User talk:NJA/Archive 07

This is an archive of past discussions from NJA's talk page for the months of September 2009 through to the end of December 2009. Please do not edit or add to this page. If you wish to leave a new comment, please do so by clicking here. < 06 (Jul - Aug 2009) | 07 (Sept - Dec 2009) | > 08 (Jan 2010+)

Cyberanth

Hi. I wondered if any progress had been made in the openCyberanth sock case?--Die4Dixie (talk) 02:38, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Apple TV

The article Apple TV you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Apple TV for things needed to be addressed. Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail} 21:32, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Dispute resolution on Modern Buddhism

What kind of dispute resolution do you suggest? We already had an extensive discussion on Talk:Buddhism, we had an WP:AfD, i provided you with all the links on WP:3RRV. Page protection only plays into the hand of that one single editor, the creator of the page, who cannot accept, that he is the only one who thinks the page should stay as it is. Please...this is getting more and more ridiculous. What do you do with someone, who doesn't discuss properly and totally ignores the overwhelming consensus of the community? Andi 3ö (talk) 08:15, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

BTW, the edit summary of the protection is quite misleading when it says: "Apparent content dispute between two editors." There have been many people involved in the discussion, all opposing User:Jemesouviens32s view and [this recent revert] was clearly not done by me. Andi 3ö (talk) 08:25, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm about to leave for work, but you may request a second view at WP:AN3 if you wish. However I don't believe a 24 or 31 hour block will actually resolve the issue, do you? The issue needs to be progressed inline with policy, possibly a request for comment to get neutral and fresh insight and community consensus. Nja²⁴⁷ 08:31, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice. You say "possibly a request for comment to get neutral and fresh insight and community consensus". I still don't quite undertand this procedure. What exactly will change then? Why do we need even more people weighing in on this. Counting the contributions here and here and here i guess we're already well above ten... Andi 3ö (talk) 08:45, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

FYI: I have filed an RfC now. Andi 3ö (talk) 12:16, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Domer48

FYI - Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Domer48. Rd232 ^talk 19:18, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Um, you said you'd certify an RFC on Domer. No-one else has (though others have commented). Clock's ticking (how sensible is that 48 hr requirement? not convinced). Rd232 ^talk 14:27, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes sorry, however I haven't tried to resolve this particular dispute with him. The RFC page says "at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users." Nja²⁴⁷ 19:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, OK, but have you taken into account what I said on Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Domer48 about the scope of the dispute? Rd232 ^talk 19:53, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: User_talk:Nimbow7

Thankyou for your patronizing soliloquy on the how to use Wikipedia.

Perhaps you should heed your own advise, and instead of removing sections wholesale, verify what has been written and request citations - even if it is contrary to your biased views.

You say:

"I think if the text were to be re-added, ie after complete disclosure of what the source actually says, consideration would need to be paid to WP:UNDUE. Thus, information on possible health effects, etc may well be best placed in a separate off-shoot article"

reading the source may yield its information; I'm not your babysitter here to hold your hand. The precise pages were cited.

Rest assured I shall fully review everything you deleted and reinstate it pending utter verifiability beyond any shadow of a doubt, with increased references and total unbiased accountability worthy of encyclopaedic material.

Kneejerk reactions such as removing any and all facts opposing your beliefs is wholly unacceptable.

This pro-CFL bias has gone too far. Nimbow7 (talk) 13:54, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Note 2

"The opposition sub-heading rightly belongs in the Phase-out of incandescent light bulbs.

Could you explain why information on the pro-forced introduction of CFLs belongs in Compact_fluorescent_lamp article but not the anti-forced movement? Nimbow7 (talk) 17:09, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Happy Labor Day!

Dear colleague, I just want to wish you a happy, hopefully, extended holiday weekend and nice end to summer! Your friend, --A Nobody^{My talk} 05:46, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Article wizard2.0/Userfeedback

Thanks. I've done quite a lot of putting the word out - see what links there. If you have any more suggestions, or input on how to improve it (WT:WIZ2), that would be very welcome. Rd232 ^talk 21:41, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: Rollback rights

Thanks! Will ensure I use it properly - Krishvanth (talk) 06:57, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Admission to practice law

Interesting edit. I never knew that! Could you provide an example for a citation? And/or respond on the talk page? Zoticogrillo (talk) 21:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

There are many universities that offer it, for example this course is a 2 year LLB offered by a University of London college. Nja²⁴⁷ 06:17, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Uberveillance

Could you please provide me to the source of the deleted Wikipedia item as I wish to put it in Wiktionary. Thanks.

Uberveillance ps

PS - could you send the source to me at morgan@uow.edu.au. Thanks

Re: Query on tool

Hello, NJA. You have new messages at Viriditas's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Viriditas (talk) 10:25, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Grant.Alpaugh may be back

So I started a discussion on a revert I did and the user I'm talking with is brand new and knows a lot about how things were done last year by our friend Grant. I notified him of my concerns here and his response seems to indicate an even deeper knowledge of Grant's history. Is this enough evidence to be concerned about? Am I overreacting? Thanks for your help. --SkotyWA^Talk|_Contribs 05:34, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Two more links to share regarding this when you're online again: I've been accused on WP:WQA based on my request for advice from you above, and User:Grsz11 has started another sockpuppet investigation. --SkotyWA^Talk|_Contribs 16:24, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry all, I've had some leg surgery today and therefore have been unavailable. Things were more challenging than I though with it. Anyhow, Skoty, if there's an SPA I suppose we'll see how it turns out. Too bad actually for Grant if true, as if he'd put in a valid unblock request and admitted to his mistakes it's possible it would have been granted (I would have been inclined to at least consider it this time around). Nja²⁴⁷ 19:34, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

No need to apologize. Hope you're feeling better. --SkotyWA^Talk|_Contribs 02:50, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Robbieejoness

Robbieejoness (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) repeated a copyright violation as his only edit since your block against him for serial copyright violation expired. Where has he been, you ask? Obviously editing as 90.203.235.38 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). To get the copyright violating image installed, Robbieejoness uploaded it, and the anon added it to the article. The edits are within 3 minutes of each other, so it isn't a coincidence.—Kww(talk) 18:21, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey mate, sorry for the delay (see above for why). Unfortunately today hasn't been the best of days and therefore I'll have to defer you to an appropriate noticeboard, such as WP:Copyright_problems should you require assistance (or consider WP:ANI if it's serious). Good luck and sorry to be useless at the moment. Nja²⁴⁷ 19:34, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Validbanks 34

Validbanks 34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Has repeatably undid revisions to Mac OS X. I have asked him to stop the edit warring & has turned edit remarks to personal attacks. 『 ɠu¹ɖяy 』 ^¤ • ¢ 18:42, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Hiya, see above for my reason for the delay. I'd make a report to WP:AN3 to be honest, or WP:RFPP. Sorry I can't be of any more assistance tonight, but I've had a much more difficult day than I thought it'd be and I'm going straight to bed! Good luck mate. Nja²⁴⁷ 19:34, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I have now reported him for edit warring. 「 ɠu¹ɖяy 」¤ • ¢  23:02, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

User_talk:Robbieejoness

You blocked this user a few months ago due to repeated uploading of non-free files with non-existent or fake licensing information. Well, he's back and at it again. Do you want to have a more forceful word, or should I log this elsewhere? Thedarxide (talk) 20:05, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, the user is already under discussion at Wikipedia:ANI#Robbieejoness. Maybe make a comment there, cheers. Nja²⁴⁷ 20:10, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Cheeky! I can hobble :) Nja²⁴⁷ 20:17, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

That's my movement of this discussion. Unfortunately, no one seems to actually be moving in to block the user, block the IP, and delete the series of copyright violations he has posted since his return.—Kww(talk) 20:21, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorted for now. See my comments at ANI. Nja²⁴⁷ 21:07, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Recovery
		Here's to a hasty recovery from the op. Since you can't walk anywhere, I expect 2 GAs by the weekend. Terrillja talk 20:16, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Cheeky! I can hobble :) Nja²⁴⁷ 20:17, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

MacBook family

Hello Nja²⁴⁷, it Airplaneman again. I saw your edit where you undid the reword for the MacBook Pro description. I agree with that, and after reading your edit summary, I decided to reword it. It's a very teensy detail, but I think it's better, how about you? Thanks, Airplaneman ^talk 20:25, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Looks good mate. Nja²⁴⁷ 21:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Blocked

 Done Unblocked.

(moved) Help! Hackbinary here and you have blocked me. Although we where on opposite sides of the Arquila Insite thing, and BTW there are loads of un-notable bands and such, such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_Accusations, anyway, you wikipedia folks have made your decision and I'll respect it (even if I think it is wrong.) It is quite another to accuse me of this sock-pupetry, and lock me out from doing anything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.41.5.36 (talk) 13:08, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

• Other stuff existing doesn't validate the notability of any given article. Articles are held to our standards independent of what's around them.
• Circumventing a block to post a message about your block is still circumventing a block.
• {{unblock}}. --King Öomie 13:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
  • AS you know, it is very difficult to write anything once blocked. This whole article writing experience has been very frustrating. I know at least 2 or 3 other people have written on the Article, one in London, and 1 or 2 in Glasgow. I'm in Edinburgh, and have written from home, my g/f flat, and my workplace. In every instance, I have endeavoured to login, so that my comments are reflected against my user name, but the long comment that I made a couple of days ago, I think I forgot to login for.
  • Who and how do I address this whole blockage thing? Hackbinary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.41.5.36 (talk) 13:27, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Looking through your contributions, you're not aware of our policy regarding subject notability. There's no vendetta against small businesses, it's just that most of them don't really qualify for articles, and the people writing them tend to very ornery about it.

Add {{unblock|*your reason here*}} to your user talk page (on the main account), explaining the multiple computer situation, it'll be handled by an administrator. (Obviously replace '*your reason here*' with an actual reason) --King Öomie 13:34, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

He's now requesting unblock, admitting to some of the IPs but not all. Would you take a look? Daniel Case (talk) 14:09, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Please help me understand this

Why were the four diffs I provided in this report not all reverts? Does a revert need to take place within a specified period? Because each of the examples I provided (both the first four and the bulleted next four) showed Lulu removing something that another editor had put in (at most within the past four days) or restoring something an editor had taken out. I'm not being argumentative here, just trying to understand. Also, is there some hard-and-fast rule about this or is it a matter of some kind of interpretation?

Also, this is an editor constantly making changes without discussion other than (often abusive) comments in the edit summaries. So I don't understand how this is not edit warring, whether or not the technical 3RR boundary was breached, especially with the volume of this editor's changes.

I'm hesitant to put this on the edit warring noticeboard page because I assume leaving the discussion there would just keep that report cluttering up the page, and what I really want is a better understanding for myself, but if you find it more convenient to reply there, feel free to move this comment there as well.

