User talk:NJA/Archive 09

This is an archive of past discussions from NJA's talk page for the months of February 2010 - July 2010. Please do not edit or add to this page. If you wish to leave a new comment, please do so by clicking here. < 08 (Jan 2010 - Feb 2010) | 09 (February 2010 - July 2010) | > 10 (Oct 2010+)

Hello NJA

Hello NJA. I have noticed that you have a couple of sedative-hypnotic drugs on your watch list, diazepam and barbiturate come to mind from your regular vandalism reverts and also that you are a good article reviewer. I have nominated midazolam for good article review. It currently does not have a good article reviewer. If you are interested you are welcome to review it. If you are too busy at the moment or not interested then no worries. :-)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 09:50, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I may be able to look it over and consider the review later in the week. Thanks for the note. NJA (t/c) 11:53, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Killspammers

Hi there, I'm a little curious as to why you've blocked User:Killspammers indefinitely. I had a look at his contributions and there didn't seem to be any vandalism, or anything that seemed (in my inexperienced eyes) to warrant an indefinite block. Was there something I'd missed please? Brammers (talk) 17:37, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All their edits were vandalism, ie nothing good was contributed to Wikipedia. Do you disagree? NJA (t/c) 07:43, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree that his 'contributions', as such, did not benefit the project as a whole. But a significant minority of the users who use solely the Reference Desks are in a similar position, and it is not obvious that his edits were malicious or in bad faith - which is a necessary condition for vandalism. He could yet have been supported into becoming a useful contributor rather than having his head bitten off. Unless you'd noticed him creating multiple accounts, I think your actions were grossly disproportionate and showed a remarkable lack of good faith. A message on his talk page wouldn't have hurt, or even a warning template. It might be worth putting a template on his talk page explaining his situation, seeing as now one must go to his block log or contribs to find out what's happened. He'd also been inactive for a week when you blocked him, which makes it seem a little unnecessary. Brammers (talk) 08:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, I should have given a more detailed reason for their block on their talk page, with details on how to request unblocking. I will do this now, though do note there's a section in the blocked text shown to all blocked users that tells them how to request unblocking. Regardless, I will post details on the talk page, and if they make such a request I'd likely accept. I will also email them to alert them of this. Is this sufficient in addressing your concern, or is there more? NJA (t/c) 08:32, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's grand, thanks. See you around! Brammers (talk) 08:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with another user

Can you please help me? I am having problems with another user, Rapido. He (or she) is always picking on article input which I try to add. This is getting very annoying and it has come to a point where I am starting to lose faith in Wikipedia and helping. I understand that some things may need to be deleated, but he is always on my case, always looking to see what I have done and interfering with it. I think it's disgusting. When he started with the "Living Next Door to Alice" article, you blocked me for edit warring and he did not suffer anything, even though I was quite clearly referencing the material on the sleeve notes. Can you please explain why this user should be allowed to upset others and people like myself getting blocked for standing upto him? I hope to hear from you soon. Thank you. --Cexycy (talk) 00:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, sorry to hear of your issues. As noted on your talk page I highly recommend you spend 20 minutes and thoroughly review the structured guidance found at WP:DR. It is a clear guidance on how to handle and resolve disputes with other users. Have you given any of the recommendations in that document a try? If so, point out to me where so I can see what advice I may have. Cheers, NJA (t/c) 07:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am completely not "picking on" Cexycy! The problem is that most of his edits are full of original research, personal opinion and unsourced information, so it's obvious that they will be reverted. I am not the only person who has reverted his edits, and he was very civil in attitude with the other editor who reverted him... so why has he a "problem" with me? Maybe because I also happened to nominate for AFD some articles he started over a month ago (and some were deleted), and this seems to have annoyed him. I don't know why he doesn't focus on the problems with his edits, rather complaining about anything about me (including that my userpage is empty!) instead. Rapido (talk) 00:28, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for giving your side. The advice I gave above is generic, in that it applies to both editors in dispute. I hope you both find the structure and guidance found at WP:DR helpful. Regards, NJA (t/c) 08:14, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone please explain how looking through all my edits and nominating anything they can find of mine for AFD is not picking on me? Not to mention removing my contributions without using the discussion areas and ignoring my questions? Come on fair's fair. If I kept on removing Rapido's stuff, I'm sure he/she would have something to say about it. Oh and by the way Rapido, it would be nice to know a little bit about you, like if you are a man or a woman, just so I can address you correctly, hence the request for info in the userpage. I know she/she is not taking this seriously because of the nomination of AFDs on articles which are clearly referenced and notable, such as Radio Cordac and the EAV albums! Rapido claims to be trying to improve things, however he/she is acting very silly or like a troll. --Cexycy (talk) 19:54, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly I'm about to be off for the day, but if that's true it's rubbish, though not unheard of. You might consider filing a WQA, and also vote oppose of any of those AFD's and make it clear (briefly and concisely) that you oppose the deletion, and that the user has nominated it in bad faith. Good luck. I will try to consider this tomorrow, unless other admins sort it before then. NJA (t/c) 20:01, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Cexycy should stop personal attacks as in his last sentence. Anything I nominated for AFD were because I believed them to be non-notable enough for an article. I don't have to use the article talk page if a simple explanation can be given in the edit summary. When most of Cexycy's contributions are not suitable for many reasons, then I think it's obvious that they would be reverted. Rapido (talk) 20:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to both: My talk page isn't for your dispute. You both have been advised to use WP:DR. You both need to use it. Though briefly, Rapido -- edit summaries are nice, but they should not be used to substitute proper discussion when in dispute or for controversial and/or large changes. Get your acts together please. NJA (t/c) 20:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SPI closure

You've just closed this SPI case whilst I was adding a note that two IPs had not yet been blocked (I didn't notice at the time that the case had just been closed). Not sure if the blocks need applying now or if the archiver will do that, but I'm drawing it to your attention just in case. Either way, thanks for your help. — Richardguk (talk) 11:08, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had left the final closure open to final review by another clerk or a checkuser, though I've decided to archive it now and block the remaining two for 10 days for socking. Does this address your concerns? NJA (t/c) 11:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's great, thanks. Sometimes the allocation of responsibilities is a little unclear to a reporting user so hope you'll understand my caution. — Richardguk (talk) 11:24, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, just making sure I did all I could to help. Cheers, NJA (t/c) 11:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merged posts on Nikki Catsouras photographs controversy

 Note: Two posts on same subject merged

Post 1

excuse me
it is very well referenced, and since you do not live in Orange County, don't lecture me about "poorly referenced material" Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BobStinkyButt (talk • contribs) 11:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't get all hot and bothered, instead cite a reliable source and then your edits will not be removed. NJA (t/c) 12:05, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Post 2

You are WRONG
Justin Thompson is mentioned in the Orange County Superior Court Docket and Depositon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BobStinkyButt (talk • contribs) 11:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See above about citing reliable sources. Thanks, NJA (t/c) 12:05, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Usename blocking

Hello, thanks for your message re: User:Holoki. I didn't report to AIV because although they obviously were spamming, they hadn't had any warnings until the one I gave, so I didn't think that was appropriate. Is that not the case? Had they not been spamming or had only added, say one link, would you not have blocked them as a violation of the username policy? Just trying to get it all straight in my head - thanks. --BelovedFreak 11:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise User:Digitaldua - had only one warning and hadn't edited after warning. Isn't that more of a username concern? Regards, --BelovedFreak 11:52, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heya, thanks for the quick reply. It is a bit confusing, I admit. Essentially we try to limit UAA to blatant name policy violations, where there's nowhere better to report it. Since there was obvious spamming of external links by the two names I mentioned, then WP:AIV would be the best place. However, and admittedly confusingly, if only a link or two had been done by the name(s), then the most serious concern of the two (i.e. name violation versus spamming) would have been the name, thus making it more of a UAA concern in this scenario. Honestly I'm not trying to discourage or confuse you, just hoping that you might be able to see the subtlety between the two scenarios, and thus making your reports that much better. Ask away should you have questions or are completely confused. :) NJA (t/c) 12:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks for explaining. It is confusing - it's very subtle, isn't it? But I see where you're coming from. I'll go back an re-read the policies and go from there! --BelovedFreak 12:08, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

David Tweed

Any word back from the unhappy party? I was hoping to have discussed or at least found out what the problems are by now so that I can take measures to correct the article. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 14:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. The last message (last week) essentially ended up with me linking to [1] :/ NJA (t/c) 15:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to have a look at the following edits, they are now editing the talk page comments of others. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 04:12, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please help

Miss-jessie-gal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) keeps adding content, well infact just undoing to readd unsourced content. I've added further with the reverts at the 3RR noticeboard. Bidgee (talk) 10:15, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked again, in hope that they will listen and attempt some form of discussion so that they can understand the continued concerns. Cheers, NJA (t/c) 10:32, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of QCC Information Security.

