related to vandalism. Semi-protection would be a simple measure to keep the IP idiots off the page.Docsavage20 (talk) 19:23, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Heya, well in that case there hasn't been an edit in two weeks to the article. Generally, protection will only be considered in the event of extremely high levels of recent vandalism. Hope that's helpful in answering your question, Nja24720:00, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All you've done is reword what's on the boilerplate without explaining anything. So there hasn't been activity in 2 weeks. On just the current pages of edits are numerous cases of vandalism, all by unregistered IP users which semi-protection would have addressed.Docsavage20 (talk) 22:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I hope you are doing well. I am sending you this message since you are a member of the GA WikiProject. I would like to invite you to consider helping with the GA sweeps process. Sweeps helps to ensure that the oldest GAs still meet the criteria, and improve the quality of GAs overall. Unfortunately, last month only two articles were reviewed. This is definitely a low point after our peak at the beginning of the process when 163 articles were reviewed in September 2007. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. All exempt and previously reviewed articles have already been removed from the list. Instead of reviewing by topic, you can consider picking and choosing whichever articles interest you.
We are always looking for new members to assist with the remaining articles, so if you are interested or know of anybody that can assist, please visit the GA sweeps page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles or has a significant impact on the process, s/he will get an award when they reach that threshold. If only 14 editors achieve this feat starting now, we would be done with Sweeps! Of course, having more people reviewing less articles would be better for all involved, so please consider asking others to help out. Feel free to stop by and only review a few articles, something's better than nothing! Take a look at the list, and see what articles interest you. Let's work to complete Sweeps so that efforts can be fully focused on the backlog at GAN. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 08:34, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I saw you closed this AfD discussion as keep. For some reason, I still see the AfD notice at the top of the page. When I edit the page, I don't see it. I tried refresh - still shows. Odd. Do you still see the notice? Aymatth2 (talk) 19:10, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I tried from two different computers ... must be something was cached somewhere in the network. O.k. now. Thanks. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:01, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
uaa report
Hi -- I wonder if you could reconsider your closure of the UAA report on Julius.mampara. It wasn't forum shopping -- I haven't filed any other report, and I filed the report because it was clear to me that the username violation trumps any other violation. Even with perfect behavior that would not be an acceptable user name. If you came across an editor named Barack.osama, would you decline the report as forum-shopping because there were ANI and WQAs? That's basically what is happening here, except that the slur is in a foreign language. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 15:54, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You should read my comments at the WQA report, here. Wikipedia is not a battle ground, thus get on with building an encyclopaedia. As noted in the UAA closure however, WP:RFCN is the most appropriate forum for the user name issue you mention, not UAA (ie it's not so blatant that it required immediate intervention by an admin). Nja24716:04, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A question that doesn't seem to appear in any policy articles
Hi, I am a rather new editor. I have a question. If I am in disagreement with almost all other editor on an article. However, if one reads the talk page, one can see that I am winning the argument for a change in the consensus and the other side simply refuse to respond to my arguments. What can I do to ever change the consensus if other editors refuse to listen to reason and do not respond? Or is it always that the majority win on Wikipedia, even when they are not rational?76.195.220.65 (talk) 07:07, 11 May 2009
Really, the best guidance to start with is found here. Cheers. Nja247
There is nothing in the wikipedia policy that deals with the situation where the majority do not respond and do not listen to reason to hold onto the consensus. Well this experience at least taught me how to hold down any consensus on any article, no matter how wrong the majority is, just by not responding. All anyone have to do is to call out friends and rationality takes the back seat. 76.247.164.55 (talk) 23:49, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The resolution policy does work when it's legitimately attempted. Further, it shows me that you may be sabotaging yourself, which is why the process fails for you (as demonstrated here by you continuously evading your block). Nja24706:49, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
E-mail from a banned sock?