Thanks for taking the time to look into this. -- Noroton (talk) 13:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

The edit warring continued, so I filed a second report on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring page. -- Noroton (talk) 16:07, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

No issues on the second report. I will leave it for another admin to consider for a second opinion. For 3RR to apply, there needs to be more than three reverts (ie 4 or more) in a 24 hour period. Edit warring is another possibility, but that's trickier to identify. Personally I think that there's a content dispute in this case, meaning people need some warnings and encouragement to work together. Though I'll leave the new report to be considered by another admin who may wish to take more direct action. Cheers, Nja²⁴⁷ 19:18, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. But I did list four diffs (and then four more in that report). I assume one or more of them wasn't really a revert, but I've looked over them again and I don't see how. Could you tell me which one or ones weren't and tell me why? This would help, because you're one of four people who have told me I'm misunderstanding reverts, but I still don't know why. (And I've read through WP:3RR). Thanks. -- Noroton (talk) 21:08, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for taking a while to get back to you on this. I've left a comment at your discussion you started at WP:ANI. Nja²⁴⁷ 07:00, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

User:PiCo edit warring again

The other day, you banned User:PiCo for edit warring ([1]). The moment the 31 hour block you imposed ended, PiCo repeated the same exact reversion that he'd done four times before, which earned him the block in the first place ([2]).

Technically, he isn't in violation of WP:3RR, I guess, but only because he had a 31 hour "time out" imposed on him. What are our options here? PiCo doesn't seem to have been deterred at all by the block. I don't want to just revert his reversion, because then I'd be edit warring as well. And I don't want to ask for page protection, because the last time I tried that (a year or two ago), the page wound up being "protected" in the state the edit warrior chose, which sort of defeated the purpose.

I appreciate any help you can provide. Thanks. -Lisa (talk) 13:49, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted his edit. I'm hoping that he'll leave well enough alone until this can be ironed out in talk. -Lisa (talk) 22:37, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I hope all the best and will check over the discussion, though I do see another block has been given. Cheers, Nja²⁴⁷ 14:31, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

TECFORLIFE FP7 Project page removed

The TECFORLIFE FP7 Project has been deleted due to copyright problems, but this is not the case. I'm sure that project coordinator agree on publishing the page content and also the project logo Tecforlife_eu_project_logo.png in the wikipedia.

In order to restore the page, I receive below instructions BUT talk page does not exist. Should I ask the project coordinator to send an email with the copyright permission?

If you have permission from the author, leave a message explaining the 
details at Talk:TECFORLIFE FP7 Project and send an email with 
the message to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". 
See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.

Currently I'm trying to contribute to wikipedia in the Assistive Technology area and this is my first page.

Yes, you should follow the instructions to correctly allow use of any copyright. Cheers, Nja²⁴⁷ 14:31, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Validbanks 34 is edit warring again

Validbanks 34 has come off their block about an hour again & has already removed the OS Family text twice. 「ɠu¹ɖяy」¤ • ¢  00:00, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Appears to have been handeled by a short block again, though if it were to continue I think something longer or some other process to handle further disruption will be inevitable. Nja²⁴⁷ 14:31, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Validbanks socking...

Kjfdgkjbn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) looks to be validbanks socking. They also appear to have an axe to grind with you, they have undone edits back to your last edit on all of the pages you last edited. Perhaps a hardblock is in order?--Terrillja _talk 22:30, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Good eyes. Cheers, Nja²⁴⁷ 22:36, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Now two socks... One of them was created after you blocked with ACB enabled. I knew that mass rollback script would come in handy one day--Terrillja _talk 22:39, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

What's the other? And yes, that's a deadly, but useful script in situations such as that! Nja²⁴⁷ 22:44, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, another emerged after I left that message, there are 3, not 2. The other 2 are Newshence 93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Jgnsdf 43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), both have been blocked.--Terrillja _talk 22:47, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

For sure it's easy to get in trouble with if you aren't careful, but I have had a few times I have had to hit it chasing a vandal. Almost makes me want to walk to the shooting gallery that is RfA, but not quite yet.--Terrillja _talk 22:51, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh gawd it's an unduly ridiculous process, but I do think you'd make a welcome addition. Nja²⁴⁷ 22:54, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, perhaps in a few months when I get back to the US I will ask you to go through my contribs and let me know if I need to look at anything. Right now I'm in Europe on a sketchy internet connection, so I don't want to push for anything and have my internet drop out like it does fairly often.--Terrillja _talk 23:02, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I have really tried

I've gone to great efforts to comply with the arbitration ruling, exceeding that which was expected of me. I contacted several people, including yourself for mentorship, and notified arbcom before the deadline that I could not find a mentor. Through your help I learned to how independently cite sources up to the current standards. As requested in arbitration by those who had issues with my behaviour, I went to great lengths to list where I thought there was bias and undue weight in the article, and posted this all on the talk pages. These threads were marked so that the other editors could clearly see what needed to be done. I've made every attempt to seek mediation and consensus at every turn since arbitration...and still, this action was taken. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Request_to_amend_prior_case:_ADHD I am dismayed that they are allowed to do this once again with false accusations and character assassination. I am FORCED again to defend myself against several accusers. This time it for a bogus reason, and that is, giving my opinion upon request. This is especially demoralizing when one considers the behaviour of all the parties since arbitration. Any words of advice would be appreciated.--scuro (talk) 05:38, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Well it seems the admin over at the case (Carcharoth) is awaiting your input on the matter, thus I'd give it them. I think it'd be important to stress what you have done above to me, in that you have tried to find a mentor and that you shouldn't be punished for not succeeding, nor should you be punished for Arb's failure to appoint. Further I can confirm that you have in my opinion tried, and I have personally been unimpressed with LG's recent behaviour. Nja²⁴⁷ 09:41, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello to you both. I'm popping in here uninvited, and you may remove my comments if you will. And I'm not demanding an answer, not even asking for one.

Nja, I agree about Lg's recent behavior. S/he flies off the handle too easily and should write shorter and more carefully. It goes in waves, which can be confusing.

It was news to me, Scuro, that you'd contacted ArbCom before their deadline was passed (not that you needed to inform about that). I've assumed that they "just forgot." The mentor requirement was theirs and the deadline was, too. They have failed us all. And Nja, Carcharoth's indication that Scuro's input would be sought wasn't exactly an invitation. They should approach Scuro directly (if they haven't yet). It's disappointing.

Scuro, I know that you "have really tried"! That's been obvious through your detailed approaches on Talk. You've also reduced the amount of lecturing (note that I called it lecturing this time around, not whining as before). I do believe, as I've said, that there is something about your style of communicating which works against you. Part of it, for me at least, is the impression you give that you represent "the majority" while the rest of us represent minority/fringe. That impression leads one (me, at least) to believe that your seeking consensus means that everyone else should come 'round to your views and that you won't be satisfied with less. In that case, it's not collaboration. I really do think that a sympathetic mentor could help you with this sort of thing: not to change what you want to say but how you say it.

Another point altogether is your not wanting new medical editors on the scene. I don't think anyone understands your explanations of that.

Nja, you'd be just the right type. Your feathers don't ruffle easily. You express yourself carefully and thoughtfully, but honestly. - Hordaland (talk) 11:15, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Why bring that all to arb com? Had you asked on my talk page, I would have explained myself. I'm a reasonable man, had we sought a third opinion or outside advice, I may well have changed my tune. And the problem could be on your end. Having avoided any attempt at a meeting of the minds, how would you determine that you are 100% in the right? You sound reasonable on this talk page, yet as a group, or individually, none of you seek common ground. Wikipedia wants you all to do these things yet, again,...as a group you all avoid it at every turn. From my vantage point this looks a lot like harassment...intentional or not, the end result is the same.--scuro (talk) 14:16, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Chelsea Korka

Since the Paradiso Girls's page has been recreated as they have become notable due to numerous radio and TV appearances, may I ask that you recreate Korka's page, since I believe it's how the procedure goes? Thank you.--Whadaheck (talk) 01:51, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

No that's not really how procedure goes. The page may be recreated by someone who's interested in doing so so long as the article will now meet notability and other inclusion guidelines. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Make_a_page for any help. Nja²⁴⁷ 09:10, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Don't Try beta

Replied on my talk page. A little late, that's why I figured I should drop you a note. Short summary: I don't know how =) –xeno^talk 18:51, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Amalthea kindly provided the answer, User talk:Xeno#Beta. –xeno^talk 19:47, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh c'mon; double-block him!

It's funny! HalfShadow 21:35, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

If only two 24 hours blocks at the same time actually meant anything beyond 24 hours. Nja²⁴⁷ 21:37, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Movie studio/anime vandal is back... again.

The anime/movie vandal from the 118.137.x.x range has returned once again. This time, the guy used 219.83.106.171 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) yesterday and vandalized some of the same articles using the same misinformation MO. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 07:23, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

The guy has returned, this time around as 202.70.61.146 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Last edit was over an hour ago as of this edit. He did his vandalism for a least three hours, but when I discovered them, it was already too late, even for a report on WP:AIV. BTW, I now understand why it took some time for a reply to any of my messages or any action whatsover. May you have a speedy recovery. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 16:37, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I warned the 1st one reported on the day and have monitored it since. The latest has been blocked temporarily for vandalism. Cheers and thanks. Nja²⁴⁷ 19:12, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

He's back again, this time as 202.70.61.133 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). While this IP is now blocked for 31 hours, looks like another rangeblock is in order because of this... - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 10:32, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

We'll see what IP he jumps on next and figure out a range to attack. Quite annoying and I'm still looking for something longer term and more effective. Nja²⁴⁷ 18:23, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, here's another one, last edit over an hour ago (as of this edit): 202.70.61.148 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). All of his edits happened while I was out and right behind our backs. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 09:11, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

P. S.: I've also reported everything about this vandal's activities for this week on WP:AN/I so other admins can give their input. Just to let you know, BTW. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 16:09, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Not an issue, seems to have been 'handled' for now. I know it's a matter of time for it to re-occur, and I don't mind you telling me when these pop up. Cheers. Nja²⁴⁷ 19:34, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll be sure that when that vandal shows up beyond the range currently blocked or in any IP, you'll be the first to know. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 01:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

He had come back again, this time as 202.155.92.10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), currently blocked for 31 hours. All of his vandal edits were reverted by NeoChaosX. Just letting you know. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 10:56, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

He's back again, this time as 202.70.61.144 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Last edit was minutes before this message. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 02:05, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, I can't believe that you were still keeping tabs on the increasingly annoying vandal [who used 114.59.177.219 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 114.59.191.27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)] even though you never caught him in the act. But it seems that a very wide rangeblock of the 114.59.x.x range might be in order based on the address he had used before (114.59.207.115 and 114.59.100.70). - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 10:30, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