Please can you let me know why you deleted QCC information security as I added the page in the first place!

Kind regards,

Nick Prescot —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickprescot (talk • contribs) 15:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on their talk. NJA (t/c) 19:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your full protection of Kundalini yoga

Just an FYI. I've made a report at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Threat_made_by_user that involves that page and the users who caused the block. Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 16:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. NJA (t/c) 19:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sock

Hello, Nja. Please, see this

User_talk:Tbsdy_lives#Human_Rights_Believer_.28II_appearance.29

Tbsdy is not online now, and i trust in your judgment. Human Right Believer was highly DE editor. [2] i send suspect, he just reverted. There is no question about that, it's him. For more information, i am here. --Tadija (talk) 21:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are also not online any more... :) --Tadija (talk) 21:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

Thank you for granting my request for rollback. You are very kind, and I shall do my best not to abuse the trust you have put in me. Yours sincerely, Classical Esther 07:33, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Jackson album discography

Hello NJA! I see that you are an admin. Please help me to move Michael Jackson album discography to Michael Jackson albums discography, with 's', like the other same articles: Madonna albums discography, Celine Dion albums discography, and Mariah Carey albums discography. Thank you, Bluesatellite (talk) 11:23, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

UAA

Hi - thanks for cleaning up the backlog there... just wondering though: this one you said was already blocked but I cant see it in their block log. Am I missing something? Thanks.  7  12:10, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I pressed the block button and it told me 'already blocked', and I didn't really look much further into it. Though it now seems to have been reported incorrectly as that name doesn't seem to have been created (ie there's no creation log that I can find). We could ask the reporter if they typo'ed, though a name even remotely similar to that likely got dealt with already. NJA (t/c) 12:15, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok - I can see it now - looks like the account was just deleted all together (oversight?). I think it's the redacted one here. You had me thinking I was crazy there, because I was the one who reported it and I used Twinkle so I can't imagine there would be a typo. Oh well. Thanks.  7  13:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just skipping the details today, but yes I'm thinking you're correct as it'd be unlikely for Twinkle to cite the wrong name. Someone with oversight must have been a wee bit touchy this morning, but whatever works for them. Cheers, NJA (t/c) 13:07, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CDA

As I am sure you can tell form your watchlist, the RfC was started and then again. There is now a short proposal at Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/RfC#Start/Re-start. Ben MacDui 14:22, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Academic thesis as reliable source?

Hi NJA, I'm currently trying to help a new user out with his first article (Etlingera maingayi) and formatting the seemingly valuable info he has provided to match other articles about the same family of plants. However, one of the sources he's introduced is his own PhD thesis at [3]. Is this acceptable as a reliable source or does it fall into WP:OR? I looked over the policy pages but couldn't find a conclusive answer, was hoping you could help me out or point to someone who could. Cheers, XXX antiuser ^eh? 10:35, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is a genuinely good query. An admittedly quick scan of these search results (from the Reliable Sources noticeboard) would seem to indicate a Phd thesis may well be okay. You may wish to read a few of those archived posts more thoroughly then I have however. Hope this is helpful? NJA (t/c) 10:42, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. It's rather late here (2:48 AM in Seattle) so I'll probably have to leave that for tomorrow, but that's the sort of info I was looking for. Definitely helpful. XXX antiuser ^eh? 10:49, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have reported a 3RR by Borsoka for 2 days now, no Result

hi, thanks for letting me know that Borsoka's report on me was declined, but: what about my report on Borsoka for his 3RR on another article ? I reported 2 days ago, in the meantime 10 other reports had received a Result, my report just stays there unanswered my report on Borsoka 3RRCriztu (talk) 10:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I usually don't edit on weekends, and I do my best to not skip over questionable reports as some other admins tend to do. Essentially, while you both were in dispute and edit warring, the history didn't show a clear WP:3RR violation (same as with the other case I closed today). I do not feel a block for edit warring on either case would be justified unless it was done for both of you, thus you both need to turn to WP:DR for guidance or risk blocks in the future to prevent continued disruption. NJA (t/c) 10:50, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for letting me know that my report on a 3RR breaching by user Borsoka did not show a clear history of a 3RR. I have reapplied the 3RR report, with Diffs that i hope show clearly 4 reverts made within 24 hours by user Borsoka (on 1 of those reverts, he edited out 4 paragraphs of his version, but by my understanding of the 3rr rule "A revert is any action [...] that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part." Wiki 3RR rule, the rest of the article being reverted, it is still a revert) Criztu (talk) 11:30, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're missing my whole point, in that you both are being disruptive, as it takes at least two editors to be in dispute and edit war. As I thought I made clear, reverting by both of you without proper discussion on multiple articles, will, if anything, lead to you both being blocked for edit warring. This is why I've emphasised the use of discussion and the WP:DR guidance, versus the continued misuse of undo and attempting to get each other blocked by reporting at AN3. NJA (t/c) 12:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for your reply, i have requested editors assistance at WP:DR . I am not being disruptive, i edited 2 articles, and my edits are being reverted, altho i have presented my arguments on articles talk pages. The user who reverts my edits to his version of those articles is also incivil, but you seem oblivious to his behavior that i reported along with the 3RR Criztu (talk) 10:31, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just FYI, and this is absolutely your call, but you might want to reconsider page protection for this article. I just declined to provide a Third Opinion because of, inter alia, the edit war and 3R violations by both editors shown by these diffs:

Feb 6:

insertion 1 by Borsoka

deletion 1 by Criztu

insertion 2 by Borsoka

deletion 2 by Criztu

insertion 3 by Borsoka

deletion 3 by Criztu

insertion 4 by Borsoka

Feb 8:

deletion 4 by Criztu

Because the changes are so voluminous, try watching the paragraph that begins, "A passage in an 11th-century." Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 22:30, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KittyBot adding wrong category?

Regarding edits like these, adding that category is not strictly correct as the template can include vandalism-only-accounts also. Not sure if it is an error or not.--Commander Keane (talk) 12:25, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The bot is only targeting use of that category in conjunction with templates also related to username blocks. All other use of the Temporary Wikipedian pages category are left unchanged. Thus the backlog at the Temporary category of 29K+ articles will drop, but unfortunately only by 3K or so. Essentially, there wasn't a need for double categorisation. See here for the limits of what it will change. Ask away if I've left anything unclear. Thanks, NJA (t/c) 12:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In this case I used {{Uw-vaublock}}, which can be applied for username violation or vandalism only account. So I don't think you should be changing the category for this template, as it can often (as in this case) have nothing to do with a username block. The bot added an incorrect category.--Commander Keane (talk) 00:27, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, {{Uw-voablock}} is for vandalism only, and {{Uw-vaublock}} is for vandalism only and username policy violation. The latter isn't for either or, but for both, thus it would mean the block should also be for a username policy violation, and not just vandalism. The category of Temporary Wikipedian pages is not any better of a choice in that case. If the removed category were Wikipedians blocked for vandalism only accounts, then I'd see the cause for concern, but generally there's a consensus to not use the overused and backlogged Temporary Wikipedian category. If you still disagree then please let me know as I'll have to take this back to the policy page where generally it was accepted to remove the Temporary category from blocks that could be better categorised, in this case from the username block related templates. Also note the bot only went through and corrected the categories back to mid-August 2009, due to limited information of where the template was used. NJA (t/c) 07:25, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I get it now, I was just reading the first sentence of {{Uw-vaublock}} and didn't realise it was for username violation also (what a specific block template!). Thanks.--Commander Keane (talk) 07:39, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I'm glad my cat and I didn't cause too much troubles! NJA (t/c) 07:40, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Participation at my RfA

Thank you for taking the time to weigh in on my RfA. It was successful, in that the community's wish not to grant me the tools at this time was honored. I'm taking all the comments as constructive feedback and hope to become more valuable to the project as a result; I've also discovered several new areas in which to work. Because debating the merits of a candidate can be taxing on the heart and brain, I offer this kitten as a low-allergen, low-stress token of my appreciation. --otherlleft 14:12, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

?

