User talk:NJA/Archive 08

This is an archive of past discussions from NJA's talk page for the month of January 2010. Please do not edit or add to this page.

If you wish to leave a new comment, please do so by clicking here.

< 07 (Sept - Dec 2009) | 08 (Jan 2010) | > 09 (Feb 2010+)

Slow guy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28nominal%29

I have never been able to figure out how to efficiently handle 3RR type cases.

So, once again (under my user name I have used for the last few years) I am ready to take a hard walk off the ban plank if you can help me to get a community look at an issue.

So, yes, I 4th reverted when I should have reported it...but let's be honest, no one really cares until it is reported.

My arguments are in my text in the talk page. I should be banned for the 4th RR and I understand that.

I just need someone to help!

When an article gets bogged down with a group, there is nothing that can be done even when it is so obvious that another course should be taken.

I just picked you randomly out of a group on this page (the ban page.) I know nothing about you and if you will take the time to offer me a decision on my thoughts, I'd appreciate it. I think you are as random as it gets as an arbiter.

p.s. I tried an RFC once for that article. No one came. I just want facts. That is all.

Sorry to bother. Neutralis (talk) 00:49, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Block evasion

You blocked 2010wiki2010 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for evasion; he's now created yet another sock – due for a block too? Thanks! ╟─Treasury Tag►most serene─╢ 15:06, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely. Seems it's been sorted already though. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Cheers, NJA (t/c) 13:05, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year

Hey NJA, I just thought that I would stop by to wish you and your family a Happy New Year. :)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 09:55, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! You too :) Cheers, NJA (t/c) 13:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reality Killed the Video Star

Please do not revert the labeling changes I made as my edits are aligned with wp:albums guidelines. Robbie is on the Virgin Records UK roster (of EMI [uk]) and if you have the album you can verify this for yourself that the label is Virgin (although depending on your country it might be either virgin or capitol). You can also verify Robbie on the Virgin roster by visiting www.virginrecords.co.uk. (fyi - he ended up on that label because Chrysalis Records folded into virgin uk.) Like most global EMI UK artists, they have a reciprocal signing with EMI's US frontline mainstream operation- Capitol Records- that is the American release company. Every other territory is released by EMI "insert your country here" (e.g. EMI Canada) national companies, therefore EMI label for all other territories. Imperatore (talk) 02:25, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Keys43

Shouldn't the puppet master also be blocked, if not indefinitely, at least for a short period, especially since he's evading the block of his other sockpuppets? In effect he's his own sockpuppet. --AussieLegend (talk) 12:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Likely, but I haven't the time to do a thorough assessment at this time. Either I'll do it shortly, or I'll defer until another admin sees the case and takes action. Overall don't worry, as it will get sorted. Cheers, NJA (t/c) 12:21, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Thanks. --AussieLegend (talk) 12:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strange people

The individual carying out the strange edits at compact fluorescent lamp puzzles me. I don't even know if I want to understand his motivations, I doubt I'd be happier knowing them. --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:36, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently as a professional electrician they bother him, which is why the article is POV. Anyhow, sit back and relax as it will all be sorted soon. Cheers, NJA (t/c) 16:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to Yard

Please obtain consensus to remove the {{American English}} template from the Talk:Yard talk page before introducing UK spelling to the corresponding article. --Jc3s5h (talk) 18:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your post to my talk page has caused collateral damage. I therefore request that you retract your comment on my talk page. --Jc3s5h (talk) 22:00, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dibakar Banerjee

hey NJA,

Please dont delete the page : Dibakar Banerjee —Preceding unsigned comment added by Enzipp (talk • contribs) 10:09, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Нахера было страничку удалять, г** ?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Canadian maker (talk • contribs) 11:31, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

template

hi. what template did you use for this edit?--brew crewer (yada, yada) 15:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not actually a template, ie I whipped it up on the spot. Nothing better than bespoke service ;-) NJA (t/c) 15:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's cute. I didn't even know that was still possible ;) --brew crewer (yada, yada) 15:20, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this thread, the IP has apparently moved to [1]. Its the same SPA that is only "undoing," but changing slightly his IP every day. I'm not really sure what to do at this point. By the time his record becomes egregious enough for a block, he has moved on to another IP.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 19:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well I was going to suggest protection on the article in question, but that seems to have already been applied by another admin. If it continues, and the IP edits continue to be similar, ie 166.xxx, we could do a short blocking of that range to prevent further disruption, though with protection of the article that may be less appropriate. NJA (t/c) 08:08, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

makes sense, but big-picture wise the IP doesn't focus on just that article, but on articles all over the Israeli-Arab conflict. I'll keep you updated if it comes back today.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 15:19, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Hamel deletion questions...