P. S.: It seems that you already had blocked the 114.59.x.x range. But why only six hours when we don't know when he'll strike next? - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 10:33, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

He seems to strike at a certain time of the day, and posts for just 5-6 hours in one go. Thus I figured the 6 hour block would at least stop today and maybe scare them a little. Without first contacting a checkuser to determine how many users would be affected, it would be reckless to block the entire range as I did for any longer than a short period(potentially thousands of users could be affected). Nja²⁴⁷ 17:07, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Hawthorne (Series)

Since I noticed you helped with another TNT television page, I am requesting your help with TNT’s HawthoRNe Wikipedia page, because one editor of the site refuses to allow changes to the page. His personal hatred and bias towards this television program is obvious, and his control of the content on the page is unlike anything I have ever come across in all my searches on Wikipedia. I have added relevant information that would be of interest to viewers of the program, such as the day of the week and the time the program is airing, as well as the names of the production companies, only to see the information repeatedly taken down. One other person added a positive review, only to have it blocked. I am hoping that information I have added in the past regarding this television program could be restored, or that I and others be allowed to make changes to the site. One of two areas of contention is that this editor has selectively posted a long list of negative reviews without allowing any balance with positive reviews. Additionally, it would appear on many other television pages that there is no "Critical Reception" section at all, and editing or removing the section on this page is unfairly determined to be "vandalism." The second issue is that this editor has complained of copyright violations with the Plot Summary, even though countless pages for television programs, such as "The Mentalist" (CBS) and "Raising the Bar" (TNT,) and numerous movie pages have taken plot information and cited back to the official sites. Numerous shows with Wikipedia pages use the networks' plot descriptions for the Episode Descriptions, and cite back to them. If there is a standard, then it would apply to all the entertainment sites. If no information or sentences can be cited from official sites or press releases, then at least I and others should be permitted to make the necessary changes to make the page in compliance with Wikipedia rules. Thank you very much for any help with this. Cotto 16:13, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Stronggrzemkowski

You may want to include the talk page in their block. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 22:13, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

AFD closure

When closing that discussion you deleted Predator fish (AfD discussion), but not the actual article, which by then was at Predatory fish (AfD discussion). Uncle G (talk) 17:58, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Good eyes, thanks! Nja²⁴⁷ 20:09, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Would you mind closing the AFD on the article you most recently deleted? --King Öomie 20:29, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Well actually seeing the new AFD, I believe it only fair to let it play out. I've restored the article pending the outcome. Nja²⁴⁷ 20:34, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm unimpressed by your head-count closure of the AfD on Predator fish. A DRV is now a moot point due to you only deleting the redirect, but the rationale for deletion was faulty, and you gave no summary of why you felt that deletion was correct. AfD is not a vote. We rely on policy, and there was no reason under policy to delete. We do not delete stubs and the topic is notable. Fences&Windows 01:11, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the drive-by personal opinion. For that AFD it was a delete, but since the rewrite things seem to have gone the other way, that's life. Nja²⁴⁷ 05:50, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Calling my comment 'drive-by' doesn't even mean anything. I still think closing contested AfDs with no summary of your thinking is poor practice, and I'd appreciate an explanation of why you don't explain your reasoning instead of getting the brush-off. Fences&Windows 20:08, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I was in a bad mood. So long as it isn't required for admins to give summaries my appeals to you to do so won't get far, so I will probably raise the issue in the appropriate place. Fences&Windows 23:50, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

No I'm fine, but I don't really have much to say on it. I'd rather let consensus speak for itself, and here, the new AFD seems determinative of the current consensus. Cheers mate, have a good weekend. Nja²⁴⁷ 06:17, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Advice please

I recently managed to upset user:Bhtpbank and he filed a WP:WQA against me. I fully explained my actions there and the WQA was closed. This morning I left a cookie for him on his talk page. This evening an IP editor removed the cookie] and left an unsigned message. Should I revert that edit, or would it be better if someone else did it and warned the IP editor? Mjroots (talk) 21:17, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to adminship! Essentially the only person who should be removing comments from a user talk page is the user themself (unless of course they're reverting vandalism). Thus, I've reverted. Cheers, goodluck and goodnight mate. Nja²⁴⁷ 21:27, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I knew someone would at some point take offence, but didn't think it would be this quick. If anyone was in the wrong, it wasn't Bhtpbank, who made an honest mistake. I wasn't about to block anyone over that anyway. If there were issues I'd generally want the editor first and try to get the to see what they were doing wrong. Mjroots (talk) 21:37, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The user has commented out the cookie. Oh well, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. Mjroots (talk) 05:45, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Shami Chakrabarti

Hello. It is in your opinion that my additions was not constructive, in the use of your default template you posted to me. The very fact is the word "PAKI" Is not a racist slur regardless of what one thinks.

Scotland - Scottish - Scott Sweden - Swedish - Swede Poland - Polish - Pole Pakistan - Pakistani - Paki Britain - British - Brit

Where is the racist slur in that, it is common usage, through out the world, a person of Pakistani origin is often referred to as a Paki, the Australian and New Zealand media often refer as such as do a number of other nations. So long as one does not use it in a context which could be deemed racist then the word in its self is not racist.

If a British lady or gent complained to the authorities and called the race card for someone calling them a "BRIT" the police would laugh them out of the police station, just as if a Scottish lady or gent or a Polish and so on.

Finally, I am not hiding behind an IP address, I am not a registered user of WP, as even WP is becoming politically interfered with these days. 90.194.37.83 (talk) 08:21, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Hardly. "Paki" has been used as an insult for a long time; the non-insulting version is "Pakistani". It's a question of usage, not etymology. Rd232 ^talk 11:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

You've banned LSG1-Bot

Hello Nja 247,
can you tell my why you've banned my Bot? It has a Botflag on the German Wikipedia. --LSG1 (talk) 16:56, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Hi there LSG1! I'm from WP:BAG; which is the English Wikipedia's bot approvals group. Every bot which runs on English Wikipedia needs to be approved by BAG via this page. Having a flag on a different wiki isn't good enough. Although for interwiki linking (what this bot seems to be doing), a global flag is good enough. But I don't think this bot has that? If you are using py.interwiki, then bot approval is fairly straightforward as that is a non-controversial task. If you would like help with the process of getting the bot approved on the English Wikipedia, please feel free to ask me, or another BAG member. Best - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 17:01, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, but why is the Bot banned? My Bot hasn't made any Edits :-) --LSG1 (talk) 17:05, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the bot has made one edit. But the reason it got blocked is simply because it has the word "bot" in it's username. Users who are not bots should not have the word "bot" in their username, as it implies that they are a bot. See our username policy for more. However, if you plan to get bot approval and run this bot in accordance to policy, I'm sure Nja would be more than willing to unblock. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 17:09, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it simply seems you didn't know about how to correctly get approval through the proper channels. I had left a note on your talk page when I issued the block. Anyhow, it all seems resolved now. Nja²⁴⁷ 12:47, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Mac OS X move proposal

Hi there,

In September you commented on the proposal to move Mac OS X Snow Leopard to its original title, Mac OS X v10.6. I believe that its current title is most appropriate, and have opened another proposal for Mac OS X v10.3, v10.4, and v10.5 to follow this new convention and be moved to Mac OS X Panther, Tiger, and Leopard, respectively. I'd like to establish a consensus on the subject, and since you were involved in the previous discussion on the subject, I thought you might like to offer an opinion here as well. There is only one vote other than my own so far, and I'd like to hear some more opinions rather than declare a consensus on this limited basis.

Thanks in advance. If you'd like to contact me, please do so on my user talk page or the proposal itself. —INTRIGUEBLUE (talk|contribs) 21:30, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Movie studio/anime vandal is back... again

The anime/movie vandal from the 118.137.x.x range has recently returned seemingly after 20 days of dormancy. This time, he went under 125.161.137.37 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and vandalized only one article: List of Disney television series. BTW, the guy has vandalized from the 125.161.x.x range before (125.161.0.0/16, to be precise). - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 09:21, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Yea, it had been quiet. We'll keep a lookout. Cheers. Nja²⁴⁷ 12:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The guy has struck again, this time as 125.161.135.192 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). All of his edits were reverted by Crboyer (talk · contribs) at least over an hour later. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 09:00, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

While you're still keeping tabs at the vandal, he has again vandalized two Digimon articles yesterday, this time using the IP 202.70.50.23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 17:21, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

They has started again, this time as 202.70.50.88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 03:54, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

And he continued his rampage under 202.70.50.181 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). A block against the range 202.70.50.0/24 has been implemented for 31 hours because of this. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 09:32, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

PS: Where were you these past few days, BTW? - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 09:57, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for blocking 202.164.150.2. But the blocking won't be of much use as the IP is dynamic. See: this Axxn (talk) 08:29, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

No problem, and if abuse were to show up where other address within that range are used for disruption, then we could use a range block that would block them as well. Nja²⁴⁷ 08:32, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you so much for replying. Earlier he used this account: 202.164.150.95 for vandalism. I'll report if the vandalism occurs again. Axxn (talk) 08:36, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Your block of User:Yusuf.Abdullah

Hello, I just came to inform you that I have unblocked Yusuf. You blocked when he hadn't edited post warning on the sockpuppetry case. This is the same as blocking without warning. Please make sure you actually look at the situation prior to blocking next time. Thanks! --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 06:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually the user was clearly blocked for 3RR violation and edit warring, not sock puppetry. Can you please clarify your message, as it seems someone hadn't actually looked at the situation prior to unblocking. Nja²⁴⁷ 08:17, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say I unblocked them for sockpuppetry, you blocked them for something they hadn't been warned for, 3RR. The sockpuppet case told them to stop, and they had; they albeit had reverted more than 3 times, but they had stopped after the warning, remember blocking is a preventative tool. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 08:21, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I see, and please don't lecture me on blocks. Whilst a prior warning is preferred, it is not requisite for a 3RR block, particularly with established users. I became aware of the incident through a report made at WP:AN3. I checked the page history and after seeing that the user had in fact violated 3RR I took action. I don't know how it's expected that I should look at sock puppet cases to check for any warnings, particularly when one is not requisite anyhow. Though, had I known the user stopped after a warning I wouldn't have blocked, but on the information available to me at the time there was no way for me to know this, which I hope you understand. Nja²⁴⁷ 08:27, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh my... I came across as a little bit bitey didn't I? Didn't mean to sound that way. Anyways thanks for understanding, oh and the other editor should have been blocked as well, if it had been the case that they had been warned. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 08:39, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