Hi. SinceAdamAndEva — one of the apparent sockpuppet accounts involved in the recent Northern Cyprus renaming proposal incident — sent me e-mail via Wikipedia earlier today, basically restating stuff previously posted on the talk page. I'm a bit confused because I would have thought an indefinite block on the account would prevent its being used to send e-mail. Any thoughts? Richwales (talk) 00:11, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I suppose the same thing should also be done to the other socks involved in this same incident (AccountOfForever, AlterEnta1, Elderbrother45, Gercekkaynarca, Happy19April2009, NicestParadisers, Sisamvleda, SpeedyKostas, SustainedLifes, and UsefulOxygen). Richwales (talk) 17:23, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
RE: IRC cloak and admin channel
Yep - when you get it just ask me on my talk page or any channel op in the channel and they will give you an invite exemption (so you won't have to type that command anymore). - Rjd0060 (talk) 14:55, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For your information, I've unblocked Annoynmous(talk·contribs·count) because of his declaration on his talk page that he would stop edit warring. Of course if he starts acting up again, I have no problem if you (or another administrator) places a much longer block, given his history of misbehavior. --Ryan Delaneytalk03:16, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Scuro
Wondering if you could block User:Scuro from editing on my talk page. I wish to have nothing further to do with him. He has never and I now realize will never provide any referenced opinions. Many thanks.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:14, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Heya, what you need to do is explicitly tell him that you do not wish for him to do so. If he continues after that then that's disruptive and you could have it looked at. Also consider filing a proper WP:RFCU. Nja24707:33, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Everyking
Rootology and Everyking are friends. It is Everyking's MO to not do anything actively on Wikipedia anymore. If you want to say that his false claims of hate speech against me are appropriate and then having Rootology take up the claims in a harassing way on my talk page, the RfA talk page, etc, that is your prerogative. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Was this even necessary? I understand your passion on this, but please don't extend this already beaten to death issue on to my page. Thanks. Nja24718:00, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, you don't have to advise me of that. Indeed, I followed the usual of initiating conversation at the article discussion page on a number of times within the two sections in article discussion, mostly to prevent edit-warring by opposing parties (1, 2). After user: Ulrauna sought out discussion and waited over two weeks for comment, he advised the discussion he was going to change the info. Immediately upon doing so, Sina111 reverted the matter, without discussion and without anything approaching a helpful edit summary. I'd point out that Sina has actually violated 3RR in the article (1, 2, 3, 4).
I reverted the matter back to the version which removed information that had been either cited to non-RS sources or had been uncited for months. As the article is of a contentious subject, it seems highly inappropriate to keep uncited info in place, hoping that at some point in the next three years, someone will write about it, That isn't how Wikipedia works. We don't just add in info based on our own personal beliefs in the fervent hope that someone can cite it later, or that it will escape notice completely. Clearly, that is the intent here. Sina111 is a user with less than 300 edits, and the user only writes about - pardon me, argues about subjects involving Iran. Now, there is nothing wrong with that in and of itself, but when the user opts to allow biased information to remain in a controversial subject article that favors Iran, yeah, red flags go up. Did you notice that? - Arcayne(cast a spell)16:06, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Re: RfPP; fair enough; I was a little miffed that I was accused of edit-warring when I was just trying to keep the peace. I didn't think you were doing it out of some beef with me but rather that you weren't aware of why I was doing what I was doing. I will let you know if it happens with the user again. - Arcayne(cast a spell)03:58, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Scuro
Hi, thought that I would send you this message as you seem to be the only independent administrator who has followed the drama on the ADHD pages. The talk pages are continuing to fill up with unconstructive, unproductive comments by editor scuro. See from this section down to bottom of the page. Talk:Attention-deficit_hyperactivity_disorder#removing_social_construct_theory_of_ADHD What can be done to stop the talk pages descending churning out 100 kb per week of disruptive pointless debates?--Literaturegeek | T@1k?19:20, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I had tried, but as shown here, my attempts were thwarted by blind bureaucracy. I suggest consulting the editors who voted against and closed that proposal directly. Further, it'd likely be helpful to open a proper WP:RFC/U. I'd endorse it if done. Nja24720:02, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I appreciate your help. Is it possible to just block such editors? I know you are trying. I have tried the ignoring tactic which I think works well for me but still they continue. I feel request for comments is playing into scuros hands as they seem to derive pleasure from debating and annoying other editors. There have been several RFcs, some started by scuro themselves already. They have already chased off a consultant psychiatrist because they did not like their edits to the ADHD articles. From what I have heard they have been doing these sorts of things and rarely if ever provide any citations, just fill talk pages up and cause headaches for editors.--Literaturegeek | T@1k?21:04, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Report to me or any admin if done again and he will be blocked. I made it clear he's banned from editing your talk page. Nja24706:45, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, my RFA was closed recently with a final tally of 75½/38/10. Though it didn't succeed, I wanted to thank you for your support and I hope I can count on it in the future. Even though it didn't pass, it had a nearly 2 to 1 ratio of support and I am quite encouraged by those results. I intend to review the support, oppose, and neutral !votes and see what I can do to address those concerns that were brought up and resubmit in a few months. If you would like to assist in my betterment and/or co-nominate me in the future, please let me know on my talk page. Special thanks go to Schmidt,MICHAEL Q., TomStar81, and henrik for their co-nominations and support. — BQZip01 —talk
Looks like the AFD closing script "blew up" on this debate leading to this and it didn't delete the articles. I fixed the AFD and put {{db-afd}} on the articles. Mr Zman's script doesn't handle batch nominations very well. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:33, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could you weigh in on the unblock request outstanding at User talk:GalatiaFilms#Unblock request? I'm currently inclined to accept the request, but would solicit your input before taking any decisive action.