Can you tell me why my page was deleted? I gave full permission to copy what they wanted from my bio at myspace.com/billhamel. I'd like to get my Wiki page set up. I've been producing electronic music for 15yrs, sold millions of records and video games with my songs on it, remixed almost every major pop act out there and even had a Grammy nod a few years back. I'm even the lead sound designer for the hit video game, Dance Dance Revolution. There's tons of wiki pages that mention my work, just not one for me. thanks in advance for your help... Bill (Remix U (talk) 16:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Replied on user's talk page. NJA (t/c) 16:19, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Faith Jewellery

Would it be possible to reinstate the entry on Faith Jewellery, but with a more succinct (not product placement version). Faith Jewellery is a UK company at the forefront of London's jewellery trade. With this in mind, I guess the piece should read more factually about the online jewellery industry as oppose to promoting just the birth of Faith Jewellery? Please reply to [email protected] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quaedam Comms (talk • contribs) 20:43, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article was essentially an advert about a company that's unlikely to meet inclusion guidelines. Further, it seems it was created in a conflict of interest. Please review those guidance links to understand thoroughly why the article had been deleted. NJA (t/c) 08:05, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit filter request

Hello, I'm going through the various requests for edit filters and came across your request at Wikipedia:Edit_filter/Requested#Digimon_.26_Resident_Evil. Is this issue still ongoing? Thanks for any information. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 04:46, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for not updating the status. A filter has been devised, yet still unimplemented. NJA (t/c) 08:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great. Is the problem still persisting? That is, after verifying the filter is technically correct, is it still warranted? Thanks --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 23:18, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re Ady Gil/ Earthrace in 'Sea Shepherd Conservation Society'

Hello NJA, (nice T-shirt!).
I see you have protected Earthrace. I have updated Sea Shepherd Conservation Society with much the same data as added to Earthrace since the collision\ accident\ ramming? . No vandalism at SSCS that I have seen as yet(sorry, one reverted edit called it a submarine!). You may want to keep an eye on it. (& Happy New Year!) Regards, --220.101.28.25 (talk) 14:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Andrejs Sinicins

Hello NJA, why you delete page Andrejs Sinicins? There was all real not fake. What thera are write I all read from other Latvian websites!!! Please chek it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Z1nz1n1z1n (talk • contribs) 19:44, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ogan 234

Hello NJA I just wanted to Know If you can send me a copy of my deleted artical new raven clan. I do not have a email address so I was wondering if you can send it to my account. On wikipedia I would realy appresheat it if you can cause i realy need it. If not please tell me a way I can find it please. Because Im very new to wikipedia and i dont know how to work much. Thank you very much! ogan 234 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ogan 234 (talk • contribs) 04:40, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My username

Hello. You tagged my account name as possibly having a conflict of interest with the articles I edit. I assure you that this is not the case. I chose the username months before I ever started editing articles by the 116 Clique and only chose the name as the 116 Clique are a favourte group of mine. I also assure you all my edits are from a neutral point of view and only write articles about the 116 clique that are notable. In light of this do you feel I should I still change my username to avoid others coming to the conclusion that you have? (116Rebel (talk) 09:49, 7 January 2010 (UTC)).[reply]

If you're not associated with the band, then there's really no issue in terms of Wikipedia policy. Though you may choose to do so to avoid the illusion of such in the future. Thanks for the response. NJA (t/c) 09:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain why the page THE KIKI TWINS has been deleted.

NJA

We are an established, signed, published and distributed music group active since 2006. We have been written about in Paper Magazine as one of the 10 sounds of the city in NYC (see first reference below) We have been covered on numerous websites and blogs (see remaining references below). We are cited on the Gay Pimpin' with Jonny McGovern wikipedia page which wikipedia has approved. You can simply search our name to find that.

I'm not sure why these citations are not sufficient enough for THE KIKI TWINS page to exist. Please inform.