It's cool. At the time of me looking at the page history, it was the blocked user who had made 4 reverts within 24 hours; the other was at 3 (though I now notice they later made a 4th). I checked the latter user's talk page and noticed the warning already, so I left it at that as they hadn't violated 3RR at that time. Cheers, Nja²⁴⁷ 08:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

As I have stated in the noticeboard here, the user User:Yusuf.Abdullah had been politely advised 3 times in his talkpage about the problematic edits he was making. I did not use the warning template as he seem to have made around 500 edits and so should be knowing his actions. Apart from this, I have tried my best to lure him to use the talk page by posting messages there(which is also clear from the report in noticeboard). This user had shown complete disregard for any consensus building and if you look into his edits, all of them are blatant OR which are not supported by the sources he provide. Apart from that he posts political propaganda materials which blatantly violate WP:NPOV and WP:EL. Apart from that he seems to have no idea of WP:CIVIL by posting messages accusing me of supporting "Jihadi" orgs. This user seems to have serious trouble understanding that if someone remove an OR from Al-Qaeda, he/she is not necessarily a sympathizer and the idea of Wiki is to provide neutral objective information based on RS. I am disappointed to see that he was unblocked as this would be sending very wrong message to him and people like him, and would encourage him to continue this behaviour(incl. illogical personal attacks as he did in his appeal). Given his lack of willingness to use the talk page and stick to NPOV, he should have been prohibited from editing that article again. We should not mix his editing behaviour with sockpuppettry case. There he was given the benefit of doubt, but is now again accused by another user here. If you look at the diffs of the user User:Yusuf.Abdullah there in the sock investigation, you will realize the disruptive nature of his edits regardless of whether he is a sock or not. Thanks Zencv ^Whisper 13:17, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmm.. nice lecture. There was no use with the Talk page in Love Jihad, since you were removing well trusted sources like Asianet News and Daily Pioneer. Still, I see that more than a dozen people complained in the Talk page about your edits. How can you explain this edit, when it is clear that you blanked a whole section with well referenced information. ("The case was that Sirajuddeen and Shahehshah, activists of Campus Front, the students’ wing of NDF, had forced the girls to convert into Islam in the name of marriage. The girls claimed that the duo had tried to convert them into Islam after kidnapping them. "). Most importantly, you were vandalizing the talk page as well, to remove complaints against your edits. Yusuf.Abdullah (talk) 17:35, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Sources should support what you want to write. Just providing some source is not enough - that is synthesising information to suit your purpose. You were NOT willing to use talk page at all, were appallingly uncivil and seems to have recruited meatpuppets like User:Michael.Kaamarajan. If you think that you can fool other editors incl. administrators by posting blatant lies, you are wrong as everything is historised and I have provided abundant diffs. I strongly recommend that this user is banned from editing the above article indefinitely and someone seriously look into his edits to see how disturbubg his violations are Zencv ^Whisper 18:52, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I didn't recruited anyone and I don't know who is User:Michael.Kaamarajan. Stop your baseless allegations. Further more, you were the one who started name calling by using the derogatory word "Nikkerwalla" in the talk page and you were the one who edited the talk page to remove complaints against you made by a large number of users. Yusuf.Abdullah (talk) 01:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Rjanag Arbitration

Hello. I mentioned you and referenced your Wikipedia posts in a recently-filed request for arbitration. I therefore thought it appropriate to notify you of the fact.

The request is at Rjanag Arbitration.--Epeefleche (talk) 10:11, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

RE: Your head

I still don't have it. >:( Haha, and it isn't too chilly here. It snowed on the 5th of October, though (or something ridiculous like that); that was fun. The trees were still completely green! :( Master of Puppets 22:00, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Blinding speed

I am amazed by your speed! Although this is virtual space, you do seem to be moving everywhere at once. I appreciate (and am a little bit jealous of) your efficiency. Thanks for your efforts in handling this stuff. — CactusWriter | ^needles 08:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

LOL, it's sad that this is how I've been spending my mornings this week. I had a lot of free time this week! Nja²⁴⁷ 08:30, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that's often the way. Your idle efforts = everyone else's great gain. Now, please do go out and enjoy the day. Cheers. — CactusWriter | ^needles 09:14, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

User:SophieIsoldaZoeOquist

User:SophieZoey has created yet another sock account, and continues to make disruptive edits.--Lamborghini man (talk) 12:48, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Happy Halloween!

File:Halloween Hush Puppies.jpg

Photograph of my Halloween-themed Hush Puppies plush basset hounds in my bedroom.

As Halloween is my favorite holiday, I just wanted to wish those Wikipedians who have been nice enough to give me a barnstar or smile at me, supportive enough to agree with me, etc., a Happy Halloween! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:28, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Rjanag Conduct RfC

A Request for Comments has been opened concerning the conduct of Rjanag. This follows the suggestion of a number of arbitrators at the Rjanag RfA. I am contacting you because you are mentioned in this RfC and the prior RfA, and you discussed Rjanag's conduct with him.

The RfC can be found here.

Editors (including those who certify the RfC) can offer comments by:

(a) posting their own view; and/or

(b) endorsing one or more views of others.

You may certify or endorse the original RfC statement. You may also endorse as many views as you wish, including Rjanag's response. Anyone can endorse any views, regardless of whether they are outside parties or inside parties.

Information on the RfC process can be found at:

1. RfC Conduct
2. RfC Guide
3. RfC Guide 2
4. RfC Rules

Thanks. --Epeefleche (talk) 10:05, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Toshiba Qosmio

Hello, Nja²⁴⁷! It's Airplaneman... I'm here to ask for some advice, as you are a more experienced editor than I. It's about the aforementioned article. I revamped it and would like some suggestions on where it should go from here (I'm not sure where to steer it). I'll definitely elaborate more on the computer's history, but I'd like to get it to GA someday (like MacBook) and I think it needs more than what I've got to offer. Thanks, Airplaneman ^talk 23:11, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh goodness, sorry for the delay. I've been way too busy in real life to do anything on here. If it wasn't for a minor foot injury I wouldn't have even seen this. Good luck and I will look over if I can, but you may wish to employ someone who's much more active than I currently am. Cheers mate! Nja²⁴⁷ 09:45, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Kingpin gave me a hand. No worries, feel better soon! Airplaneman ^talk 03:49, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

EDA Capital Connect

hi,

I want to why my page EDA Capital Connect is deleted, also my id has been blocked, any specific reason.

Thanks Puneet —Preceding unsigned comment added by Impunnu (talk • contribs) 07:29, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Brian

Hello, hope your having a nice day. Have you seen User:BrianBeahr's talk page, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject AFL and [3] St Kilda talk page, along with his block log? We have been patient but we're now getting tired of his edits. Regards, Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 09:37, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I have, though here you've also had three reverts in a 24 hour period, and the edits do not constitute clear vandalism, thus edit warring cannot be excused. If he continues to revert without discussion after my warning on his talk page, then you should report it to me or at WP:AN3 for him to be blocked. Cheers, Nja²⁴⁷ 09:40, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

No, I haven't breached the 3rr. The rule says, "... a user who makes more than three revert actions (of any kind) on any one page within a 24-hour period." I haven't done so. Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 09:44, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, read my notice on your talk page and my 1st reply above where I said you've also had three reverts'; not four. If you had four and had breached the rule you would be more likely to have received a block rather than the warning. To be clear, neither you or him have more than three reverts at this time. Generally, if you're having difficulty getting discussion with him, consider WP:DR. Nja²⁴⁷ 09:49, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't really appreciate automated warnings either, especially when I didn't do anything incorrect and stopped reverting so I didn't breach 3rr. Not to worry. Incorrect, Brian has reverted at least four times. Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 09:53, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Mate, if you had read the warning, it didn't say you breached 3RR, it said you're in danger of breaching it and it gave guidance on how to resolve the dispute without getting blocked. Automated or not, it said exactly what I wanted to tell you (as I wrote the template). For the last time, I never said you breached 3RR. Arguing with me over something I didn't even say will not resolve the issue, and if you feel that other user has reverted four times you may compile a report and submit it to WP:AN3. However, if after my warning he stops reverting, an admin is unlikely to take action as there's no longer any disruption to Wikipedia. I hope you're able to resolve the situation and I wish you luck with it, but I don't believe there's anything further myself or another admin can do at this time. Nja²⁴⁷ 09:59, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

No point arguing. It's just we are where we were at 12 months ago and we are going around in circles wasting time. Best wishes and happy editing. Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 10:04, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Please be constructive with the Section on Symbolisms of light bulbs

Hi there I noticed that you obviously dislike my contribution enough to assume that everyone else felt the same and therefore should be spared the eye sore of my addition altogether. Why did you remove my work so promptly instead of making constructive edits to it? If you don't want to help, at least give others a chance to. I request you to at most just tag my section as "verification needed" and leave it there for other editors to modify. --Junsun (talk) 20:32, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Thing is mate, as noted the two times I've done it, is that the section is un-sourced, and appears to be WP:OR. It's note that I don't like the section, it's just that it goes against clear inclusion guidelines. If we can get sources there's no issue. Cheers. Nja²⁴⁷ 11:57, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

POLICY SHOPPING MATE —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.50.50.112 (talk) 19:05, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

LPC

Hi,

Could you let me know why you undid my revision to this page ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_Practice_Course

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitts13 (talk • contribs) 11:58, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I think you simply need to be aware of this guideline on external links; sourcing and citations. Cheers. Nja²⁴⁷ 07:52, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Please advise with editor conflict

Hi, can you please tell me how best to resolve a conflict with 'Clockback' on the Broken Compass article? I reverted his edit as I thought it looked like cherry picking and would be better made by another editor and asked someone to help, which they did and I added other refs too the same day (18th Nov). The info he wanted included was included but he was annoyed at my actions. I have said I was in error and apologised on his talk page and the article talk page. He called for support against me, doesn't address me directly and seems unwilling to resolve this conflict, even though I've apologised. I don't know what more I can do. He is putting large chunks of text repeating his complaint against me (but not my answers) on the article talk page and including other complaints he has from other pages (which he hasn't mentioned before). Please help. I've put a request on the editors request board. How can I best resolve the conflict and can the complaint repetition on the talk page be removed? It seems he is copying his complaint on another editors talk page too. I'd be grateful for any help. Thanks. Mimi ^(yack) 13:40, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I've decided to stop editing Wiki, how can I delete my user? Thanks Mimi ^(yack) 18:31, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Just stop editing and blank your pages and they will be deleted. Nja²⁴⁷ 13:19, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, NJA. You have new messages at Taqi Haider's talk page.
Message added 10:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Taqi Haider (talk) 10:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for restoring my talk page after it had been nuked. I guess the former user known as L.J. Nasu was a little ticked because I reverted his/her vandalism attempts and left a vandalism warning on his/her talk page. <shrug> Oh, well. Again - appreciate your assistance. Have a great day. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 23:31, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Happy Thanksgiving!