Nja247 you are definitely deserving of this for putting out your neck and getting involved in the wiki ADHD battle. Many many thanks for all your efforts.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:28, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but I wish I could show more for it in this case. But nonetheless I'm happy to display it. Cheers, Nja24710:46, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ddave2425
That person is likely Mwalla a stalker of me who uses sock puppets ever since I dared revert their vandalism of user comments on a talk page. They are meant to be banned. They were banned for 3 months. They showed up on admin notice board basically to try and start an argument. Can't prove it 100% but highly likely it is Mwalla.--Literaturegeek | T@1k?01:54, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
hi there-
i wrote an article a couple of weeks ago- titled- Amir Jabir, of which you removed under the grounds that it was like an autobiography.
I was wondering if you could give me some pointers as to how I could rewrite this article so that it does not sound like an auntobiography.
Please see the orinignal one below.
Amir Jabir> > > > > > Born in Britain, Amir Jabir Britain's youngest vehicle dealer, is an> > enthusiastic, young professional businessman who thrives in managerial positions,> > taking business very seriously.> > > > > > Mr Jabir started his successful career at the impressive age of just 15years old.> > > Amir left school as a highly motivated individual to pursue his aspirations in> > having his own business selling the finest, rarest and most iconic of prestige> > motorcars, such as Ferrari, and Mercedes-Benz Slr Mclarens.> > > > > > He has dedicated years to building his business "Mayfair Prestige", which has> > since developed nto the most respected and knowledgeable luxury vehicle dealers in> > Britain.> > > > > > Mr Jabir's greatest passion being thoroughbred motorcars since childhood means> > he is living his dream spending his time collecting and supplying them to fellow> > enthusiasts.
Dear Nja247, you blocked indef blocked Grant.Alpaugh in April. I analyzed his edits, and some of his edits are good. You posted this comment today. The user has admitted his blunders, so I'm willing to unblock him. What do you think? AdjustShift (talk) 13:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for deleting the article but the AfD page - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phillip Raymond, was intended as a group nomination ... there were a further nine articles which I listed. Perhaps I didn't set out the AfD adequately but those that voted delete all did so for the group, rather than just Raymond. Do I need to list them again? Cheers. Jevansen (talk) 09:55, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see you might be a Mac expert. Can I ask you a question about transfering Greek texts from a pre-1998 mac to a PC or a post 2005 mac? No problem if you cant, of course. Politis (talk) 13:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK (deep breath). I have Greek texts in a 1993 Apple Mac duo and a 1997 Mac desktop, and on floppy disks; they are in Word and in the SuperGreek font which also has quite a few diacretics. The question is, how do I transfer or convert them from computers that should be at the Science Museum, and from floppy disks, to a PC (or another Mac), especially since the two 1990s systems are neither connectible, or compatible with current products, and the font has been superseeded (sigh). Thanks. Politis (talk) 15:14, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. On the bottom of my page that was "speedily deleted" it stated that I could request the page. Can you please send it to me? Thanks! Nedla detsmlo (talk) 17:09, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While I have no major problem with you protecting the main page's article of the day, I just wanted to make sure you were aware that USMA is today's featured article. — BQZip01 —talk06:30, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Legitimate editors will still be able to add to the featured article; that was why I only requested semi-protection. Again, thanks. Unschool06:36, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the info. I think it's warranted, however of course if another admin disagrees I don't mind. Cheers, Nja24706:38, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I'm aware of those guidelines. It's not that these pages aren't ever protected. Again, I think it's warranted, but also I won't mind if another admin decides to unprotect for some reason or another. Nja24706:44, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just trying to make sure you didn't get bit. You seem like a nice guy. I've had now 3 pages featured on the main page and this is the second to be protected. The admin who did it caught a little bit of flak for his action and I didn't want you stepping in something without knowing about it. You seem to know and I bid you a good night :-) — BQZip01 —talk07:04, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's cool and I do appreciate the note. I'll say this now, if another admin wants to unprotect it, then please do so, and try not to drag me in to any ridiculousness as I wish to enjoy my bank holiday! :-) Nja24707:23, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
user:AntiPornInWiki