Regards, Lawrence Thompson

From your text, the first issue is that you're editing in an obvious conflict of interest. Autobiographies and self-promotion are discouraged as this is an encyclopedia, not a personal web space or medium for promotion. Essentially if the band satisfied the inclusion criteria at WP:BAND then there's less of a problem. If the band meet the criteria it would be likely that a fan or someone not directly affiliated with the band would have already created the article. You mustn't continue to edit in a conflict of interest. NJA (t/c) 10:34, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's easy enough. We will just have a fan of ours create a page for us. Thx for ur help

Well that's easy enough. We will just have a fan of ours create a page for us. Thx for ur help —Preceding unsigned comment added by Casnnyc (talk • contribs) 13:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's not necessarily that simple. Again, inclusion guidelines on bands will need met. Good luck though. NJA (t/c) 18:34, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

McGeachie

Hi NJA

Can you please explain why the McGeachie page has been moved to disambiguation? I am a new contributor to Wikipedia and not 100% aware of the proper proceedures regarding posting contributions, please could you also advise on what alterations I need to make to have the page restored, the purpose of the page was to explain the origins of the surname and notable persons with the same or variant spelling of the surname. If I was to rename the page to McGeachie (Surname) and add links to Irish name and Scottish name would that help? any guidance would be much appreciated.

Thanks DJMcGeachie —Preceding unsigned comment added by DjMcGeachie (talk • contribs) 17:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You could add info that is cited with reliable sources to the articles that already exist on surnames of Ireland and Scotland if you wish to expand and the disambiguation page isn't useful enough. Cheers, NJA (t/c) 18:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LGBT Parenting

I'm the Third Opinion Wikipedian who requested full page protection on LGBT parenting, which you granted. Doing so has apparently killed the bad faith dispute which was ongoing there. The problem, as you may recall, was that there was contentious editing by 72.224.119.207 which was being addressed by Destinero through edit warring. (Destinero having been previously warned in November, 2009, about edit warring on this same page.) Can I suggest that you give Destinero some kind of final warning about the edit warring, then reduce the protection on the page to indefinite semi-protection? (BTW I note from your user page that you have UK law degrees. Are you a practicing attorney? I'm an attorney in Texas, being in-house counsel for a corporation.) TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 18:15, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done Thanks for the comments! :) NJA (t/c) 18:39, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article Revision

Hi, you revised my article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IObridge . I made a few changes, could you please comment if they are up to standards? Maybe add your comments on the discussion page. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noelportugal (talk • contribs) 20:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've made some improvements and added suggestions for further clarification and compliance with guidelines. Cheers, NJA (t/c) 07:30, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re McGeachie

Hi NJA

"You could add info that is cited with reliable sources to the articles that already exist on surnames of Ireland and Scotland if you wish to expand and the disambiguation page isn't useful enough. Cheers, NJA (t/c) 18:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)"

I thought I had cited with reliable sources, is not Black's, MacLysaght and Woulfe reliable sources? the reason I say this is that the Irish names article on Wikipedia under references uses 16th & 17th Century Anglicized Irish Surnames from Woulfe. Furthermore another reference on the same article uses the surnamedb website as a reference, when the surname McGeachie is searched it contains the same origin information as previously placed in the original McGeachie page, would it help if I cited those same references as reliable sources.

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by DjMcGeachie (talk • contribs) 20:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I reckon you did use reliable sources that were cited. I think what I'm getting at is it would make the most sense to summarise your information and add it directly into the main articles that already exist on Irish and Scottish surnames. Should you disagree, that is fine, but I'd recommend looking over other article pertaining to surnames to ensure that your article is formatted correctly according to relevant manual of style guidance. Cheers, NJA (t/c) 07:32, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Is there a reason why you've deleted Mars Dynamo? I spent a lot of time writing it up! please check the facts on FB and MYSPACE and Soundcloud. Is there anymore I can do in the future to make sure the page is not deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Magicalyuanyuan (talk • contribs) 02:05, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on your talk page. NJA (t/c) 07:32, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

deleted article arthur amiotte

Dear NJA,

I have a question regarding the article about the Lakota painter Arthur Amiotte you have just deleted, giving as an exlplanation the reason A7 = "no indication of importance", and G11, which I could not find out what it stands for (= which deleting reason?)

Please tell me how I could save the above mentioned entry, as it is an internationally very renowned artist, both in the United States and also in Europe, and an unique exponent of Lakota culture.

(Unfortunately I am no computer expert, even when I try in the sandbox, thus I could just add another entry of that low formal standard - however, this problem could be easily resolved by other contributors to Wikipedia! :-)

On the other hand, I have done a lot of research in order to write this article, thus I would change everything the way you suggest me to, in order to save the above mentioned article as such!