I just wanted to wish those Wikipedians who have been nice enough to give me a barnstar or smile at me, supportive enough to agree with me, etc., a Happy Thanksgiving! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 06:41, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Cheers. Nja²⁴⁷ 06:59, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

episcopal shield.png

Can you explain why you deleted this image? The image file itself was created by me, myself, personally. The abstract image--the logo for the Episcopal Church--has been the arms of the Episcopal Church for a very long time, longer than copyright. You said it was "unambiguous copyright violation"; it should be easy for you to substantiate that. Please do so. Tb (talk) 23:12, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd assume you'd be talking about the image you uploaded and tagged as self-created on 12 April 2009 (File:ECUSA arms.gif). The file episcopal shield.png was uploaded by another user just a few days ago (21 Nov) who claimed to have created it himself. If you go to http://www.episcopalchurch.org/images/episcshield_3_375.gif the two images (File:ECUSA arms.gif & File:Episcopal shield.PNG) that were on Wikipedia are a copy of it. I wonder why we had the same image from the church's website uploaded under two file names and claimed to be self created by two different users, ie you and JaMikePA? In fact, the other user not only uploaded and claimed creation of the same image you claim creation of pulled from the church's website, but he's tried to upload variations of the same file with a similar name as yours, eg File:ECUSA shield.PNG on 21 May 2009 and then another user Esrever uploaded File:ECUSA shield.gif on 2 Sept 2009 as a non-free logo uploaded, though later JaMikePA changed the tag to self creation as of April 2009 (which is oddly the same month you uploaded your image and claimed self creation). I would like some clarification on why this is, particularly self creation claims with dates that seem to mean two users are the same. I understand anyone can whip up a copy in photoshop, but truly all we have is the same image duplicated from the church's servers with what would appear two users claiming self creation of it. Nja²⁴⁷ 07:30, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't be surprised at all if it's because they go back to the image I created for the first unofficial home page of the Episcopal Church about fifteen years ago. When you say they are "the same" what exactly do you mean? The formats are different, the sizes are different, etc. So, when you say the one I uploaded and the png are "the same" what exactly do you mean? The same bytes? What do you mean by "variations of the same file"? Simply that they depict the same image? You don't seem to understand: the image itself is, in fact, not under copyright having been in use for well more than a century. The reduction of the image to a particular image file might be copyrightable, but that doesn't mean that every one is, and it's not clear at all that you have bothere to figure out the details. Are you saying that if I (again) make a new image, and upload it, you'll stop deleting without discussion? Tb (talk) 20:11, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I understood about the copyrights, I just don't understand why you'd ask about an image that you didn't upload and had claimed you created, whilst the person who uploaded also claimed its creation. As for whether it's a gif or png or a few bytes different -- that is irrelevant in that the image is essentially the same. Anyone could download an image from the web and photoshop it into a new format with a size change. However, I reckon if only one image exists on Wikipedia that is uploaded by its true author then there's unlikely to be further issues. Nja²⁴⁷ 20:19, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Of course I was mistaken about which image you had deleted; it is only the one I uploaded which I have any personal knowledge of. That image was created about fifteen years ago, and has been around on the web for a very long time. I would not even be surprised if it was in use by the Episcopal Church itself now that it has its own website; my image was created long before it did. When you say "the image is essentially the same", what are you referring to? Is it your guess that the different files were form from a single original? That two images were uploaded nearly at the same time is no surprise; it was because (once again) the image was deleted without discussion. Before I gimp up another one (because the one I made years ago is apparently no good according to you) I'll ask the Episcopal Church for permission to use their file. While that's in process, can you explain why this image, apparently uniquely, does not satisfy the "fair use" exemption for "Team and corporate logos" in your opinion, and whether you are prepared to submit the question to consensus instead of simply acting on your own authority alone? Tb (talk) 02:36, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

This image in its various incarnations (as the same image, but as a gif, png, etc) was deleted by other admins as well. Thus it's inaccurate to say that I've destroyed the only copies available on Wikipedia. Particularly when they were uploaded by people (other editors, as I have no reason to believe you're lying) claiming its creation, when in fact this was not true. For permission for the church, contact images@episcopalchurch.org.

As for fair use, if it satisfies the requirements, ie no free alternative, minimal usage, has contextual significance, is tagged appropriately and at a resolution no higher than is requisite for purpose, then by all means go for it. Finally, Wikipedia works on consensus, thus if you wish to take this to the image and copyright board, then please do not hesitate. Nja²⁴⁷ 06:56, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

What bothers me is that your claim that the images are the same is essentially untestable, and frankly, I don't think you tested it. You looked at visual similarity, and decided they were the same. And, since you deleted them when you did so, there is simply no opportunity for the community to revisit your decision. The appeal to consensus is extremely hard to deal with, when the procedure for deleting the images involves no discussion and no ability for the community to ever revisit the admin's decision, because the files are, in fact, deleted. There was, in fact, as you note above, an image which was uploaded and tagged with the logo tag, and it was deleted as "redundant", with a pointer to the image you just deleted. Did you examine that? You haven't explained how you know these images were "the same" or just what you mean by that; do you mean they involve the same visual elements in the same positions, or do you mean that one was a copy of the other? And, since they were in different formats, what tests did you apply to determine that one was a copy of the other? And how did you do so, particularly for images files which have been deleted, and for which no copies are available?

Here's what I see:

• "ECUSA shield.gif" existed twice. The first was deleted with the comment "reduce supplied", which I cannot parse. The second was deleted as a redundant copy of "Episcopal shield.PNG", under criterion F1, which is about files that are "the same format", which png and gif most certainly are not.
• "Episcopal shield.PNG" existed once, and was deleted by you. We do not know what the uploader claimed, because the logs were destroyed when you deleted the file.
• "ECUSA arms.gif", which existed once, was uploaded by me, and was created by me years ago. If you believe I am lying, and it is identical to the one on the Episcopal Church website, I invite you to please provide the evidence, or retract your claim.

This means that what we simply need to do is to do what was once done, and which was done for a long time, which is to use the appropriate resolution image, under the fair use logo understanding, on appropriate pages, and be done with it; you would apparently prefer that to the image file I created, which is not under copyright, and which is entirely free. Tb (talk) 09:46, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Honestly do you believe myself or any other admin has time to run forensic testing on images before taking a decision on whether an image tagged as a copyvio is or is not in fact one? In an ideal world that could be done in a manner of minutes to avoid ensuing dramas such as this, however it's impractical. I understand your complaint with the system as is, and in fact I believe advances should be made, unfortunately you and I talking about reform of the system is unlikely to amount to anything, thus we could consider the WP:Village Pump.

Now we need to come to a solution or move on to another forum as there's little more that can be done here. The images (one by you and one by another editor) were tagged as self-created, however another editor later tagged them with copyvio tags with links to the church's website that on the face of it shown that there may be copyright issues. As for your copy of ECUSA arms.gif, it is retrievable (as is JaMikePa's copy of Episcopal shield.PNG), and you are correct in that a free image is preferable over a non-free. I'd expect that you'd have a copy or backup of your own creation, as in reality Wikipedia is not an image repository and is not the best place to leave the one and only copy of something. If you truly don't have a copy, then email me as I can retrieve it. Also do note that I didn't delete your copy of Episcopal shield.PNG. The only deletion record for that file is for JaMikePA's version. I deleted his version uploaded on 21 Nov, not yours. Either it was deleted prior to the 2004 database (which is why the deletion record is gone), or when JaMikePA uploaded his version (overwrote it) something happened.

In terms of chronology per the logs:

• File:ECUSA arms.gif uploaded by you on 12 Apr 2009 claiming self-creation. JaMikePA later replaced it with his own self creation (21 May).
• File:ECUSA shield.PNG uploaded by JaMikePA on 21 May 2009 claiming self.
• File:ECUSA shield.gif uploaded by Esrever on 2 Sept 2009 claiming fair use for church's servers then later changed to self creation by JaMikePA (on 5 Oct 2009).
• File:Episcopal shield.PNG uploaded by JaMikePA on 21 Nov claiming self.

As far as I can tell, the appearance of all four (whether a gif, png, arms or shield) are the same. I'm not saying they're the same exact copy, but the depiction is the same. As I said this morning, I have no reason to believe you're lying, so please avoid reading things in. Overall one image with a proper licence is enough. If you wish to take this further then I suggest you do so at a relevant noticeboard, such as the one I already had suggested. There is nothing more I can do aside from provide you with a copy of the image you claim creation of in case your backup system has failed. Regards, Nja²⁴⁷ 13:01, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Of course the depiction is the same; but it is my belief that the depiction is out of copyright, having been designed well over a hundred years ago. In any case, it's so much simpler to just follow the normal non-free logo method, because then every admin who looks at it won't be confused. Tb (talk) 17:30, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Movie studio/anime vandal is back... again

Sorry to disturb you, but the anime/movie vandal from the 118.137.x.x range has recently returned seemingly after a week of dormancy. This time, he used 125.166.74.138 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) yesterday and vandalized only one article: The Filipino Channel. This guy seemed to have never learned, no matter how many warnings or blocks were meted against him. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 02:48, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

PS: I know this sounds far-fetched, according to what I'm gathering, but can a topic ban be imposed on several anonymous IP addresses? - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 03:19, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

He did it again, this time as 125.165.82.37 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Although the articles he vandalized this time are out of our scope, it's still his same brand of misinformation. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 10:00, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I did a rangeblock once for a few days I believe on these IPs. That's when they stopped for 2-3 weeks. Unless there's a more obvious range of IPs to block, nothing more long term can be done. I've always thought an edit filter may be appropriate for this. Nja²⁴⁷ 15:13, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

But before I request something, I have a question: how effective is an edit filter in this case? Immediate block on the editor as soon as the filter is triggered? Also, can you guide me in making a good edit filter request? Thanks. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 02:25, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Update: He once again struck, this time returning to the 202.70.50.x range by using 202.70.50.169 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Black Kite took care of him, BTW. Just another heads up. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 13:30, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

For the nth time today, he had struck, this time as 202.70.50.180 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 08:55, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, was busy. Seems he's blocked. An edit filter would prevent the edits from actually going live and would alert admins of the abuse, thus likely resulting in a block if they continue. It's a good thing to consider in this case, rather than constantly reverting and blocking. Nja²⁴⁷ 13:17, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

From the damage this vandal has done, it looks like a lot of edit filter requests. I'll try one and see how this goes. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 23:44, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

PS: I've entered an edit filter request on WP:AF/R. Before that, I've also entered a report on WP:AN/I about what this vandal had done so far. So far, no one has provided their input. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 23:55, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