I'm not sure how you find this a username violation. However, given the edit, it's a POV account and I would have supported a hardblock, as opposed to allowing them to rename themselves. Also, just to give you the heads up, I moved Miserablepakistani to the holding pen. If I saw MiserableAmerican or MiserableMexican, I'd do the same. I'm not convinced the name is benign. Cheers. Lawtype!snype?10:15, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yea it (Antiporninwiki) is a POV, likely single purpose account, which implies an intention to disrupt, and therefore would fall under user name policy in my opinion. This conclusion was based on the edit, not merely the name itself. Similarly the latter name (Miserablepakistani) is more appropriate for WP:RFCN in my opinion as the edit history in that case does not support the view of it being a blatant violation. If their edit history had shown disruption, then that'd be a different matter al together. Nja24710:58, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I agree with you about taking the edit and the name into account. I saw your warning message, and it seemed like it was just telling the user to try again. Not a big thing. I'm still not sure what to make of the other name - if the user edits the article of a Pakistani, is the username implying the article's subject is miserable? It's really hard to tell. Lawtype!snype?11:04, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not always clear cut. All we can do is to take into consideration all things available to us at the time and make the best decision we can. Sometimes we'll be right, others not. I removed it as WP:UAA is for blatant violations that need immediate attention by an admin. I can understand why the reporter and you believe there could be an issue with the name. That's why I think WP:RFCN may be in order (and having it in the holding pen at UAA is fine too), but I couldn't make out (taking into account WP:AGF) a blatant violation of policy based on the name and contribs at that time. Of course you're free to come to another conclusion (and block) as I'm rarely ever the type to get bitchy if someone disagrees with me. Nja24711:32, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Help with a G4
As you have just blocked Tomorts (talk·contribs), could you also delete his recreation of deleted material, and possible salt it? It can be found here, while the original, which was deleted under A7, can be found here. Thank you for your time.— DædαlusContribs06:55, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was unable to email to you. I'd consider userfying, though let me know if that's acceptable and if so where to. Nja24718:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Request for username to be unblocked.
i would like to request for my username to be unblocked. The username is currently registered under AT golf. I'm a staff from the Asian Tour and would like to correct the many factual inaccuracies that I've noticed on your website. Appreciate your prompt reply. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.185.200.2 (talk) 03:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hiya,
You deleted an artice Donie Brennan recently. I'm not all that familiar with the whoel notabilty thing but is there any way you could allow me to recreate the page and I will make sure include references and links?
You are best advised to read the notability guidelines. The page has been recreated numerous times and consistently deleted, which seems to point to this person not fulfilling the policy. If you disagree however you could consider deletion review. Nja24718:51, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused and frustrated. I modeled my page contribution this morning after Xulon Press. I linked internally and externally. What am I missing to get this page publishing and live?
Not disagreeing with the final outcome, but I recall that a recent policy change said that you admins have to wait seven days before closing a debate. And before you say it, 3 votes isn't a snowball. Mandsford (talk) 20:34, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please accept my apologies if this is the wrong place to post, but I've never contacted an admin before. For your consideration in this case...
user: TruHeir complains that I "added a bust of a roman solider as Hannibal" and that "the image in question itself clearly stated that it may not be authentic... but this editor has changed to writing and has added illegitimate "sources" to try to justify it. These so called sources however are not even related to and do not even mention the image of the roman solider, He/she is trying to pass of as Hannibal" (all sic).
The text accompanying the image stated "A Roman marble bust of Hannibal originally found at the ancient city-state of Capua in Italy. This image may not be authentic." Apart from the mention of Capua (though see below, Matyszak), this agrees with the wording of the source (Adrian Goldsworthy (2001) Cannae p.24): "A bust which may be a representation of Hannibal in later life, although there are no definite images of him". The Goldsworthy reference has been attached to the image for months, so TH's contention that when reverting her/his edits I "added illegitimate sources... [which are] not even related to and do not even mention the image" is false on many levels. They have repeatedly deleted this correctly sourced image despite the fact that each time I restored it I directed their attention toward the citation and directed them toward the discussion page, where their doubts could be addressed properly. They have done neither.