Büffelblick (talk) 15:51, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problems were A7 - notability (see WP:N, particularly WP:BIO), and G11 (advertising and promotion), as it was a promotional piece (see WP:ADVERT). I'd recommend reading over the guidance at your first article as well as those other links I provided. Cheers, NJA (t/c) 13:09, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted article on Lipstick (band)

Hi NJA! It seems you recently deleted the article on Lipstick (band) per speedy deletion. I suppose that it would have been possible to retain the article, and while I dislike editing articles of bands that I dislike, the number of articles on Mongolian bands is small enough, so that I would certainly like to prevent it from detoriating. Would it be possible to provide me with the content of the deleted page, so that I may see whether I can find a way to show that this band has been significant? Regards, G Purevdorj (talk) 16:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to add that I don´t think the A7 CSD was warranted as the article clearly made claims to notability by asserting the number of awards won and their significance as an innovative Mongolian band.·Maunus·ƛ· 11:22, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unsure of this honestly, but of course if brought back I wouldn't make a fuss though I'm sure it'd end up at AFD. NJA (t/c) 13:07, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An band article listing three albums, three national awards, and Reuters as a reliable source will easily survive an AFD (with another source or two added), and clearly does not qualify for CSD A7. I realize that you have to delete a lot of nonsense, but that shouldn't make you throw the wheat together with the chaff. --Latebird (talk) 22:05, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

THE KIKI TWINS again

I have given these guys some more advice here which they seem to be taking in the right spirit. Is it OK with you if I unsalt the title? I think they can probably make a case for meeting WP:BAND. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 18:20, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course. But the title as it was would unlikely come within MOS naming conventions? Regardless I'm fine, though it needs to be ensured that COI issues are understood by the party. NJA (t/c) 12:58, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll raise the use of all-caps with them, but from a look at the internet it seems to be how they normally refer to themselves - I suspect when I say "All-caps is considered shouty and rude" they may say "That's the idea!" I have pointed them to WP:BESTCOI and User:Uncle G/On notability#Writing about subjects close to you. JohnCD (talk) 14:51, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

McGeachie (disambiguation)

Hi NJA

I have made some alterations after your helpfull advice, could you please have a look and see if this is acceptable, if so could you remane the disambiguation to (Surname) please. I will at a later stage when more familiar with editing add the surname and variations to, as you have suggested the irish names and scottish surnames articles.

Thanks, DjMcGeachie 22:15, 8 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by DjMcGeachie (talk • contribs)

Moved to title, McGeachie (surname). I will add some tags if needed later, Cheers. NJA (t/c) 13:03, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Amiotte - painter - Lakota - culture of the Lakota (Sioux)

PS: Dear NJA, of course I have read the relevance criteria for an article first! Thus I was quite sure you would admit my suggestion about the new entry about Arthur Amiotte, as the following relevance criteria for an artist are met: - expositons on an international level, in museums and art galleries - important impact on the domain of fine arts, literature and philosophy - own disciples - numerous awards Thus I keep on hoping that you will agree that this article should be included! :-)

Büffelblick (talk) 23:54, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for your help!

Dear NJA,

thank you for your help by specifying the A7 and G11 problems! I'll read all the links you have indicated to me carefully once again, before trying to rewrite the article, according to the criteria. Please help me then with your suggestions, in case the text should need further modifications, as I'm aware that it is a different thing to write about prairie culture than about prairie plants ... :-) Hope next time the text will make it, say, an article that really meets the required conditions!

Thanks again, Büffelblick (talk) 18:10, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

space for drafts, user space versus user page - are they different things?

Dear NJA, for a possible new draft: is „user space“ the same as „user page“?, or: where is it possible to put a draft of the rewritten article, to be discussed first, before editing it (and thus running the unnecessary risk of being deleted again :-)? Where could I show you any new attempt, of a modified version?

Thanks in advance, Büffelblick (talk) 22:40, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is typically acceptable to use subpages in userspace to write drafts and to welcome feedback on it before posting to the live encyclopaedia. When I do it, I typically add this template to the top. You can find the entire user page guidance here. NJA (t/c) 07:11, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for information about drafts

Dear NJA,

thank you for your detailed informations about user pages etc. to develop drafts. Now with the help of all the additional information you have given me for new participants, I will read again all this carefully (of course I have read it before, but as English is not my native tongue I guess I have overlooked several important details and thus failed to notice the sublte criteria for spam, for instance)

Now I will try to work out a more elaborated article which tries to meet the required criteria - hopefully!