For the nth time, he's back, this time as 202.70.54.190 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 13:54, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Vandal's blocked now. As for the filter, it seems it would take a long time for my suggestion to be taken action. The request thread is currently backlogged. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 14:35, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

The vandal has reappeared, this time as 202.70.54.174 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and is active now. Last edit was a few minutes ago. Please take action ASAP. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 13:42, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Done and blocked range for 31 hours also. We should try to push for filter this weekend. Nja²⁴⁷ 13:59, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, albeit your respond took a long time (since I reported him to you, he made another vandal edit and reinstated another revert). BTW, it seems that a rangeblock against the 202.70.54.0/24 range is in order because aside from 202.70.54.174 and 202.70.54.190, the guy also used 202.70.54.32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) this morning. - 14:03, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I responded 17 minutes after your post mate. I'm not always on Wikipedia, sometimes I'm not on for days. For faster action consider WP:AIV in the future. Nja²⁴⁷ 11:27, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Update: The vandal returned and reused 202.70.54.32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) today. Luckily, the address is currently blocked for 31 hours, as well as the 202.70.54.0/24 range for three months. Just letting you know. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 14:37, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay. May consider posting this vandals modus operandi at Wikipedia:Abuse_response for more eyes on the situation. Nja²⁴⁷ 10:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the message you left on my talk page, I've posted a few of my several suggestions on the WT:AF thread you've provided me. I don't know if those are enough, though. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 00:29, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

No, see your talk page. I need keyword triggers, not a list of articles or IP ranges (as I already know that). Try to keep discussion here if possible until we have a firm set of keywords. Cheers, NJA (t/c) 07:22, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I did; aside from what you had provided, I was also suggesting "Resident Evil," "CBS Paramount Television" and/or "MGM" (or anything affiliate for that matter) because the vandal added these keywords without any source and I can confirm that the all keywords do not have anything connecting them directly to the anime at all. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 15:12, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

TheZanderMan

I was just wondering why you removed my contribution "(Undid revision 326087077 by TheZanderMan (talk) EL spam)"

If I have done something incorrectly, please advise. I am happy to learn. This addition I made was intended to offer additional info and educational content about the product listed in that particular page. Every single image was taken by myself, and my intent was to see if I could contribute something useful, but also polished and easy to understand to the community. Please let me know why it was removed so that I might learn from you.

Thanks in advance!

TheZanderMan —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheZanderMan (talk • contribs) 00:55, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Carl vercetti is back

Just a warning that User:Vercetticarl is back as User:Carl vercetti and his edits concern at least one Honduras article that is going to be "hot" in the media during the next few days: Honduran general election, 2009. At least he's honest enough to use his same name and to openly declare his biases on his user page - though that was the case in his earlier account too. He seems to think that the election page is something like a voter guide rather than a record of notable information (Reyes is the main candidate of half the population - the half opposed to the coup - he withdrew as a sign of protest, not because he decided to give up politics), and he's trying to intepret the blog-as-source guideline naively rather than fully. i'm not sure whether we're supposed to assume good faith in his new account. Another complication is that i am the main person who has been editing the election page, so independent judgments are needed. On the other hand, several people have made minor edits such as interlanguage links, so i suspect that a number of wikipedians are checking over my contributions, and the only reason why they don't modify/revert them much is that they consider them satisfactory in terms of NPOV, RS, etc. Someone did make this useful and substantial edit adding something that was clearly missing from the article. Anyway, you were involved in the blocking of Vercetticarl, so i thought you might like to know. Boud (talk) 09:19, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Fort Transit Connet Wheelchair Van page deleted

You have done the disabled community a great disservice by disallowing this content. It was not commercial in nature, it was informative. People with a disability need information. They are looking for current, relevant information about specific products to help them find affordable accessible transportation. This is their freedom. The current information that continues to be published for "wheelchair accessible vans" is at least 5 years old and inaccurate. Some one keeps deleting any edits or additions to this page. Check your info. They cite the "Ford Freestar" as one of the top selling accessible vans. Ford doesn't even make the Freestar anymore and hasn't for years. MobilityWorks is Ford Motor's top upfiter in the USA for disabled vehicles. We have publishing rights to use their name for this purpose. Again, check your facts.

If you want relevant information for someone who has been paralyzed and is in a wheelchair to get help, then someone at Wiki needs to allow editing and the adding of new content to help people know where to go. Everything referenced to acessible vans, wheelchair vans, etc. is being deleted by someone who doesn't want anyone else to get referenced. At some point in time, Wiki then becomes irrelevant.

Guy Hanford MobilityWorks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghanford (talk • contribs) 10:12, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Managed Digital Allowance

Nja247:

Per Gigs recommendation I have sent an email from Unisys giving me the right to copy/remix and use parts of their paper to permissions-en@wikimedia. Do you know how long it takes for the reconsideration process? I notice that my article has already been deleted. If they let me place it back on Wikipedia, do they do that or do I have to recreate it?

Thanks for your help.

Regards, Barbara aka: bsclarkedc —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bsclarkedc (talk • contribs) 02:03, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

To be honest I do not know how long the process takes, though I reckon if everything is in order that it shouldn't be too drawn out. Hope all goes well for you. Cheers, Nja²⁴⁷ 07:10, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Stepwrong

Hi! I saw your block here and wasn't sure why you unblocked. This edit looked pretty attack-ish to me. TNXMan 17:40, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes I made that mistake too, but it appears that was a revert onto his own talk page of an attack made by someone else (Billy the good) that was removed by another admin (Fribbler) yesterday. Either that, or I completely dunged it all up and need some tea. I re-added to AIV in case someone else wished to consider the report as I'm slightly out of it at this point. Cheers, Nja²⁴⁷ 17:43, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. Looks like a sockpuppet to me and I've blocked Billythegood as a sock of Stepwrong. This seems to be an SPA devoted to harassing GoodDay. TNXMan 17:51, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Good eye mate. I was tempted to leave the block, but if he'd have appealed I really didn't have much to go on. I knew something was up, but I needed more ammo to justify the block and I couldn't be bothered to be honest :-) Thanks for finishing the job. Nja²⁴⁷ 17:55, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

It looks like Kafziel just did the same thing you did. I'm going to block Stepwrong for abusing multiple accounts. If he'd like to appeal, I have no problem with that. I'm sure a checkuser would turn up all sorts of fun things. Cheers! TNXMan 17:59, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Reality Killed the Video Star

Kudos for the block+semi closure at AN3. I was looking at that case, wondering what would be correct to do. It is annoying when an IP-hopping editor files at 3RR, and I was tempted to give him a boring lecture and suggest he get an account. (Especially when neither party has bothered to use the talk page). But the semi helps to make that point. EdJohnston (talk) 17:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks mate. I was inclined to encourage account creation as it was obvious he was using random and similar IPs to edit in the content dispute, but I had to leave for work and forgot all about it. Nja²⁴⁷ 17:53, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a bot, may I keep my user name?

Hi, I got a message that my username is suspicious. I'm not a bot! Nanobot is my nickname! (Nan or Nano being my other names). Please don't delete me! Thanks.

Nanobot9 (talk) 18:54, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of User:Canadaman1960

Thank you for dealing with this disruptive user. Please keep an eye on this category and its members:

• Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Canadaman1960

Brangifer (talk) 03:11, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

You should have made the block indef, his only edits were disruptive edit warring. I blocked indef. Thanks Secret ^account 22:06, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Coolio, thanks for the update. NJA (t/c) 07:40, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

User:JaMikePA

Last week, you blocked this editor for copyright violations. Well, a day after the block expired he re-uploaded the same image (Episcopal Church arms/shield) and claimed it was his again. See File:TEC arms.PNG. I've left him a note at his talk page about this. He does not seem to care too much about copyright. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:38, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

UserCompare

If you would like access just email me a key. β^_command 22:50, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Regarding your accusing me of sockery

While I understand your desire to ensure that sockpuppets are dealt with swiftly, I would have hoped that you remembered me from the sockpuppet investigation you started against Domer48 back in august, my response given to those allegations, and our time spent jointly editting the PIRA article, brief tho it may have been. Anyway, happy trails. Throwaway85 (talk) 02:37, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I thought I'd let you know, I removed this comment I made. I was extremely frustrated, and I apologize for my incivility and the implications I made. Throwaway85 (talk) 05:11, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

The way I said it came out wrong, as what I was getting at is 'who was the sockmaster'?. He didn't say who, so I wanted to know who. Essentially I too wasn't convinced as there was lack of some evidence. Though I think your name is unfortunate in that it implies (at least to me) that it's a throwaway account. Nevertheless, without evidence proving otherwise, I will continue to assume you're acting in good faith. Happy editing. NJA (t/c) 07:39, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

No problem. The account wasn't intended to be a throwaway account, but the nickname was, if that makes sense. I simply couldn't think of a name and wanted something that couldn't be traced to me personally, which my main prior handle could. Having seen how easy it is for people to find personal information about you on the internet, I wanted to make that as difficult as possible. Hence the nick. Throwaway85 (talk) 07:57, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I did mean to, and I forgot to apologise for the initial accusation months back. NJA (t/c) 10:56, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Water under the bridge. I wasn't even aware of the investigation until much later. Throwaway85 (talk) 11:19, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey why was my page deleted??

Why was my "Heartless Records" page deleted??

Replied on your talk page. NJA (t/c) 07:40, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

UserCompare

Your UserCompare key has been activated. β^_command 15:30, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Groovy, thanks! NJA (t/c) 11:29, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

AF question

Hi, Nja247. The first step is to decide what you want to do, (ie keyword block or ip range block). If you know what it is you want to do then I would be glad to assist you with coding. Triplestop x3 22:18, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Excellent, thank you. I suppose IP range would be the easiest wouldn't it? NJA (t/c) 08:40, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

!("user" in user_groups) & (ip_in_range(user_name, "range1") | ip_in_range(user_name, "range2") ...) & (article_text == "Article1" | article_text == "Article2" ...)