Other reputable and published sources (4 scholars, and one refering to the museum which possesses the bust) either agree with Goldsworthy's assessment (maybe not Hannibal) or give that the bust is of Hannibal (see below). Contrary to what TH avers, no source states that the image is not of Hannibal or make the suggestion that the image is that of a Roman (!). TH's opinion is thus OR.
Adrian Goldsworthy The Fall of Carthage cover (2000): "Hannibal in later life".
Serge Lancel Hannibal cover (1995): "Roman bust of Hannibal. Museo Archeologico Nazionale. Naples".
Philip Matyszak Chronicle of the Roman Republic p.95 (2003): "Bust, thought to be of Hannibal, found in Capua".
Brian Todd Carey Hannibal's Last Battle: Zama and the Fall of Carthage (2007) also uses the image as its cover illustration.
I have passed on this information to TH (and their sock account (?)) and have asked her/him to provide sources that support their opinion that the bust "is not authentic and definately not of hannibal (sic)".
As I do not want to be seen as possibly continuing an edit war, I would appreciate it if you could restore the image whereupon I could add these further references.
Apologies for the length of this post, but a lot was in need of clarification. Many thanks for your time and consideration. Catiline63 (talk) 15:48, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello I thought I was making progess and working this issue out with catline63, but she has now she went on the articles talk page and basically called me a sock puppet. Clearly this isn't going anywhere and I'm not going to further have a duscussion with someone who is going to insult me, so I'm asking admins to intervene on this matter. Thank you TruHeir (talk) 03:21, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No problem mate, but note that this may actually egg them on in the future. Thus you may wish to remove the comment or consider changing it to prevent yourself from being a continued target. Regardless I do hope you have a good experience and future on Wikipedia. Cheers, Nja24720:42, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. The only reason why I left those comments was because I want him to be aware of the consequences for those actions. Thanks for the advice though. --Brad Polard (talk) 20:53, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks and....
Thanks for blocking User:Morrowness, for some reason the page Hayden Jamieson isn't showing up in their contribs (maybe the database server lag), but it's still there, you probably missed it when blocking them due to that, but may want to delete it. Cheers - Kingpin13 (talk) 08:45, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking care of this. When I loaded the diff from your edit, I must have only loaded the cache as the block log didn't show up. All I saw was the removal of the category. I reverted, and then the new page loaded, and I saw my mistake. Thanks again and sorry for the confusion. Viriditas (talk) 11:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently, the creator of this article doesn't know who to question about it's deletion so he's asking me about it because I relisted it. Can you jump in? Also can you check out Meraloma club to see if it's the same article with a different spelling? --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:28, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did consider WP:UAA but noticed that he's been around for a while and has some edits unrelated to the promotion of his company. It's good that the block template you used gives him a chance to change usernames. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:38, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking care of the business with the autoblock. I have meanwhile spoken to the system administrators in charge of communications in our University (huji.ac.il) and they say that, unfortunately, they cannot trace or identify the offending users. As you probably know, the two huji.ac.il proxy servers (proxy6-m.huji.ac.il and proxy7-m.huji.ac.il) carry a large volume of Wikipedia activity from huji faculty and students, including contributions by registered users (e.g., my case), and blocking either of these servers may cause considerable aggravation. Please let me know if I can do anything to help with preventive measures at the huji.ac.il level. Regards, --Zlerman (talk) 07:57, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
amir jabir
Hi Nja247
I have looked over the notes on writing your first article, yet i still can't understand why my article below keeps getting deleted! I don't see the difference between this and others I've seen on wikipedia on other individuals.
Your advice would be highly appreciated.