Hi NJA. Thanks for not opposing my last unblock request. I appreciate it more than you think. I am trying to work through dialogue as had been asked, but to say the truth I found myself bushing my head in a concrete wall ever since. To give an example and to get to the point, recently I had seen that blatant revert [4] in the Bulgarian Jews article against an evidently inexperienced Israeli IP user. After reading the WW II chapter of that article and seeing in the talk page the request for expanding of that section by another Bulgarian editor protesting for the poor cover of the events, and having taken a brief look in the historical events I felt that that revert was possibly more of a try in blanking that period's events than a constructive reaction. Accordingly I made a more serious research upon the topic and I was surprised by what I have found. Accordingly, I felt that I could participate in the expansion of that section by adding some referenced material there. I removed almost nothing and certainly nothing referenced or any logical statements even if unreferenced, adding 5 photos and many refs) ending to that final form of that section [5]. But since those events are not well inside my range of the historical knowledge, I started a discussion upon that in the talk page saying what I did, why, and including some recommendations to the two above mentioned users, asking for help[6]. What happened was more of a disappointment to me. First they disputed my refs and reverted them. When I protested[7], re-put back the refs and asked for discussion[8] offering to help them reach the sources if they couldn't[9] and I did it[10], they never answered about it and they consequently reverted everything (else) down to the last word I had put[11]. After that they only re-added one photo (the one in honour of the Bulgarian people who saved Bulgarian Jews during the WW II)[12]I had found and added during my editing deleting every other. From what I understand, their actions are more of a call in starting another edit war, in which according to the commitment I made, cannot answer. On the other hand I cannot watch being reverted down to the last ref or comma by just saying "actually, we're going back to 1 February, nothing constructive has happened ever since". Based upon the above mentioned and other events my feeling is that it has become impossible for me to edit any Bulgarian-related article in WP due to a combine activity of a small group of rather hardliners Bulgarian editors who feel obliged to apologize even for the participation, of the unquestionable nazi sympathizing government of that country during that era, in the Holocaust. Can I have your hand of help in dealing with that very unusual situation? --Factuarius (talk) 21:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for assigning me the rollback feature. And for referring to the guide. =)
Mohamed Magdy (talk) 10:33, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know what to do. You decide.

You had blocked me yesterday for 3RR. Looking closely at the guy who quarrelled with me, I found something notice worthy. First he did this. (Argued that female members of the Ezhava caste served as concubines to European men, which will definitely cause communal riots if published anywhere else in the media). The users editing the Ezhava article probably thought this edit was done by a Nair, and this provoked a negative response from them. I fear that if these things are publicized in media and social networks, then communal tension will result. Please control the things before they get out of hand. Thanks. Axxn (talk) 19:54, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for bringing this to my attention, though I'm unsure what to do as the edits you provided are close to a month old. The user hasn't edited since the end of their block. Thus I'm not sure what you're expecting? NJA (t/c) 08:11, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Can you prevent the repetition of actions like these? Axxn (talk) 08:28, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How do you propose I do that? It's been a month since those actions happened. I'm not magical. NJA (t/c) 08:29, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK. No probs. I'll report to you if it happens again. Thanks. Axxn (talk) 08:32, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, user Sanam001 has again edited Nair wiki page without reaching consensus.90.46.100.48 (talk) 11:17, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted his edits again, since he is not following the guidelines. Thanks. Axxn (talk) 12:22, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So essentially you're beginning to edit war again instead of actively using WP:DR? NJA (t/c) 12:23, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Negotiation is not possible here, as he is not willing to discuss the issue on the talk page before editing. Despite the advice by a third user here, Sanam001 is continuing with what he has been doing till now. And further, at least 10 times he accused me of "ego satisfying chauvinism" without giving any proof. Axxn (talk) 12:28, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As you both clearly cannot work together without edit warring, I've fully protected the page. Now you must talk to come to consensus rather than disrupt Wikipedia. NJA (t/c) 12:42, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. One month is more than enough time to get a full discussion and third party opinion on this issue. Axxn (talk) 12:45, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IP evading block

This IP-editor who was blocked by you yesterday [13], has been evading his block [14], making mass-reverts on various pages. He uses a dynamic IP, so I think blocking 78.184.***.*** range is the only way to prevent such evasions in the future. Given his behavior, familiarity with Wikipedia, I also have a suspicion that he probably had a user-name at some point, and could be the reincarnation of a banned user. --Kurdo777 (talk) 23:19, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the details. I've blocked the range for 31h for now, we'll see if it needs to be longer next time. NJA (t/c) 08:11, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And he is back with his rapid blind reverts, under a different IP [15], perhaps semi-protecting these pages, and range-blocking his IPs for longer, is in order now? --Kurdo777 (talk) 22:09, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User Sanam001 suggestion for consensus and dispute resolution

If the administrator finds it suitable i am wiling to participate in a consensus/dispute resolution that can be reached on the basis of any wikipedia administrator who is a student or researcher of anthropology and may volunteer to mediate the validity of the arguments of either parties placed and can comment on the merit and scientific validity of the following three expert studies.

1. Changing kinship usages in the setting of political and economic changes among the nayars of Malabar by E Kathleen Glough in The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland, Vol. 82, No. 1

http://www.jstor.org/stable/2844041?cookieSet=1

2. The internal structure of the nayar caste by C.J Fuller in the Journal of anthropological research 1975

http://www.jstor.org/pss/3629883

3. Nayars of Malabar by Fawcett

http://books.google.de/books?hl=de&lr=&id=eF-pMrcqw5UC&oi=fnd&pg=PA191&dq=nayars+of+malabar&ots=IT5QtHk_sx&sig=XWu7jPVp5mClwUYJn0GMukiTr9Q#v=onepage&q=nayars%20of%20malabar&f=false

Thanks and in anticipation of your reply. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanam001 (talk • contribs) 14:07, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the one to do this, you should note this on the talk page where the dispute is so another administrator who can help in the dispute can see it. Good luck. NJA (t/c) 14:12, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for blocking the vandal

Thanks for blocking 118.137.75.131 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), used once again by the anime/movie studio vandal from Indonesia. And from the looks of it, the block on the 118.137.0.0/16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log) range has expired, which lead to the guy's edits. Any chance the range can be blocked again because of this? Thank you. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 14:38, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No prob and thanks. Yea if they keep it up and it's the same range we could reissue. NJA (t/c) 21:17, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The guy has reused the address above and restarted his vandalism. Blocked again, this time for 55 hourse. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 11:31, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you blocked 118.137.0.0/17 instead of the original 118.137.0.0/16. But for now, that's fine. Let's just hope that he doesn't vandalize from outside the 118.137.0.0/17 range (i.e. those starting with 118.137, but outside the /17 range). As an aside, unless the guy is repremanded physically, he will never learn, doesn't he? *sigh* - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 14:38, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, Ryulong replied to your message in his talk page. As he is no longer an admin, he can't see the contents of the filter you were talking about. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 16:08, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John Oxendine

Looks like a lot of activity over the past 2 days. He seems to be in a primary. We should watch it a lot. I know it is tagged as BLPs, is there anything else we can put on it to get it watched more Politician in a campaign or something haha. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GatoreatsDawg (talk • contribs) 21:36, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Listing my favorite Personal Lubricant

I dont understand, I was just listing my favorite lubricant under the list of personal lubricants. Some of the other lubes have links so I thought it was ok. Is it the link to their website that was wrong? I edited it to take out the detail about their ingredients and just listed as "a personal lubricant" just like KY. So why did they take it off? I am new to this and wanted to start editing the products I use. This is my first one so please dont take any offense at my editing if it seems sloppy. Sarah —Preceding unsigned comment added by Natural Solutions (talk • contribs) 00:24, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No offence taken, just ensure you're editing in a way that uses verifiable and reliable sources. Cheers, NJA (t/c) 07:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blood Nemesis 360 A47-My username's acceptability

Hi I have recently joined Wikipedia and have made a few very minor edits. I received a message from Goodvac expressing concern about my username and if it was breaching the policy. I initially decided to change my username but after both reviewing the policy and reading the exchanges between you and Goodvac I feel and get the impression the name is acceptable. I have also entered the reason for my name on my user page in case any others are concerned. I would just like some clarification of its acceptability thank you.

Also if you wish to review any of my edits to ensure I am not a vandal and/or reliability, I edit mass effect wikia under the same username and have never vandalized thanks.--Blood Nemesis 360 A47 (talk) 15:20, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your name is fine. I've discussed Goodvac's interpretation of username policy with them, so hopefully things are clearer to them. Sorry for the troubles, and welcome to Wikipedia. NJA (t/c) 07:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

About "promoting"

Edit: Please disregard this post and read "I got an idea."

Please tell me what's wrong, concisely and clearly.

I found this:

Adding external links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed, and is considered to be spam. Although the specific links may be allowed under some circumstances, repeatedly adding links will in most cases result in all of them being removed.

I want to edit all the names who was listed by Britannica on that list and link them to my article. Because there are news everywhere and my blog is the source of the news.

Shouldn't I do it? Should I wait for other Wikipedia users to do it?

Yuzgen (talk) 09:45, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I got an idea

What if I add a new article to Wikipedia called "Britannica's list of The 100 Most Influential Inventors of All Time" and link all these inventors to that page? Can I add my blog as a reference on that new article if you let me do it?