This will trigger on any IP in the ranges listed on any page listed. Triplestop x3 21:32, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Brilliant. I will have a go in the near future and test it out to see if it will work out. Thanks for the assistance mate. Have a good weekend. NJA (t/c) 11:56, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

New to Wiki

Can you tell me why my page on Tiger Farming was deleted? I'm new to Wikipedia and I read all the info on starting a page but I still want to work more at making a good page. Thank you! - TwiStar —Preceding unsigned comment added by TwiStar (talk • contribs) 08:26, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. NJA (t/c) 11:29, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

CSD

Hello Nja. I'm not sure, but I think there was a full name of that person in this article. I can't judge perfectly who created it, this is an anonymous online world. If I see a name of a person together with claims like "he hates school" or "he likes to say fuck everything", then it is very close to a personal attack. Sorry for the confusion. Have a nice day. --Vejvančický (talk) 08:44, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Not an issue at all, as I said you were right to tag for CSD anyhow. Thanks for the hard work, NJA (t/c) 08:49, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad you understand my point. I can easily imagine a situation, when I tag it as a test page or db-bio, and another admin note me about the improper and defamatory content :) I'm trying to help with the encyclopedic and useful content and help others to remove the rest. Thanks for your kind answer, Nja. --Vejvančický (talk) 09:02, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Removed IP block exemptions

Hi.
No, editors in the "sysop" user group do not have all user rights that editors in the "ipblock-exempt" group have, the "torunblocked" right is only available in the latter group. I recommend you restore them, or at least inform the admins in question.
Amalthea 11:13, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I have alerted them (privately via email), but I do wonder if you know where it can be discovered whether or not torunblocked is or is not part of the admin bit, aside from the possibly incomplete list at Special:ListGroupRights? I'd like to know what's truly included to avoid future confusions. As seen here, a lot of people think IP block exemption is redundant for admins and I think clarity would be nice on this. Thanks. NJA (t/c) 11:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I suppose also, should it be true that ip block exemption does do more than the admin bit on its own, then I'd think the third sentence at Wikipedia:IP_block_exemption should be reworded. That may reduce some of the confusion amongst admins, as is evident from my example above, where three separate admins have removed the bit from another admins as it's thought to be redundant. NJA (t/c) 11:44, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Given the feedback received from emails, I've started a discussion on the talk page to hopefully get a little more clarity. NJA (t/c) 12:17, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think Special:ListGroupRights is incomplete? It's not maintained manually but generated by MediaWiki, as far as I can tell. But yeah, if some page here claims it's redundant then that's wrong and needs changing. Amalthea 16:18, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Tinker Tenor Doctor Spy

Hi, Nja247, I hope you are doing well. Please examine the talk page of user talk:Tinker Tenor Doctor Spy. Then please note that the user has repeatedly inserted completely unsourced information at the WP:GA article Project Chanology, despite warnings about WP:RS, WP:V, WP:BURDEN. Then note also the user was warned previously for inserting unsourced info at a different article. Could you perhaps reevalute your WP:AIV comment? The user is clearly determined to repeatedly insert completely unsourced info, despite this being a violation of multiple site policies. Cirt (talk) 15:11, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I see you removed the unsourced info. Note please that this was added back by Tinker Tenor Doctor Spy (talk · contribs), after warnings about WP:BURDEN. Cirt (talk) 15:12, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I see the warning, thank you. :) Cirt (talk) 15:21, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I was just noting my actions on AIV and then I got the EC notice as you had removed the report. It seems to be a minor case of IDIDNTHEARTHAT, so hopefully things improve. NJA (t/c) 15:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, no worries. Cirt (talk) 15:25, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Unprotection of Reality Killed The Video Star

Hi there! could the page at least be semi-protected?? so that IP users can't delete or add unsourced info?? thanx (MariAna Mimi 21:15, 7 December 2009 (UTC))

Actually this was done purposefully to force discussion between IP and non-IP users, both of whom got carried away and used reverting rather than discussion. The protection period was for two weeks, thus it's not much longer, but unfortunately no discussion seems to have ensued. It'd be a shame to have to block or protect again due to unresolved disputes. NJA (t/c) 07:07, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Pages09.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Pages09.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Fleet Command (talk) 06:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

ritalin in pop culture

Hi, how come did you edit out the section on 'Ritalin in popular culture?' Ritalin is a very controversial drug, and there have been a lot of references to it in books, movies, etc. I thought it was appropriate to add a section in the Ritalin page ... Oh frabjous day (talk) 14:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

It's trivia (which is discouraged) that you're trying to add to an already very long and complex article. Do you realise how much it would add to mention every song, movie, TV show, or celeb that mentioned or talked about ritalin? Generally, it's irrelevant to an encyclopedia. NJA (t/c) 14:56, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

User:ChaosMaster16

Hey, you blocked ChaosMaster16 in response to the 3RR report, so thought you'd want to know that he is continuing to edit as an IP[4], and thereby evading the block. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:13, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Blocked so that both end simultaneously. Thanks. NJA (t/c) 16:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Hate to bug you again about this guy, but with his block lifted he is continuing to edit war all over the Twilight articles including despite two more warnings. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:15, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Policy Report

The community gave feedback on a couple of policy pages at WT:SOCK#Interview for Signpost and WT:CIVILITY#Policy Report for Signpost, and there will be another one in Monday's Signpost that we're putting together at WT:Username policy#Signpost Policy Report. I'm leaving you a message because you've made a recent comment on that talk page. If you look quickly through the answers to the previous surveys, you'll see that most of the people who responded to the previous surveys didn't respond to the suggested questions, and that's fine, but there's a list of questions at WT:U#Questions, if that helps. I'm leaving this message on a lot of pages so I'm not watchlisting here, but if you have questions, feel free to ask at WT:Username policy#Signpost Policy Report or my talk page. - Dank (push to talk) 16:05, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Admin Help

I have been editing the pages The Twilight Saga: Eclipse, The Twilight Saga: New Moon‎, and Twilight (2008 film). These edits are (in my opinion) not worthy of getting any consencus. However, User:Collectonian made reverts on all of these pages using "series link already in template and the sentence is long enough; urge you to just chill for awhile." I would keep reverting, but I also do know that I have been blocked once within the last 48 hours, and would not like to be blocked again. Would it be possible in this case to report the user for unnessasary reverts/vandalism?ChaosMaster16 (talk) 23:18, 10 December 2009 (UTC)ChaosMaster16

I've already reported you above for your continued edit warring. You have already violated 3RR, yet again, on the series page and continue to turn to edit warring and demanding you get your personal way against consensus despite the block and numerous warnings. You do need to chill out and stop reverting period. YOu JUST got blocked for edit warring, yet you start right back up as soon as the block is lifted. My reverting your unnecessary and contiued edit warrings is neither vandalism nor unnecessary. Stop trying to push your non-neutral point-of-view and stick to discussing until you can act in a more cooperative fashion. You are continuing to refuse to to allow anyone else to edit the articles, and argue against everything anyone does despite consensus being against you. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The edits on these page have nothing to do with my 3RR. I was trying to improve the articles, and like I told you on your talk page, know its Wikipedia, and obviously other people will edit it. The edits that you reverted on these three pages did not need a consencus, just like if you were to add information. Of course I'm not going to revert it now, but I would appreciate if you could stop being bias, and look into other peoples edits and improve upon them. The edits I have made on those three pages had no point of view at all, I was just improving the article.ChaosMaster16 (talk) 23:49, 10 December 2009 (UTC)ChaosMaster16

Yes, they do. You have now made pointed edits to the series article, continuing your edit warring and POV. Rather than doing it yourself, you continue trying to claim the title should be "New Moon" rather than "The Twilight Saga: New Moon" and so on. You have now hit 5 reverts on the series article since you were unblocked. That is a violation. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:53, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Is it the same revert?ChaosMaster16 (talk) 00:00, 11 December 2009 (UTC)ChaosMaster16

It doesn't matter. You are reverting, period, and continue doing so. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:03, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

• Chaos, you must learn to edit in a non-disruptive manner. You have continued to edit war, and in fact breached 3RR on at least one article. Your reverts can always be undone, so what's the point of edit warring? It's better to show that you're acting rationally and then ask for admin help. Asking for our assist whilst editing disruptively is not going to work. NJA (t/c) 07:09, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Ted Bundy at AN3

Hello NJA. You've closed WP:AN3#User:SkagitRiverQueen reported by User:LaVidaLoca (Result: No action, but will monitor) as No Action, but I assume you are still OK with the voluntary one-week restriction that SkagitRiverQueen had agreed to just above your close? I'm assuming the restriction is now in effect. Let me know if not. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 15:07, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes I'm sorry I wasn't clear, that it was closed and should be monitored in line with the agreement. Cheers, NJA (t/c) 15:44, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Mccready

I am not the blocking admin, but of course unblock if required to comment at Arbcom. Case is Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#McCready_edit_warring_topic_ban. Rich Farmbrough, 17:04, 12 December 2009 (UTC).

Ping

Hi NJA. Would you please comment here? Best regards, --Kanonkas :  Talk  11:48 am, 13 December 2009, last Sunday (8 days ago) (UTC+0)

Thank you. I've taken care of your rename request. Best regards, --Kanonkas :  Talk  3:47 pm, 13 December 2009, last Sunday (8 days ago) (UTC+0)

That military IP

Looking at the history, the block is more than justified. However, you really should have notified the Communications Committee here. Blueboy96 3:44 pm, 13 December 2009, last Sunday (8 days ago) (UTC+0)

That IP range doesn't seem to be deemed sensitive? NJA (t/c) 4:30 pm, 13 December 2009, last Sunday (8 days ago) (UTC+0)

Even so, the PR implications merit letting them know. They should know about any government IP or IP range that's been blocked. Blueboy96 4:57 pm, 13 December 2009, last Sunday (8 days ago) (UTC+0)

Seems reasonable. As the initial blocking admin hadn't done so already, I've made the notification. Cheers, NJA (t/c) 7:17 pm, 13 December 2009, last Sunday (8 days ago) (UTC+0)

Azerbaijan–Belgium relations

Do you mind providing me with the most recent version of Azerbaijan–Belgium relations at User:Cdogsimmons/Azerbaijan–Belgium relations. You closed the delete discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Azerbaijan–Belgium relations as a delete but I'd like to continue to improve it. Thanks.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 7:08 pm, 13 December 2009, last Sunday (8 days ago) (UTC+0)

Done. NJA (t/c) 7:13 pm, 13 December 2009, last Sunday (8 days ago) (UTC+0)

Cool. Thank you.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 7:22 pm, 13 December 2009, last Sunday (8 days ago) (UTC+0)

Israel–Montenegro relations

Do you mind providing me with the most recent version of Israel–Montenegro relations at User:Cdogsimmons/Israel–Montenegro relations. You closed the delete discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Israel–Montenegro relations as a delete but I'd like to continue to improve it. Thanks.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 7:22 pm, 13 December 2009, last Sunday (8 days ago) (UTC+0)

Done. If you have any further requests, then please list them all at once so I can be done with it. NJA (t/c) 7:25 pm, 13 December 2009, last Sunday (8 days ago) (UTC+0)

3RR

Hi

I recently reported someone for being in breach of the 3RR rule but my request was rejected because I didn't file a template properly? What template? The only template I can see on that page is something to do with page links and page titles, doesn't seem to be anything to do with users?