Büffelblick (talk) 15:42, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

draft, attempt to rewrite the article about Lakota artist, please help with suggestions to improve it

Dear NJA, here I send you a new draft of the article, in order to be discussed first whether it is okay right now, or whether it still has to be improved (in that case: please help me by indicating the concerned sentences and by giving me an advice how to improve, I will follow your suggestions) For every claim in a sentence I have given reliable secondary sources for verification, in the footnotes; when there were several claims in the same sentence, I have tried to find appropriate sources for each one of them. Thus I have tried to the best of my ability to consider both criteria you have indicated: A7 = relevance/ notability, with references (sources) for each claim G11 = references for the expositions, literature etc., using only few adjectives or comments, (only tell the facts, as Hemingway once said ...)

Büffelblick (talk) 00:25, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS draft

PS:

I hope I have filed it at the right place where you told me to :-)

Büffelblick (talk) 00:32, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spam Edits

Dear NJA -

My apologies for the edits that were determined to be spam. It was my understanding that if the edits were topical and provided beneficial content, that they were not considered spam. Having read the editing guidelines, I believed I was acting in an appropriate manner. It was not my intention to be reckless with the quality of this refernece site, nor to waste the time of it's editors. I will make no further edits.

Respectfully, Chris G. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris ADHD (talk • contribs) 15:12, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello sir

I have no clue on how to block anyone, but the User:Ibaranoff24 who ironically tried to have me blocked is consistently rude and attacking me personally. Examples: Denying this makes you come across as foolish, you look like a child. You are clearly not happy with the fact that I edit any article and want to revert any change I make based on your petty quibble] and insulting other users like User:Blackmetalbaz, with quotes like*The both of you look like fools for trying to back up claims, Stop pretending that this is an actual genre He is always removing reliably sourced content and pushing POV. Examples: [2] [3] [4] . I put two sources in Kid rock's infobox supporting the nu metal label and his reason for removing them stop making changes based on a bias against other editors, what nonsense. I can not take consistently abusing me and he does not even apoligize for his actions. RG (talk) 21:40, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to hear of the issues. I recommend you consider taking the complaint to a relevant noticeboard, such as WP:WQA for community input on civility. NJA (t/c) 07:32, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IRC

Hey there. I had a question for you with regards to your SPI request. We often do a large portion of our work on IRC, in the open channel #wikipedia-en-spi ^connect on Freenode. I was wondering if you ever used IRC, and if not, whether you would be willing to. Best wishes, NW (Talk) 23:02, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm all registered and have a cloak, etc. Thanks. NJA (t/c) 07:26, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would be happy to take you on. I'll add you to the list of clerks. Perhaps I will see you in #wikipedia-en-spi ^connect? If I'm not there, feel free to ask any of the clerks for advice on how to proceed in a case where WP:SPI/PROC is unclear. NW (Talk) 10:32, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deleted per CSD A7, was an article about a real person that didn't assert the importance or significance of its subject.

Hi, Why are you delete my article.

Nimmy123 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nimmy123 (talk • contribs) 16:39, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you delete Ghost House Pictures?

I started it because when I needed information about it, there was no Wikipage.

I had sent several people emails to contribute to developing the information and now the page is gone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickjm007 (talk • contribs) 19:19, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend using a draft page (see Help:Userspace_draft) until the article is ready for the actual encyclopaedia. As it was, the article had failed to satisfy notability guidelines.

User:UnsecretSpy

If you are investigating sock puppetry, you might also want to look into the editing of SmoothWallsSam as well. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 13:14, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for your warning comment on my user page. It is indeed time to step away from a contentious set of articles, for at least a day or two, when simple adherence to my understanding of policy seems a dream, and where editing has become frustrating enough that I violated my own standard for editing by going to 3RR. (olive (talk) 15:53, 15 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Good idea. I'm glad I decided to close the report at WP:AN3 as a final warning versus other options available. Have a good weekend. NJA (t/c) 15:59, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I edited your comment

Hi NJA, I've edited your comment here. I know this is usually discouraged for a number of reasons, but I felt the user might not understand where to place the unblock request otherwise. Please revert me if this is in any way a bad edit. -kotra (talk) 17:30, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would never complain when someone makes things less ambiguous. Looks lovely. Thanks. NJA (t/c) 18:19, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sally brown eyes