Yuzgen (talk) 09:58, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I have addressed the question on my talkpage. Abecedare (talk) 15:08, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback

Hi there.

Thanks for processing my request for rollback - I thought it might be considered 'too new', and that's fine, no worries. It does strike me as a strange way to measure these things, in time - I expect if I'd made these few hundred contribs over the space of several months, it'd be passed. But I'm not complaining, just sayin'.

Is there a specific criteria I could fulfill to demonstrate my suitability? You mentioned twinkle/undo, so if, for example, I perform a number of undos on vandalism (and they prove valid), would that suffice? Smappy (talk) 18:35, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Between posting the above, and this, I've done a bit of undo/vandal removal and warnings, to help demonstrate that I know the correct approaches; unfortunately, it's hard to keep up with hugglers, but I managed some;

1. here, but had to restore an earlier version (manually) here. Issues final warning (as user had recent warnings) here 2. Here I had to restore an older version. The user had no talk, so I used v1 here. 3. Here, in this case I think it was a misplaced 'comment' so I wrote a note to the user rather than a warning, here. 4. Issues a warning here (someone else undid the actual vandalism before I could save) ...and similar for some others. Let me know if more examples would be helpful, or if it just needs time, or whatever. Thanks, Smappy (talk) 19:24, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message. Essentially it's a tool I only give to those who've demonstrated a need and correct usage. That's hard to do from only over a weeks worth of editing, and undo and twinkle are only marginally slower. Huggle is a fine tool, but it can be troublesome if used incorrectly (whether accidental or not). I'd say re-request the permission on the board after at least another week, if not two. If I see it then, I'll let another admin do the honours. Cheers, NJA (t/c) 07:55, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello LilHelpa

in response to Elan School entry edits —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.53.145.2 (talk) 21:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The information which is sourced is an attempt to defame this business. Posting of this information constitutes an attempt to slander this company. Information regarding Michael Skakel is not associated with Elan School, as Michael Skakel scandal transpired prior to any association with Elan. Elan School had no part in the Michael Skakel trial. Addition of this content is of no use other than to hurt the business, and should remain off the page.

Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.53.145.2 (talk) 20:59, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm not particularly bothered, but another editor may be, and if so ensure you engage them in discussion and not get involved in an edit war. Cheers, NJA (t/c) 07:59, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Automyte

Hi. You recently handled a user block of the above-mentioned user. The user continues to add expressly anti-JW websites as external links on the JW article (as opposed to objective informational websites). Please see the JW article history, other user's requests for the user to desist at Automyte's Talk page, and the user's comments on my Talk page.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:34, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The clear edit warring that I blocked them for doesn't seem to be an issue right now. Thus I'd recommend that if discussion isn't working, then turn to the helpful guidance provided at WP:DR. Best of luck, NJA (t/c) 07:58, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The external links were part of the original complaint logged by User:LTSally which led to the block. At your suggestion, I'll try the dispute resolution process; as the user has never attempted discussion at an article's Talk Page, I've posted a Wikiquette alert.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:11, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That went well... Automyte responded by claiming that the responding admin at the Wikiquette alert should also be banned for warring.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:05, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pavani

St. Anselm has been proposing India-specific theologians articles for deletion. I've reverted them. But what about the tags placed in articles created by St. Anselm ? Can the user also revert the tags placed by me ?

Looks like St. Anselm has a free hand in proposing India-specific theological articles for deletion. Please block St. Anselm from placing tags in Indian Theologians articles.

[16] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pavani (talk • contribs) 13:37, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What you're doing is still edit warring. You shouldn't be removing maintenance tags, rather you should use talk pages to discuss with the other editor whether or not the tags belong. You must work towards consensus, and should this fail seek dispute resolution. At the same time the other editor hasn't explained reasoning for the tags, thus I have asked them on their talk page. Both of you should be using talk pages and not the undo button. NJA (t/c) 15:38, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ch. Vasantha Rao and User:Pavani

I wrote a paragraph at Talk:Ch. Vasantha Rao per your suggestion, but I notice the tags on the other two articles have been removed. Pavani is at it again, in defiance of the ban she received. Looking at her recent edits, she's re-prodded quite a few articles I've created, in contravention of WP:PROD. Her actions and comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/R. M. Clark ("User St. Anselm is on an India-bashing spree") means this is getting very close to harassment. StAnselm (talk) 21:01, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you able to do anything else? Despite being warned, Pavani has removed tags here here and here. Another editor and I have initiated discussions on all those talks pages, but Pavani has ignored them all. Please help! StAnselm (talk) 08:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Skoien

Respect, good block, why waste editors time. Off2riorob (talk) 16:35, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, no time to waste! :) Though, which one is that? NJA (t/c) 16:41, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This one, User_talk:Sustainablere . Thanks for the work. Off2riorob (talk) 16:42, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Worrycharm

You just indeff'd him. Have you got time to fix all his move vandalisms yourself?--Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:03, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Need help actually. Possibly fixing an error of my own! Oh well :/ NJA (t/c) 17:05, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems sorted. Cheers, NJA (t/c) 17:09, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I posted above, then the phone rang. By the time I came back, Jehochman had bopped the one that that was worst (Black Hole to....something very unpleasant)--Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:01, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please Delete My Account

I am logged in under the name Chadwilliam! and created my account on Feb 16 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chadwilliam! (talk • contribs) 17:24, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya, you may find this page helpful. NJA (t/c) 17:46, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Hi thanks. On the Dongyi article however, the exact information have been puted on by several new-account users several times, and along with the problems concerning the content and citations, that is why I'm suspicious of these edits.--TheLeopard (talk) 08:13, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would gather up some diffs and possibly consider submitting a sock report at WP:SPI? I'm just letting you know my concern, but it's not a very serious one as I know you're doing your best. Cheers, NJA (t/c) 08:17, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me

User:TheLeopard deleted large amount of contents from Dongyi article. How can it not be disruptive? Ecourr (talk) 08:28, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've commented on the report again. Thanks, NJA (t/c) 08:33, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LIVE! Singapore page deleted

Hi, I just created a new page to explain a new event called LIVE! Singapore. I believe it could be the style of writing which led to it being classified under false advertising. Is there any way to retrieve the page so that I can edit and rephrase it in a more encyclopedic manner? Thanks!

Livesingapore (talk) 09:41, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Block-evading IP (Part 2)

Hi, that IP is still evading his block, and edit-warring all over the place [17] [18]. Could you please semi-protect these pages [19][20], and block the 78.184.***.*** range for a longer period of time, perhaps months? I think this is overdue by now, it's the 3rd time he has evaded his block and he keeps breaking 3RR on various pages. [ [[21]]] This is not a constructive editor who ads anything of value to the Wikipedia project, I really don't see the benefit of keeping him around. --Kurdo777 (talk) 10:41, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully six months will sort it for now. NJA (t/c) 10:47, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

re: Bot name blocks

Okay, I'll take a look over that discussion when I have a few days of time on my hands ;). I'll try not to block outright in future, and discuss with the user first. Cheers, - Kingpin^13 (talk) 11:16, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, it is a bloody long discussion. NJA (t/c) 11:17, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quick question re. CSD/AfD

Is it kosher to CSD-tag an article that has an active (but very recent) AfD discussion but qualifies for speedy deletion? I've left my vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LACSH as speedy, since I believe the article falls under WP:CSD#G3, but don't know what the policy is on actually tagging it alongside an AfD. Any clarification would be welcome. Cheers, XXX antiuser ^eh? 11:27, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the issue. The only time it would be a concern is if it were nominated for CSD and an admin declined that nomination. In this case the page history doesn't have such a decline, therefore I don't think it's an issue. You may also consider a non-admin closure of the AFD discussion should the article be CSD'ed by an admin and they don't close the AFD (as it happens). NJA (t/c) 11:31, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks. I'll go ahead and tag it then. Cheers, XXX antiuser ^eh? 11:34, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Err, nevermind, someone else has :) XXX antiuser ^eh? 11:35, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Javed juya (talk) 14:16, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

why are you deleting my page?? please let me complete the page

As noted, please see CSD number 7 and the other links on creating new articles, autobiographies, conflict of interests, etc found on your talk. NJA (t/c) 15:01, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Murray

Thanks for the semi-prot. It looks like a new set of socks for AnneFan1. (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/AnneFan1/Archive). I don't know if you want to go through and block everything that looks ducky, or do you want me to open a new SPI? Gigs (talk) 14:35, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well I got (indef blocked) two accounts, one was in the page edit history, and the other was caught in an edit filter. NJA (t/c) 14:38, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Gigs (talk) 14:39, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kay Rush page deleted

Hello.

Why have you deleted the page I created?