Sorry, it's my first time reporting someone, I thought I would just have to give over their details and the details of the page they violated the 3RR on. I'm not going to re-report this person because of the amount of time that's now passed (nearly two days) but I'd like to know for future reference --5 albert square (talk) 8:15 pm, 13 December 2009, last Sunday (8 days ago) (UTC+0)

Hi. Yea two days is a bit stale at this point. Essentially when at WP:AN3 there's two ways to make a report, one way is to click where it says 'Click here to add a new report', which takes you to the template. Alternatively there's a 3RR helper tool (a link for it is also included in the listing instructions that should be read when making a first report). Cheers, NJA (t/c) 8:22 pm, 13 December 2009, last Sunday (8 days ago) (UTC+0)

An editor you blocked two weeks ago

Hi NJA, I was wondering if I could ask your help regarding a 3RR problem you intervened in a couple of weeks ago surrounding the article page Reality Killed the Video Star and the editor MariAna Mimi. As you may recall, the editor was edit-warring after continued warnings and previous blocks, which led you to block her again for 31 hours and protect the article page for 2 weeks. The page protection you added expired 2 days ago and MariAna Mimi has continued to edit war and has now broken the 3RR policy yet again on the same material. I reported the matter on the Admin noticeboard twice yesterday. The first time was actually just for edit-warring as she had not technically broken the 3RR policy at that point. An admin attending to it basically ignored the edit-warring problem and said "no 3RR, no block" and refused to take any action despite the ongoing problems with MariAna Mimi that were listed in the report. Only a couple of hours later, MariAna Mimi continued edit-warring and this time actually did break the 3RR policy and so I filed another report on the 3RR noticeboard. However, this report was inappropriately deleted by the same admin who had refused to deal with it the first time, even though it was not just a duplicate report. I think the admin who did this was in serious error and it is an abuse of the trust Wikipedia have placed in him to simply ignore and delete a report. If admins refuse to take action against persistent edit-warriors, then it sends a message to them to do it even more. Given that you have some knowledge and prior involvement in this case, I was wondering if you wouldn't mind dealing with the current 3RR report which I have now refiled on the 3RR board. Thanks. 80.47.73.1 (talk) 05:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Well I agree it's troubling and I'm tempted to block, but I do wonder if the current version is okay to you both? I see both the independent's, popmatters, and billboards reviews in there. NJA (t/c) 12:21, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I don't have any major problem with the article at the moment, but it remains to be seen if her latest warning will have any effect. It's typical "teenage fan mentality" but she apparently has quite a history of it on other article pages too. Anyway, I'll let you know if I see her doing anything dodgy again. Thanks for looking into it, and also for having a stern word with the other admin on the 3RR board. He should be ashamed of himself. 80.47.38.233 (talk) 19:51, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Blanchardb

Hi NJA, I can't help thinking that you have made a mistake in blocking Blanchardb. You are far more knowledgeable than me on blocking practice but I can't help thinking that Blanchardb needs a warning before this block. Blanchardb is a valued editor here on wikipedia, he has rollback rights and contributes well right across the project. I think it would be appropriate that before blocking experienced and valuable editors a warning is given. The block is only 24 hours but i ruins his record. Some advice would be appreciated. Thanks is advance, Kiwiteen123 Please reply on my talk page 22:19, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that he's an asset to Wikipedia, but an experienced editor would know how disruptive edit warring is to the encyclopaedia. It's not just him, admins on occasion end up blocked for 3RR as well. Thanks for your message though, and as it's a short block I don't think there's much point in changing it as the edit warring behaviour was quite evident in the case. Cheers, NJA (t/c) 09:20, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Indeed it's a short block, and by the time I became aware of it, it had already expired, so there is really no point in trying to undo anything. About a year ago, I had an RFA that was aborted on the grounds of the nominator's identity, but before the issue of the nominator came up someone claimed to be impressed by an editor with an edit count in the tens of thousands and no block. My edit count has doubled since then, so I guess many will still be impressed by my overall record. To me, however, I had one slip and that's just one too many, and I'll take full responsibility. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 06:22, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks NJA and Blanchardb, It was just a thought. Some good editors could be scared away by a block, luckily it didn't happen this time but I think it is something admins need to be weary of, Thanks, Kiwiteen123 Please reply on my talk page 04:40, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

FYI when I went to the talk page of the person who reported me to give a peace offering, I found that account and another one involved in the same dispute both indef-blocked as checkuser-confirmed sockpuppets. So much for the peace offering. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 03:29, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:UAA

These accounts are not blatant violations that require any intervention. Read the listing guidelines before posting here please.

Must be some strange new meaning of "blatant" I was previously unaware of. Understand the listing guidelines -- and their intent -- before giving advice here please. --Calton | Talk 17:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I made the listing guidelines header on the page, and heavily edited the UAA listing instructions page, thus I assure you I clearly understand them and their intent. I know you've been told about this before, yet you still continue to report accounts that are a complete waste of time.

Anyhow, I'm unsure how you missed it (as it's at the top of UAA and in the editnotice), but please do take notice of the bit of text that says "Accounts that haven't edited in months should not be reported." Also, the listing instructions clearly say "Note that inappropriate usernames do not need to be reported or blocked if the user has made no contributions, hasn't edited in months, or if there is no evidence that an account was created in bad faith. In the latter situation, it would be best to initiate discussion on their talk page as noted above."

Therefore my notice for you to actually read listing guidelines still is relevant. UAA is generally for accounts that need immediate action, and if an account registered months or years ago and hasn't edited recently it doesn't fit that category. Therefore a name such as that should be given a {{UsernameConcern}} template, and if they fail to respond and you're still concerned about it then consider WP:RFCN.

If you have further comment, you may consider taking it this thread on the UAA talk page, as I'm signing off right now for a week for holiday, and the issue isn't really with me, it's with the guidelines listed at UAA, thus you'd need to shout over there should you think they're incorrect or need changing. NJA (t/c) 18:21, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Movie studio/anime vandal has returned... again

Hello. Sorry to bother you, but after 20 days of dormancy, our Indonesian vandal "friend" has returned to repeat his MO today as 114.58.40.11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Curiously, a "meatpuppet" from 189.140.198.67 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (based in Mexico, maybe used it through a proxy) added some weird list on Digimon Frontier. Just a heads up. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 10:02, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

He has again returned, this time as 125.160.186.3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Vandalized three Digimon articles. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 05:12, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The guy has returned, possibly using a proxy: 61.8.254.2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), one that is based in Singapore. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 09:54, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

The guy has returned used another Singapore based IP to repeat his vandalism. This time, the IP used is 61.8.223.226 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Looks like another IP rangeblock. He must now be very desperate to use a proxy just to repeat his vandalism. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 10:23, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

A Nobody^{My talk} is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

To those who make Good Arguments, who are appreciative, or supportive. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:53, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Eleventh Doctor

TreasuryTag (talk · contribs) is not a previously-uninvolved editor - he participated in reverting the fair-use image back into the article [5], showed up at the talk page of another user that did the same [6], and was previously involved in a similar dispute at Talk:Amy Pond.

TreasuryTag is erroneously placing his comments in the "previously-uninvolved editors" section of the Request for Comment at Talk:Eleventh Doctor - as a neutral admin in this dispute, perhaps you could leave a note to TreasuryTag about this pattern of behavior? Thank you for your time, Cirt (talk) 08:49, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Note that I'm watching the talk page, and at this point there's really nothing to say it wasn't an honest mistake on his behalf. Cheers, NJA (t/c) 08:52, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, no worries. Cirt (talk) 08:52, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Stricken that portion of my comment. I must admit, I had thought that users such as TreasuryTag who appear to be heavily interested in the topic of Doctor Who would have been more appreciative of an editor such as myself - I have demonstrated a desire and skill to help improve content on articles in the topic - and also I have worked to obtain free-use images (and video) for the topic. It appears instead from the abrasive demeanor of TreasuryTag (talk · contribs) that there is instead an attempt to drive me off the topic, or at the very least a lack of politeness and cordiality. I really wish that were not the case. I like the show Doctor Who, and I like helping to improve articles to WP:FA, and I enjoy working to get more free-use media for the topic. :( Cirt (talk) 09:35, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I am sure that's not the case, and your contributions are undoubtedly appreciated. But as you know, disagreements do happen on Wikipedia, and once more people have chimed in we can get a consensus. However the RFC has been open for only about an hour, and a lot of people are still asleep. If we could do our best to ensure tensions are not escalated any further, then I'm confident we'll come to a reasonable solution. Best, NJA (t/c) 09:39, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I must say, your perspective and judgment is quite sound and most appreciated. Thank you very much for that, I think I sorely needed it! :) Cirt (talk) 09:42, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of my article

Dear sir,

Please to ask you the cause of deletion my article on Al-Blagha Holding Group. Wish to have your suggestions to put the articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Exploreall (talk • contribs) 11:39, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually someone already posted helpful links on your talk page. See Your first article and How to write a great article to get started. Cheers, NJA (t/c) 11:42, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

User:SteveFoerster/IDEA

I'm going to have to quibble with your removal of the {{db-spam}} for a simple reason: First-person plural.

From the text: "While we are primarily...", "...our classes' activities...", "...we seek out articulation agreements...", "Generally speaking it our intention...", etc.

It is, unquestionably, spam; an advertisement for the school using first-person, promotional language. COI issues alone make the article creator a non-starter as someone to work on this. --Calton | Talk 12:42, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I am discussing this directly with the user. Should they fail to see the issue then of course I will delete, but in the meantime I'd appreciate your patience whilst I address it in the least combative way possible. Cheers, NJA (t/c) 12:44, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Canadian Charity Law

Dear NJA, Thank you for your comments. The Canadian charity law submission is a work in progress - I will add additional material - I am not sure what reverted means and would be pleased to work on any comments related to the page. Canadiancharitylaw (talk) 14:28, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I will reply on your talk page. NJA (t/c) 14:32, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Canadian Charity Law

Dear NJA, As per your one suggestion I have changed my username. it is now MB2010 and I guess I will edit the above topic now using that user name. This work is being done in a personal capacity and I obviously do not speak on behalf of "Canadian charity law". I am a charity lawyer in Canada with an interest in charity law and helping charities understand their legal obligations. Any other comments or suggestions would be greatly appreciated. By the way can one talk on skype etc. or is everything by typing. MB2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Canadiancharitylaw (talk • contribs) 15:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Polaron/Doncram 3RR case: updated

Hello NJA. Doncram modified the result line of the 3RR case which you closed, claiming it was superseded, so I went back to the case to write a summary section. The result of the 3RR complaint is now shown as 'Negotiation.' Both parties wound up accepting a restriction, which was clear in at least one case. Please check to see if you agree, and if not, change as necessary. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 21:19, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, sorry for delay. Excellent work as usual mate. Happy New Year. NJA (t/c) 13:04, 2 January 2010 (UTC)