Hi NJA, I saw you made this a redirect, so FYI I've nominated it for RfD here in keeping with my PROD. Glenfarclas (talk) 19:22, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

old block of a sock being challenged by a new user

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Simulation12/Archive Today's entry seems more than a bit suspicious, there is a note on the blocked account to contact you if anything might be changed. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:56, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I didn't dig too deep, but what's the latest entry? NJA (t/c) 08:49, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MariAna Mimi

Hi NJA, I'm afraid our old friend MariAna Mimi is back. The 2-week block that she was given on 29 December expired this week and no sooner had it gone, she was back at the Reality Killed the Video Star article making deletions again without discussion (same material as before). This person obviously learns nothing. I'm tired of making reports at the edit-war/3RR noticeboard so since you already have knowledge of the ongoing matter, would you mind stepping in again please? I think, consider her problematic history in relation to this article alone, perhaps she should be prohibited from editing it at all. Thank you. 80.47.22.16 (talk) 20:14, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for File:Coreanimation.png

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Coreanimation.png. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. macbookair3140 (talk) 21:47, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question on Tags

Hello NJA, first of all I want to thank you for your suggestion on the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inspiring_Education:_A_Dialogue_With_Albertans page.

I was the one that created this page, and would like to work with you in making it follow Wikipedia's guidelines.

I did not intend to represent a group of people, and to this end I have created a user account with my name only, which will be used exclusively in the future.

When writing the entry, I used information available in publicly published materials and other cited information. I had thought that it was written in a neutral tone, but would greatly appreciate any suggestions to improve the tone or quality of my entry. It was never my intent to "promote" anything, just create a compilation of information.

Once again, thanks for the time and help! —Preceding unsigned comment added by AdamRauh (talk • contribs) 16:13, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a minor edit to the intro and removed the intro rewrite tag. I have a feeling this may end up at a deletion discussion because it's essay-like. Unfortunately I haven't the time to guide you too much right now, but as a start you may wish to browse over Wikipedia:Notability_(events).

Also keep in mind that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, and it's not a newspaper or place to promote or adovocate (see here). Again welcome, and I wish you all the luck. If you get stuck and need help, consider posting requests at Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests. NJA (t/c) 17:22, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the prompt response! I read the links you provided, and while I believe I understand what you are saying, I do believe this topic would qualify as "An event that is a precedent or catalyst for something else of significance is likely to be notable." As an ongoing government initiative, wouldn't that qualify since it has the chance to change or impact legislation?

Also, if you do have the time, my other question comes from the mention on the article being "essay-like". I am not quite sure what this means, and do not recall a Wikipedia link mentioning it. Do you have a link to the guidelines area that would assist me in changing the structure to something more acceptable and less "essay-like"?

Again, thank you for your time and expertise! —Preceding unsigned comment added by AdamRauh (talk • contribs) 17:57, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Not saying this article is a good example, but consider the structure and tone of Equality Bill vs your article. Cheers, NJA (t/c) 17:59, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, NJA. I have been looking for the update you mentioned, "I've made a minor edit to the intro and removed the intro rewrite tag." unfortunately; I cannot seem to find it in the edit history or any other area. Could you guide me to where the changes are? I am still seeing the intro rewrite tag. And when you said, "I have a feeling this may end up at a deletion discussion because it's essay-like." Were you referring to the intro area specifically, or the entire article?

Once again, your efforts are greatly appreciated, thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by AdamRauh (talk • contribs) 15:15, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted article recreated

Hi there. Just wanted to let you know that the article which you deleted earlier today has been recreated. Amsaim (talk) 11:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war in Dimitrije Tucović page.

I want to say hello, and thank you for having blocked the Dimitrije Tucović page. I´m not quite sure if you had the desire to have the resons (at least from me) explained here on your talk page (I don´t want to bore you with this). But, I do need help and advice because this situation, the other user in question, have made me have more edit wars in the last week than all reverts ar any other "incidents" in my past year and a half. I must tell you that I edit WP mostly as a hobby and for all this period I have been a creator and editor of exclusivelly Football (soccer) related articles. I was never a player, but as I like the sport and the historical statistics, that has been pretty much my work around here. But, as a person born in Belgrade (Serbia), althou I only lived there 3 years of my life (I´m 30), as I like history and geography, geopolitics too, I can´t resist from time to time to have a look at WP articles related with those areas. With all the recent (and no so recent, Yugoslav war,WWII, etc.) events there, I´m very much used to see many of those articles edited in a non-Serbian POV. Until here, I supose I´m not telling you nothing new, and I never edited, even less engadged in any edit wars, in any of those articles. The problem appeared when I saw this user User:Mladifilozof making massive edits in big number of Serbia-related historical and current articles. His edits promply called my attention, since it was pretty clear that the editor was a heavy anti-Serbian nationalist. His edits were sow NPOV that was almost absurd. The editor in question likes to present himself as a "moderate Serb" and in one of the talk pages of an another editor that had an edit war with him, he said:

"Moramo plakati i pisati o zločinima koje je naša država počinili prema Drugima, ne bi li smo se na taj način iskupili.--Mladifilozof (talk) 12:59, 30 December 2009 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tadija" here

in translation: "We must cry and write about the atrocities that our nation (he means Serbia) commited against others, so that way we could be redemed."

Until here, there is also nothing strange (Some Serbs and its polititians did some horrendus stuff in recent past), but that looks more like an disguise, because his edits go way beyond that. His edits all go around the same, that is to show how Serbia occupied in the past (all history, middle ages and Renesance included) other peoples territories, and made mass murders, ethnic cleansing... and very much around the Kosovo Independence issue. He uses sources, but he changes the text, or the meaning, as the necessities of his purposes (some editors cought him doing this). He was warned by many users, and throu said, he doesn´t receve support from any other editor. But, if left, he would harm greatly a great number of those articles, that were mainly written in a good way (neutral). After being warned many times to at least try to edit in NPOV, nothing never changed.

I´m not certainly a Serbian nationalist (they destroyed a nation!) but, as much as I dislike the Serbian nationalists, I also dislike all other "blind" nationaliosts, racists or any other discriminatory moviments. There should be a limit imposed on how far the editors of such tendencies should be allowed to go. Fighting Serbian nationalism with even more nationalism, but reverted, just isn´t the best solution.

In the article in question, he wants to use a citation in wich Tucovic speaks about the suffering of the Albanian people, but that is just one of the sentencies in thousands of pages of his work, and there are much more important ones that should be used first. I´m not in deniyal of Albanian suffering, right the oposite, but there are already articles in with the issue is well described, and the citate used (despite being decontextualised, but anyway). It´s like if I writte an article about David Beckham, and among the most important information, I chouse to writte about his declarations in one trip he made to Albania where he said that he was robbed and how dirty and primitive the country was... That would just be ridiculous and decontextualised, right? Please, is there a way to fight extremist (politics) editors? FkpCascais (talk) 23:04, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the best advice I can offer is to get assistance from other interested editors so that together you all can work out what's best. The guidance document on dispute resolution offers a structure for dealing with issues you may encounter with other editors. Options for you may be to get a third opinion, or possibly listing the issue for attention at a relevant Wikiproject (perhaps these), or possibly seek assistance at the conflicts noticeboard. I'd definitely recommend a read over WP:DR and the other links I provided. I wish both of you the best of luck. Regards, NJA (t/c) 07:32, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many, many thanx. That were exactly the kind of alternatives I needed to have. I´ll definitelly have to spend more time learning the different WP policies here. Many thanx again, and I´m really sorry to bother you with this. FkpCascais (talk) 07:44, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hadith Deletion

Hi NJA. Just wanted to say Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hadith in praise of Umar also included the sister article Hadith of Umar and the Qur'an which you have not deleted. Polargeo (talk) 11:59, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done NJA (t/c) 12:04, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Lion0256

Re your warning for userpage vandalism, it's actually pretty funny—that account is a sockpuppet (the second of two so far) that User:Majestic27 created to award himself barnstars after I called him out for displaying a fraudulent one with a real user's signature, and then urged against vainly awarding them to himself in a conversation at my talkpage. Serves him right to get a warning. Glenfarclas (talk) 12:01, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh that's just sad. NJA (t/c) 12:04, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Caton

Can you provide any guidance on the close relationship tag on the Greg Caton page? Off2riorob has conducted a pretty good scrub. Jettparmer (talk) 16:35, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was in response to this. Though if it's been scrubbed then by all means take it down. NJA (t/c) 16:41, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you unofficially mediate?