There is a completely identical one in italian, http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kay_Rush and it's some sort of bio of my journalist friend, Kay Rush. No hoax nor misinformation.

regards,

Matteo --MatFox (talk) 14:58, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I got a false positive from a editing filter. Tentatively it looks as if she might exist, thus I've restored the page. Thank you for letting me know about this. NJA (t/c) 15:00, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Mitchkoi

Would you like to have an input into the user's unblock request?  Ronhjones ^(Talk) 00:37, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to unblock yesterday - I think any more time would be punishment, and I think he gets it. Your call though. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:59, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry mates, I'm not too active this weekend. I am fine with whatever you decide, so long as he understands the issue with COI. Cheers, NJA (t/c) 14:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User RFC

Hi NJA, I'm seriously considering adding a user RFC to Simpleterms, as they just filed a meat-puppetry case against me and accused Gillyweed of being enlisted to my cause.

That editor hasn't commented on the talk page yet, and looks like they never will. I have expressed my desire to understand what the issues are on that page, but they seem to be ignoring this.

Can I get your take on my next steps? The sock-puppet investigation was closed in short order, thankfully, but I think this is a bit disruptive. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tbsdy lives. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 11:13, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh hell mate I'm not too sure what to do, but I would attest that I've tried (off-wiki) to get the user to discuss the concerns and she flat out said that aspect of Wikipedia was annoying! NJA (t/c) 08:22, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, I reverted the account back to the indefinite block. As you can see on her talk page, the terms of the unblock were "agreed that you're aware of our guidance on conflicts of interests. You also agree to source your edits with reliable sources to maintain the need for verifiability and neutrality." She is not editing in line with these terms, and is simply a POV SPA who doesn't wish to work collaboratively (I can confirm this from email conversations with her), thus I've went back to the indefinite block as this is causing too much disruption to Wikipedia. NJA (t/c) 16:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I need some help, please

Hi NJA, I need some help. As you know, I have a mock sockpuppet listing that is on my talk page, but I'm trying to report this user and their various IPs. They've broken the rules time after time and today has started reverting flags once again. It's really creating tedious work and I've tried discussing it with the user on one of his talk pages, as well as the talk pages of some articles, but it's not getting through to him. Could you please help me to make a proper report of the sockpuppetry (because I don't know how, despite looking at the sockpuppet sections of WP) so that this can be dealt with finally. If so, thanks. Paralympiakos (talk) 18:00, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have a question to Paralympikos: Why are you trying (over and over again) to turn our disputes about "flags" and other FACTUAL issues into a PERSONAL ATTACK? Why do you keep labelling my edits as "vandalism", "harrassment" etc. and reverting them in a systematic fashion, instead of sorting those things out on discussion pages in a civilized manner? It is obvious, for example, that NOT A SINGLE ONE of my edits today (coming from 82.181.152.218) constitute vandalism.

As regards your accusations about "hiding" and "sockpuppeting": I am dependent on internet connections available in public places like cafeterias and so on. Therefore IP addresses vary. I am not "hiding" - all those addresses can be seen by anybody (unlike yours). As far as I know, this is not against Wikipedia rules.

I am very sorry to debate these kind of things on user NJA's talk page. Maybe this is the place you want to discuss on?

Thank you. 83.216.20.129 (talk) 19:44, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Addition: I took a look at the "sockpuppet list" that Paralympikos had composed on his/her talk page. Not all of those address are related to me; some are. It seems to me that you are having disputes with many people, and I noted you have been warned for your extreme attitude before. Please calm down a bit. 83.216.20.129 (talk) 19:50, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On my talk page, there is an example of you being a sockpuppet on the Swick talk page. That was you and don't deny. It seems strange that every IP I quoted are from Helsinki and all making the SAME edits. Don't even try to deny it. You've had the flags business explained to you but you keep ignoring it. Then you basically stalked me by reverting any page I changed and you've also been warned for vandalism on a couple of those IPs; actual vandalism, not the flags issue. Also, I've been warned....by you. You've still not told me why I will be "terminated" from the site and who this mysterious admin friend is.

Summary, you're a sockpuppet as you backed yourself up. Ergo ban for that and all the other stuff you've done. Paralympiakos (talk) 19:57, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Registering an account would assist in the appearance of socking disruptively, thus maybe you could consider doing that? NJA (t/c) 08:20, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marie Seton

Hi. Back in December I was working on the article Embassy Theatre (London), which included a reference to Marie Seton. I redlinked it, because she seems to have been a significant biographer. I notice just now that you have unlinked it saying "Removing backlinks to Marie Seton that has been speedily deleted per (CSD A7);". This is the first I knew that anyone had attempted to write an article on her, so I have no idea what it did or didn't say, but it seems a bit high-handed of you to remove my redlink. It would have been different if the person who had created the article you disapproved of had also put the link in, but that was not the case. Looking at your contributions I see that you did the same of Sergei Eisenstein, Padma Bhushan Awards (1980–1989), and Paul Robeson and communism. I'm reinstating those links. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 10:36, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redlinks are automatically removed when articles are deleted. It wasn't something I purposefully set out to do. It's nothing personal, and redlinks are generally discouraged under the manual of style. NJA (t/c) 10:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was unaware that redlinks are automatically removed when articles are deleted. I hadn't seen it before. This is probably because most reasonable people would take the presence of lots of pre-existing inward links as in itself evidence of notability, and therefore would not speedy under A7. To say that redlinks are generally discouraged is an exaggeration. Responsible use of redlinks is a useful way of drawing atttention to wanted but unwritten articles. If notability was the sole reason you deleted Marie Seton, I think you ought to reinstate it. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 11:26, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm more likely to be helpful when I'm not assumed to be unreasonable by you, someone who I've never had the pleasure of being in contact with before. I would be willing to userify the article to your userspace so you can improve the article enough so that it is at least cited with reliable references. Then, it can go back onto the live site. Interested? NJA (t/c) 11:31, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please do that. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 11:48, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've just emailed it to you about 2 minutes ago as I was about to log off for a while. Cheers, NJA (t/c) 11:49, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of category redirects

I notice that you deleted a number of category redirects yesterday as "empty" categories, even though the categories had not previously been listed on Category:Empty categories awaiting deletion. The deletion of Category:Living People was clearly incorrect: the category most definitely was not empty 24 hours before you deleted it, and only categories that have been empty for four days can be deleted. However, there is a broader problem, which is that there is no consensus that category redirects (which are suppposed to be empty) are eligible for mass deletion under WP:CSD#C1. I actually proposed deleting many of these redirects as empty categories here about a year ago, and the consensus was to keep them. Unless you find that there is now a consensus to delete these, I suggest that you should reconsider these deletions. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 10:50, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, looking over C1, it clearly wouldn't have applied. Obviously restoring the empty categories is a trivial matter, however I'm unsure of the utility of restoring a category that is empty? Would it not just populate Category:Wikipedia non-empty soft redirected categories with a bunch of empty cats? Maybe we should list them at WP:CFD? Though after looking over the old discussion, I think maybe it's time to revisit the matter. NJA (t/c) 10:59, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're preaching to the choir about the uselessness of these categories (in many, but not all cases), but I don't think that everyone else agrees. So if you want to list these cats on WP:CFD, go ahead, but don't be surprised if you get an argument. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 11:04, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I should be surprised, but I'm not. I will restore them and discontinue any clean up in relation to redirects in future unless consensus changes. If this is revisited, do let me know as I'd like to make some comments. NJA (t/c) 11:07, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Undeletion of Neil Cooper (ROIR)

Hi NJA. My wife, User:DracoEssentialis, who is a WP newbie, yesterday (with my help) created an article on Neil Cooper (ROIR), cited to

• a 1990 feature on Cooper in the Philadelphia Enquirer,
• the subject's 2001 New York Times obituary, and
• a 2009 feature in The Guardian on Cooper and the record company he founded.