Regards
Amir
Born in Britain, Amir Jabir Britain's youngest vehicle dealer, is an enthusiastic, young professional businessman who thrives in managerial positions, taking business very seriously. Mr Jabir started his successful career at the impressive age of just 15years old. Amir left school as a highly motivated individual to pursue his aspirations in having his own business selling the finest, rarest and most iconic of prestige motorcars, such as Ferrari, and Mercedes-Benz Slr Mclarens. He has dedicated years to building his business "Mayfair Prestige", which has since developed nto the most respected and knowledgeable luxury vehicle dealers in Britain. Mr Jabir's greatest passion being thoroughbred motorcars since childhood means he is living his dream spending his time collecting and supplying them to fellow enthusiasts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amir jabir (talk • contribs) 13:27, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh my goodness
Oh my goodness at the direction arbcom is taking. Have you seen it? I am thinking of withdrawing from arbcom and disassociating myself from it, just wanna walk away from it all in disgust. Not so much for me but am angry for other editors who seem to be being castigated severely for trivial issues. They don't seem to want to address the main problems. What is your take?--Literaturegeek | T@1k?06:42, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, maybe best. On another note, I filed a resolution under my name on that page. I honestly think that it can resolve the dispute which really is all we want is for disruption to end.--Literaturegeek | T@1k?07:31, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
MBP
I disagree with the need for a subsection for the 13" MBP as the introduction of the 13" MBP was joined with other changes that were in that subsection that don't necessarily belong there since the subsection is for the 13" MBP, not the WWDC announcements. Unfortunately, information directly pertaining to the 13" only can be satisfied with a one-liner, completely rendering a subsection to be superfluous. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 13:08, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the user may be requesting that you semi protect both User:Tyw7/signature(edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and User:Tyw7/signature(edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) from being moved. Because if they are moved it will ruin the user's signature. However, I think this is unnecessary as it will wont actually effect the signature because it is substed, and the way which you have done it (with links) means that if you revert the move back again it wont even effect the signature(s) added while the page was in the wrong place. To sum up: No need for protect as the pages don't really effect your signature - Kingpin13 (talk) 12:39, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How do you revert the move? And how to make the notice above: Please leave me a comment... --Tyw7 (Talk • Contributions)
Go to this move log. You'll see the ones which you are able to revert have a (revert) link, I believe you simple click that, although I've never actually done it (you could test it out in your userspace... Just DON'T move the sandbox ;D). Sorry about hijacking your page Nja ;) - Kingpin13 (talk) 13:52, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've commented there on the merits of deletion. As for the block, note that there is no requisite for debate before blocking a user. Further their talk page is clear on the reasoning for their block, thus I am unsure of your confusion on the matter? What's appropriate or not sometimes comes down to the discretion of the admin, and in this case the user was advertising and/or promoting an entity or product, and their username, on the face of it implies an affiliation. Thus the name was blocked due to Wikipedia's guide on conflict of interests and also username policy against creating and/or editing articles that they have a connection with. The several warnings on their talk page by external link bots worked against their favour when assuming good faith. I respect your view, but the user themself should make the argument as the procedure and instructions for requesting an unblock/block review is on their talk page. Any admin considering an unblock via the review process would want to hear from them, but notably since the block over 3 months ago they've said nothing. Overall, it's up to them to initiate the request for unblock / block review process. I would have no qualm with editing the block if it's established satisfactorily that there's in fact no connection and that no policy is being breached. Nja24710:47, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply. I remain troubled by the bitiness, and weakness of AGF, of username blocks. I am bothered by the different standards at play with username blocks and other blocks governed by WP:BLOCK, and why there is a difference. The non-return of the user is definitely not an indicator of success in my books. I understand the concern with spamming. In large part, you are saying the person was blocked because of spamming, not because of the username, and so there may be a logical inconsistency going on here. Has this person learned that he can better spam by switching to a less obvious username? I have been thinking on this general issue for over a year now, and am still not sure what I would suggest be done differently. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, looking at what links to what, I'm lead to André LaMothe, and accounts that don't obviously break any policy, in a blockable way. I think, in this case, and others I've seen, the username block practice is ineffective, even counter-productive. It teaches the person how to avoid being caught. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do understand your concerns, though I can't and won't comment on the overall system and its potentional pitfalls. All I can comment on is my action, and in this case I did what I felt to be the right action based on the information I had available to me at the time. I don't want you to think I'm ignoring what you're saying, but all I can do is go by what's written and use my best judgement. And for the record spamming wasn't the main reason of the block, even though the spam bot had warned that user several times, but the implied affiliation and conflict of interest of the username was my main reasoning, as evidenced in the block template used. Cheers, Nja24715:38, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your helpful answers. To be clear, I do not criticize your actions or judgment. In looking into the way wikipedians do some things generally, I remain concerned/confused about username blocks. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:06, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's fine and I don't mind. Any admin who doesn't take reasonable criticism well should retire in my opinion. And for the record I share your concerns, as sometimes WP:UAA seems to be a block shop for some. Just the other day I tried to AGF on a few names as they hadn't actually edited in the main encyclopaedia (ie only their userpages), but another admin went away and blocked anyhow. So yes, it's not perfect at all and it's something worth considering. Nja24712:06, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg)
){kind=link}