Those are three features, spanning 20 years, that address the subject directly in detail, as required by WP:GNG, and explain what he is notable for. I am thus rather amazed you deleted the article. I told my wife exactly what sources she would need to satisfy WP:N, and she had them and cited'em. She's an award-winning radio journalist ... and this is a very unfriendly beginning to her contributing her subject matter expertise to this project. Could you please undelete the article without requiring us to go through DR? It was a clear mistake. Cheers, --JN466 11:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Here are references to Neil Cooper and ROIR in google books: [22] --JN466 11:12, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Here are references to Neil Cooper and ROIR in google news: [23] --JN466 11:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, fine. The issue is it was tagged by a bot as a possible and likely hoax, and whilst I do my best to delete only those truly hoaxes or otherwise (here notability issue), that is not always possible. Some of the hoaxes we get are amazingly detailed. I will restore, but that doesn't mean the article won't be subject to other forms of community based deletion discussions. Cheers, NJA (t/c) 11:15, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot. Hoaxes do suck, and I am glad you are on the lookout for them. A while ago someone created Hannibal Fogg, citing obscure and not easily verifiable books in the bio, inserting passing mentions of this fictitious individual in a dozen articles, using a fictitious 80-year-old book by him to source an unsourced statement in an unrelated article (!) ... In case you're unaware of it, there is a place at User:Shii/Hoaxes for documenting interesting hoaxes. -- My wife is very happy to see her article again. I am confident it will survive any AfD, if there ever should be one. Cheers and thanks again! JN466 11:29, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, NJA, and thank you for your welcome message. I must say I was shocked to find that you had deleted my first article. Thank you for putting it back up after an exchange with my husband, JN466. May I suggest that in future, new articles get reviewed by people familiar with the subject matter before deletion? You questioning Mr. Cooper’s notability makes me suspect you didn't find the time to read the article or the references I had provided. My husband explained to me that as an admin, you probably have a long list of articles to work through, which doesn’t necessarily leave time to scrutinize them all in detail. Hence my suggestion for referral to an expert, in line with the Wikipedia credo of assuming good faith. Looking at your user page, your areas of expertise seem to be software and legal matters. I will try and find more sources for my article to bring it more in line with your standards. Today, though, is a busy work day. Since you kindly offered advice, please allow me to take you up on it. I tried entering the names of Mr. Cooper’s wife and children in the infobox on the right. While they are visible in the edit, they do not appear on the actual page. Is there a way of tweaking this? I used the template for ‘musician’. Surely, they are allowed to have a family ;)? Thank you in advance.--DracoEssentialis (talk) 15:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the tip, and I'm happy it's sorted for now. Don't worry about it looking perfect straight away. As for your query on the infobox, I will be completely honest in saying I'm not quite sure why that is happening. You may wish to scan over Help:Infobox and possibly use the talk page there to ask the question so that someone who has more familiarity with infobox issues may see your problem and find a solution. If I find anything though I will alert you on your talk page. Cheers, NJA (t/c) 15:52, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! --DracoEssentialis (talk) 17:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Socks

User:Filolog16 and User:Philolog14 may also be socks, I'm writing to you because you blocked other similar accounts. Regards, Anna Lincoln 11:32, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Almost certainly. Thanks for the heads up. NJA (t/c) 11:34, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fujifilm FinePix S200EXR

Why was article for Fujifilm FinePix S200EXR deleted for being duplicate article for FujiFilm FinePix F200EXR? They are two different models, S200EXR being prosumer/bridge camera, and F200EXR being compact Point&Shoot model.

"11:56, 22 February 2010 NJA (talk | contribs) deleted "Fujifilm FinePix S200EXR" ‎ (A10: Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic: F200EXR#F200EXR)"

BrainDead (talk) 12:33, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is already an article Fujifilm FinePix S200EXR. NJA (t/c) 13:54, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Check again... There's no article. BrainDead (talk) 19:55, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There was when I posted. It was deleted again by another admin under CSD G7. NJA (t/c) 21:12, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any chance you could do the rollback or something?
Thanks
BrainDead (talk) 21:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here. Improve it and re-add to Wikipedia and hopefully it won't be deleted by another admin. Shouldn't be an issue if it meets all criteria. NJA (t/c) 21:39, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks BrainDead (talk) 23:07, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sinha Conjecture Prize

The OTRS team has received an email releasing the information on this page to Wikipedia under the CC-BY-SA-3.0. Could you please restore it so that I could add the relevant tags? The ticket number is 2010022210013458. Thank you in advance! Panyd^The muffin is not subtle 14:34, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done NJA (t/c) 15:47, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Just a quick note to thank you for your civil and sensible approach to the sockpuppet allegations against me and Tbsdy regarding the David Tweed article. It was a disruptive and time wasting activity. Happy editing (if you ever get to do any these days!) Gillyweed (talk) 21:15, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. I like getting positive ones! Clearly the allegations were ridiculous, and the user hadn't kept their word, thus why allow them to continue to waste time and cause disruption? Cheers, NJA (t/c) 21:44, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ulterior (Band)

Hi NJA,

RE: 10:26, 22 February 2010 NJA (talk | contribs) deleted "Ulterior (band)" ‎ (Speedy deleted per CSD A7, was an article about a band, singer, musician, or musical ensemble that didn't assert the importance or significance of the subject.)

My friend and I compiled the article, both of us newbies to Wikipedia. Could you please highlight what you deem unimportant or of no significance please?

Any help or guidance would be very appreciated

Ulteriorlondon (talk) 21:29, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied on your talk page. Aside from those concerns, your name may violate WP:GROUPNAME and it raises conflict of icnterest concerns. Anyhow, the deleted article can be found here to be improved in line with the guidance at WP:MUSIC. NJA (t/c) 21:35, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick reply. I think the new edit may suffice... is there a way to send it to you before publishing?

Ulteriorlondon (talk) 00:33, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No you should be fine. Cheers, NJA (t/c) 07:43, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whaling in Japan

Hi. I don't think Whaling in Japan needs to be locked. I actually had too many reverts (over a few different lines) than I like but talk is going on fine. PrBeacon half reverted but it was more of editing to find consensus since I reverted his large edit but he wanted to adjust the lead. I also might have been hasty in reverting his other edit but there seemed like enough opposition. We seem pretty reasonable from my understanding of everyone on the page. Would you mind unlocking it and I for one will chill out the reverts until it is all setlled?Cptnono (talk) 08:11, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No issue really, just come to a consensus on the article's talk page and it will be unprotected. I have your agreement here, but it'd be best to seek agreement on the article talk page so the other parties can see it and agree to also stop reverting. Once all are agreed to stop reverting then we can unprotect. Cheers, NJA (t/c) 08:14, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. I think people were done reverting and I was a looking out too much for BRD while discussion was ongoing in a couple of places. It was brought up on the talk page and I'll bug you about it in 24hrs if no one else says anything.Cptnono (talk) 11:30, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it got locked because PrBEacon was re-reverting any undo done to his recent edits without reaching a consensus first. Which is something I specifically reported. Cetamata (talk) 15:27, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly. ftr PrBeacon (talk) 09:44, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message on the related talk page. The take/catch/kill/smash thing is up at a noticeboard now. I didn't realize the "research whaling" thing was also going to be a sticking point. I guess I won't be bugging you like I thought.Cptnono (talk) 09:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Inevitable Flight

I am updating the article and please look through the sites . MAybe im missing something but its not a hoax. thoughts ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by EssRiz (talk • contribs) 16:07, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RIM IP Block

I think it depends on how you sign up for the Blackberry. I just verified that my own Blackberry edits WHOIS to RIM directly as well, and not to my phone ISP ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:49, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's good to know and it's quite interesting actually. Regardless, the IP should be handled carefully as they knew a lot of terminology for being a new user who was affected by a check user block. Cheers for the info. NJA (t/c) 17:52, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I concur. The unblock request came from some random IP at Humber College, and not from the RIM range. Interesting to note that only some of the RIM range is actually blocked - they may assign them to various ISP's, although, the guy from Humber is either on Bell, Telus or Rogers ... one of those three is the same one that I am on, and I'm not blocked (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:00, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the revert!

Never been called a Nazi before. Favonian (talk) 17:51, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hamid Sadr

Hi NJA, You speedily deleted a contribution abut the writer Hamid Sadr because the article did not assert the significance. I give you several links now and ask you to check the importance of this writer once more. http://www.hanser-literaturverlage.de/autoren/autor.html?id=25369http://www.goethe.de/INS/ie/dub/acv/lit/2007/de2710543v.htm http://foreignrights.hanser.de/detail.asp?ISBN=3-552-06006-5&verlag=Zsolnay%20/%20Deuticke&zuordnung=Fiction&sortierung=Name; further on I quote some German magazines who have written a review about one of his books: ZUKUNFT, 2006;LITERATUR und KRITIK September 2005; DIE FURCHE September 2005,NEUE ZÜRICHER ZEITUNG Juli 2005; Hamid Sadr is no unknown in the German and Persian literature and so I ask you to revice your decision. Thank you, kind regards, Akinom 1953 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Akinom1953 (talk • contribs) 19:05, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Final discussion for Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:

1. Proposal to Close This RfC
2. Alternate proposal to close this RFC: we don't need a whole new layer of bureaucracy

Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip 03:22, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Block-evading IP (Part 3)

Remember this guy[24], he is back under a new range [25], could you please range-block 193.255.***.** as well, as this new IP range is probably his place of work. --Kurdo777 (talk) 09:40, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a silly ethnicity dispute and Kurdo is a part of the problem. The IP user is adding Turkestan to the regions and kurdo is removing it although non of the regions is referenced. I tried to de-emphasize ethnicity in the article but was met with resistance. Sole Soul (talk) 10:19, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sole Soul, you are a party to the general dispute on that page as well, please don't pretend otherwise. But that larger dispute on that page is irrelevant to this discussion, and so is the content of the IP's edits, all of the IP's edits should automatically be reverted per Wikipedia:Banning_policy#Enforcement_by_reverting because the IP in question is evading his block, which was originally given to him for disruptive behavior and multiple 3RR violations on another unrelated page [26] and subsequently extended for he evading it a dozen times--Kurdo777 (talk) 11:19, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You should read the difference between a block and a ban. I only come here to notify NJA to review the situation carefully. Sole Soul (talk) 11:49, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Either way, the IP in question is currently blocked and prohibited from editing Wikipedia, and he is evading his block. --Kurdo777 (talk) 12:00, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To be completely honest I don't much feel like reading through this right now. If it's a serious issue then please report to WP:ANI, otherwise I'll look over it tomorrow. Sorry, but just busy right now. NJA (t/c) 18:10, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Universal Cheerleaders Association"

You recently speedy deleted this article under A7 (fails to assert notability), which is entirely possible; I see that it was created by a new user who may not have known what was needed. However, I strongly suspect that this organization does meet the notability guideline. Could you restore the article in my userspace so I can work on it? (If not, FYI, I will probably be recreating the article eventually anyway.) Thanks, cmadler (talk) 13:32, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. NJA (t/c) 18:08, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, cmadler (talk) 19:24, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of entry "Kragg"

Hello NJA,

I tried to post to the discussion to defend my article entry, but I was unable to post by finding the entry under the "marked for deletion" in February 22nd even after reading the "articles marked for deletion" guideline, so I am sending you a message directly with my feelings on why it should not be deleted.

"The links provided on the page provide a path to multiple bodies of written work. Both are heavily trafficed well known gaming websites, that feature a current bi-weekly article run, and old reviews from a site previously worked on, and a weekly podcast/show that has been active for over a year. There are many biography pages on wikipedia (especially for notable bloggers and internet journalists) that contain less credible information and less cited sources.

I do not feel this article should be deleted because there is significant evidence of work other than the personal blog that is linked to."

Also, I reviewed your user account and you are clearly a legitimate user, but "Joe Chill" is working under multiple accounts, and apparently due to harrassment by other users and attempting massive numbers of page deletions, so I believe he may be trolling.

I hope you take my points into consideration, and consider unflagging my entry for deletion.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bld3613 (talk • contribs) 18:58, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of "Attack of the Movies 3-D"

Why did you delete this page I was working on? Sure it appeared to be blatant advertising, but I was going to be writing more on it so it didn't appear to be this. Could you please wait a few days before deleting so that people actually have time to write an article and make it good?

Thanks, Aesop117 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aesop117 (talk • contribs) 14:11, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ARTICLE (LITTLES (artist) Please reply to me in my user id profile)

Littlesqb (talk) 19:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC)I'm in need of some serious wikipedia assistance. You deleted my contribution for the below: Current revision as of 08:29, 24 February 2010 (edit) (undo) NJA (talk | contribs) (Warning: Creating inappropriate pages on Littles (artist).)[reply]

I have been trying to post an article on the above rapper for quite some time and have unsuccessfully been unable to as the editors always find something wrong with my post. Can you please help me edit whatever is causing vandalism and tell me whats missing and what I should add to it? I would truely appreciate your time and help as I am wikipedia clueless! lol.

Just checking

Hello!!! you said the article needed to have a few secondary sources to be proof of a company and organisation, i've done that now, it has been covered by the bbc and has been in london newspapers, the company has also sold games in the usa, there should be lots of bits and bobs about it all over the net, please let me know if my article is approved now!!! get back to me as soon as you can please xx —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smiless--xo (talk • contribs) 04:40, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Need Help Urgent

HI,we need to create article about our upcoming film KARUPPAMPATTI (FILM).. i am really stuggling to do that.. can you help me.. pls very urgent.. i working as a assistant director in the film. [e-mail].. pls help us.. thanks in advance.. i don't know anything about wikipedia article creation.. my name is vallabhan.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Karuppampatti (talk • contribs) 05:15, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indonesian vandal alert.

Sorry to bother you, but the Indonesian anime/movie studio vandal had returned today, this time using 125.161.141.51 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and did only one edit. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 07:58, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And the guy continued his misinformation rampage today. The address he used this time is 202.70.54.67 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 14:34, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rangeblocked for 2 weeks. NJA (t/c) 12:36, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A link that I would appreciate if you could take a quick look at when you're free

As per the subject: [27]

I was told to wait a couple of weeks and then reapply. Any opinion/input etc on that now? Thanks. Paralympiakos (talk) 16:10, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest the concern was never acknowledged by you, even though myself and one or more admins agreed that there was misuse. I have no problem re-assigning tools, however this is difficult to do when I don't think the reasoning for its removal is appreciated. Do you now feel differently, ie that there was inadvertent misuse that would not happen again? The main issue would be the continuation of marking reverts as vandalism when they are in fact not really blatant or obvious vandalism. NJA (t/c) 12:36, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the main problem was that I was annoyed in the heat of the moment with the block. I felt that removal of rights AND a temp block was far too harsh for what was essentially good faith editing by myself. Since that point though, I have been labelling the edits as what they are, e.g. warning the user using vandalism templates or NPOV templates etc. (essentially "vandalism" isn't my go-to phrase now). Paralympiakos (talk) 13:28, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Thanks. NJA (t/c) 13:50, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate it. Just so I'm 100% clear, if I see a POV edit, do I have to undo rather than rollback? I'm clear on the labelling, but in terms of removing said edits...

Cheers. Paralympiakos (talk) 14:56, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback is for serious edits that don't really require an edit summary, such as: blatant/obvious vandalism, copyright breach, clear BLP policy breach (ie defamatory statements without reference, etc). Otherwise use undo, or a automated tool like WP:TWINKLE that allows for faux rollback. Cheers, NJA (t/c) 15:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this wasn't any of those, and therefore your use of rollback was again incorrect. Please ensure you understand its use for quick reversion of vandalism and other serious issues (noted above) only, and not for use in lieu of undo with proper edit summaries. NJA (t/c) 16:04, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Surely this agrees with me. The content was removed for no good reason, in an attempt to disrupt wikipedia. The content was about an important fight and therefore this:

"However, significant content removals are usually not considered to be vandalism where the reason for the removal of the content is readily apparent by examination of the content itself"

...did not apply. However, if you disagree, then I'll just not rollback those type of edits. Paralympiakos (talk) 16:33, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, but you're not really using WP:AGF. The removal might have been done in good faith, thus a normal undo with an edit summary such as 'rv - undone unexplained removal of content'. That's what I do in these cases. If the user then came back and did the exact same thing again without any explanation anywhere, then obviously you're less inclined to AGF and therefore the edits are more likely to be vandalism making rollback more acceptable. The issue here is that I checked the article's history, and this was the first time it happened, thus you shouldn't simply assume it's been done in bad faith and therefore = vandalism. It wasn't a clear, obvious, blatant (insert further synonyms here) vandalistic edit -- which rollback is for. Does this make sense? NJA (t/c) 16:39, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, got it. Believe me, I'm not intentionally making these mistakes. I'm honestly doing what I believe is the right course of action.

I have a couple more examples then, so if you could tell me the right thing to do with each, then I'd appreciate it:

This edit and this.

The first one, I'd be tempted to revert, but am unsure now and the second one is introducing nonsense the page (I gave the relevant warning, not the standard vandalism one), which at first I would have reverted, but have instead undone. Paralympiakos (talk) 16:45, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First one, rollback would have been fine as it's obvious vandalism, though the second is a bit trickier. The second could be vandalism, though it's not blatantly obvious -- thus undo with an edit summary such as 'rv. uncited entry' would be your best bet. NJA (t/c) 16:52, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, the first one...that definitely wouldn't be classed as NPOV, right? I'm just worried that some editors would see a rollback as bad (e.g. a while back, I was told off for rolling an edit that said someone was a legend).

The second one, I can assure you is utter nonsense, but I did a straight undo and the IP re-added it with no summary or source. Would I be right in saying that rollback would THEN be allowed? Paralympiakos (talk) 16:55, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First example: saying that someone is a complete tool would be NPOV yes, but more basically for the purposes of rollback it's vandalism. Rollback isn't concerned about NPOV statements, if the person said 'they're a legend' then it's nonsense and NPOV, but it's less of a concern than calling them a tool. I'm unfamiliar with the previous "legend" situation, but I think rollback use would have been okay, though a simple undo saying 'rv. NPOV statement' would have been better.

Second example: as for if the same nonsense being re-added without edit summaries or talk page discussion, yes in this case the editing is more likely to be akin to vandalism, thus making rollback use more acceptable. Though it should be stressed that you should attempt dialogue on the user's talk page (or alternatively on the article's talk page) to query their reasoning for removal. This way you're avoiding edit warring. But rollback on the first removal without a history of it happening, as was done here is not correct usage. Again, rollback is for serious edits that don't really require an edit summary, such as: blatant/obvious vandalism, copyright breach, clear BLP policy breach (ie defamatory statements without reference, etc). Otherwise use undo, or a automated tool like WP:TWINKLE. NJA (t/c) 17:06, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just as an explanation for the "legend" rollback I mentioned, it was this. This was also quoted as a reason for rollback removal, which baffled me at the time, given it was a straight undo with explanation.

Anyway, thanks for the help. I'll do my best to take it into account. Paralympiakos (talk) 17:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the example (Coleman is legend), that would seem to be common vandalism, where use of rollback would generally be acceptable. NJA (t/c) 17:47, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User Sanam001

This is user [28] is involved in Vandalism activities. Please stop him.90.46.32.29 (talk) 16:32, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He's changing articles, before having proper discussions, reaching consensus. It is not a way to edit wikipedia. It is not at all the firs time he's doing such vandal acts.90.46.32.29 (talk) 16:42, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. User Sanam is inserting POV despite an overall consensus against his edits. Suresh.Varma.123 (talk) 15:44, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would advise that concerned parties proceed in line with the guidance at WP:DR, ie post the concern at a relevant noticeboard or seek community support as direct admin intervention is unlikely to be useful at this stage. Best of luck. NJA (t/c) 12:36, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nair / Malayala Sudra

I noted that you fully protected Nair for a month due to what was going on there. Just FYI, the same thing seems to be happening at Malayala Sudra between many of the same editors. Just thought you might want to know. Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 14:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I can't invest too much time on this right now, thus consider reporting obvious edit warring at WP:AN3 and editor concerns at one of the various noticeboards noted at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution#Ask_for_help_at_a_relevant_noticeboard. Cheers. NJA (t/c) 12:36, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article issues tags question

Hi NJA, Would you mind offering advice on how to best cleanup the articleissues tags on Leonard_L._Northrup_Jr.. I've posted more details on that article's talk page. Thanks a ton! Wikitaco444 (talk) 19:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Malayala Sudra Edit wars

This edit war by user User:Suresh.Varma.123in malayala sudra page is arising in continuance of the content dispute in nayar article. Since WP : 30 and multi party discussion failed, the user declined my efforts of next level of dispute resolution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/_Nayar-content_dispute-3O_and_consensus_failed

The source of encouragement is meat puppetry by user User:Anandks007. He has encouraged all other users to initiate edit wars with me instead of assuming good faith during content dispute. The proof of his meatpuppetry is here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nair#Reverting_vandalism_by_Sanam001

--Sanam001 (talk) 11:41, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, NJA. You have new messages at Talk:MacBook Pro.
Message added 20:01, 4 March 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I've also nominated it for GA again. Airplaneman ^talk 20:01, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of Injury and Violence Research

Hi there! I notice that the Journal_of_Injury_and_Violence_Research has been deleted, but the deletion notice just says 10:52, 20 January 2010 NJA (talk | contribs) deleted (WP:PROD: Nominated for seven days with no objection). Is there any record of what the original PROD nomination was for? I want to make sure that I don't make the same mistake in the future when creating articles for peer-reviewed academic journals. Thanks! Clifflandis (talk) 21:19, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for delay, the prod said: "A search for references failed to find significant coverage in reliable sources to comply with notability requirements. This included web searches for news coverage, books, and journals. Consequently, this article is about a subject that appears to lack sufficient notability." NJA (t/c) 08:16, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks! Clifflandis (talk) 16:07, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BLP tags

Might want to be a bit more care full with the BLP tags, you tagged this Oğuz Tansel. Ridernyc (talk) 15:08, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

K. NJA (t/c) 08:16, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Melissa Meister

Hello NJA, I recently noticed on February 22 the Melissa Meister post was deleted for not have any significance. I researched other oscar nominee or oscar wining costume designers, and i wanted to add more reference links. But the person in question is noted by all to the costume designers guild as being the first "Green" Hollywood stylist. Meaning this person utilizes recycled materials and sustainable products in their designs. This may not seem like a big deal to most but in the fashion world, its huge. Do I need to add more external links to make it permanent?

Sincerely, Rob Heppler Rheppler (talk) 06:07, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that would likely be reasonable. NJA (t/c) 08:16, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anyway of getting the deleted post back, or do I have to re-write it?

Rheppler (talk) 17:53, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anime/Movie Studio vandal.

As you probably have known, the guy has resurfaced as 114.56.176.6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). I'm surprised you decided not to block the address as his edits were left undiscovered for two hours. But let's continue to be vigilant and watch the range the above address is in as we all know his modus operandi. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 10:08, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

April 2010 GAN backlog elimination drive

WikiProject Good Articles will be running a GAN backlog elimination drive for the entire month of April. The goal of this drive is to bring the number of outstanding Good Article nominations down to below 200. This will help editors in restoring confidence to the GAN process as well as actively improving, polishing, and rewarding good content. If you are interested in participating in the drive, please place your name here. Awards will be given out to those who review certain numbers of GANs as well as to those who review the most. Hope we can see you in April.

–MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 18:01, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Grant.Alpaugh

This user, whom you blocked last year, is requesting unblock. I have placed it on hold pending the results of discussion at WP:ANI. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:59, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Racially offensive username

Hi.. sorry to bother you, but had no other options. I have noticed that a Wiki User deliberately created an user account with a racially offensive term and has been using the account for rampant edit wars. See Oombiar. His username is deliberately meant to offend the Nambiar community by adding it with the term Oomban (Malayalam term for a gay man who performs oral sex). I am not sure how to respond, so please help me if you are not too busy. Axxn (talk) 07:07, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your input is requested...

... on this unblock request (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:52, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I told the user via email, I'm currently too busy to handle this properly, thus I hope for other admins to consider the request. This may be of interest, and possibly the opinions of the two other involved parties should be sought. Cheers, NJA (t/c) 14:28, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SPI request

Hi.

There's a message at WP:SPI#Submitting an SPI case about a bot being down and submitting cases manually or (as here) contacting a clerk. I've never submitted an SPI case previously, and thought it best to ask someone who knows what they're doing. I picked you pretty randomly from the list at WP:SPICLERK. That said, on to specifics....

There have been several recent edits to the Boracay article adding adverts for one particular real estate firm. These edits were made (so far) by User:122.55.54.54, User:Weehh and User:Bhebudz. Based on the pattern of edits, I'm pretty sure these are all sockpuppets operated by one person. I'm an admin (and, incidentally, live on Boracay), but this is outside of my experience. If this isn't the action indicated in this situation, I'd appreciate advice/coaching. Thanks. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 13:25, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Simpleterms

I have put the above user's unblock request on hold, awaiting your comment (preferable on User talk:Simpleterms).

I'd be grateful for your opinion on the matter, as you were the blocking admin -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:15, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback

Hey, I noticed that you approved my request for rollback permissions earlier today, but I don't seem to be able to use it. Thanks for your help. Maddie ^talk 19:53, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Should work now. Cheers. NJA (t/c) 22:55, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Energyfieldnetwork

Confused, isn't this filtered edit enough to prove promotional (and misleading- role account) as far as the username policy goes? Username is the same as the website they're writing about. Regards, --BelovedFreak 15:25, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, was in a hurry and missed the edit filter you linked to. Apologies, NJA (t/c) 15:26, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, ok! No problem. --BelovedFreak 15:31, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:76.229.174.240

Hey! You recently did a block on this user for vandalism. He/she is now back, and has repeatedly removed the unbulleted list formatting on Castle (TV series). I've put a warning on his/her talk page, but thought I'd give you a heads up in case you wanted to keep an eye on him/her. Drmargi (talk) 01:22, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mari-Ana Mimi

Hi NJA. You may recall a few months ago (Dec-Feb) you dealt with the User:MariAna Mimi who was edit warring, deleting, reverting and generally being disruptive, which led to her being blocked four times (the last of which was for a month). I'm afraid that she is back up to her old tricks. There are multiple complaints from other editors on her talk page (including 3 separate ones from just the past week) and in the months since her last block, she has persisted in reverting and deleting the Reality Killed The Video Star article page again to her own preferred version, as well as other articles. It's clear she has learned nothing from being sanctioned in the past, and so I think that a much longer block or even just terminating the account altogether is the only way to deal with her. Can you help? 88.104.30.115 (talk) 08:45, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This could well be a case to bring up at WP:ANI. Good luck. NJA (t/c) 08:32, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

pls send all the details about reliance retail... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.247.234.162 (talk) 10:22, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]