Rapido has so far refused to engage in an healthy discussion, and has sparked an edit war, remaining quiet, stubborn and refusing to engage in my numerous requests for him to discuss before reverting. I'm not sure if he has a strategy to get me blocked or is just arrogant, I started an discussion on the discussion page in "BBC Persian Television" discussion page, and during reverts and edits provided my reasons. A number of times people have cleared the discussion page for unknown reasons, however, i've tried to revert it more or less to how it was when I came. Please be professional and try to look at it through neutrality, without political interests you may have and help for an outcome which will provide a more accurate account, which is what I will I strive for, accuracy. Hope you can help. My next step is official mediation, and other avenues, but I thought I'll see if you can help first.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=BBC_Persian_Television&action=history < Article history http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:BBC_Persian_Television#Satelite_Jamming_dispute < Discussion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC_Persian_Television < Article itself

Thanks ˄˅

--94.193.135.142 (talk) 12:47, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that despite the IP editor's above assertions that I sparked an edit war, they have been blocked for breaking the 3RR [5], altho' they have return and repeatedly reverting again, and there is currently an open Wikiquette alert about numerous breaches of WP:AOBF here [6], which probably should also include the above assumptions of bad faith. The article talk page was cleared for WP:SOAP, however the clearance was reverted by the IP editor. The editor doesn't seem to understand that reliable sources state that the jamming of BBC Persian Television was confirmed by the satellite operator (Eutelsat) to come from Iran, and appears to think it is the BBC's opinion instead. I have discussed my edits in edit summaries and the article talk page. However the IP editor has been attacking myself and another editor ([[7]] section "Cunando") I will report you, I have reported many of your kind successfully before and have no problem following the same routes again. WP:BATTLE. Rapido (talk) 13:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unable to mediate at this time. Perhaps a request should be filed at WP:MEDCAB? Though I think at this stage since it's between the two of you, consider trying a third opinion first. Also consider letting the people at the BBC Wikiproject know (here), as they may have comments on it. Thanks, NJA (t/c) 16:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To: NJA & Rapido: Cunando wiped out the discussion page, despite me raising a fresh new discussion, hence warning him I will report him, I can't understand Rapido's desire to use the word "attack"ing, Rapido, try to use dictionary.com and see the definition of attack. This is not The Sun or a tabloid paper, if your replies here have POV, I wonder what all your edits bare, which I will check through out your history and help others you have bullied by denying them their voice whom may have been weak individuals not willing to engage in your ongoing sparked edit wars, and there are a few I am talking to. My IP has been static for 1 year, and your accusations would crumble in the face of Wikipedia logs as you refer to me as "they" and accuse my IP address of past involvement of reverts? What evidence do you have for your POV? Do you have a prejudist against IP users? Are they inferior to you because you have an Username?

To: NJA, I think more competence could have been done to check out the situation in detail before issuing the 3RR as none of Rapido's sources verify his claim of Eutelsat verifying the source; keeping in mind the listing rules above the 3RR especially that the report also may ban the person reporting the 3RR at the judgement of editor. Did you check the sources before issuing a ban and can you please list where you saw it stated "Eutelsat" verified the jamming to originate from Iran? Im also not sure whether you realized Rapido began the reverts without reason, and carried on reverting, and even referring to the reverts as "minor edits" despite me asking him for reasons and a discussion. His total reverts is higher than mine is another issue you should have taken into account.

To Rapido: Rapido, the history of the page speaks for it self, you do not need to lie in the face of being exposed for starting an edit war and having an arrogant attitude despite my many invitations for you to provide a reason for reverts or engage in an discussion. Only now, have I seen any significant talk from you, and this is only when I decided to take tertiary action. And yes, many people clear discussion pages without valid reason and they should get reported, and I will report anyone who thinks they can come on Wikipedia to bring an POV then wipeout a new discussion without raising any issues or writing any replies, which is what Cunando did. You obviously have a POV as your editing and revert clearly favours the BBC. We shall take this to all corners of Wikipedia, mediation, official reports, third opinion, for I shall prove that editors like you should not stop editors like me bringin accuracy, validity and NPOV to the world to make Wikipedia better.

And also remember, Attacking, to warning someone or critiscizing their editing is two different things, this is an encyclopedia and not a newspaper headline, that is why the english language has so many lovely words which better describe certain situations, and by using the word "Attack" you are again showing POV. You are demonstrating yourself as a very opiniated person. For anyone who wants to see the real story, a quick look at the discussion page and the history page (which Rapido can't revert thank Gd) will show justice. --94.193.135.142 (talk) 02:20, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More personal attacks and WP:AOBF from the IP editor above. As usual, nothing is done about it. Rapido (talk) 14:25, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MMA Tycoon

what is PROD or AFD? thanx Sthowp (talk) 15:03, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't matter for your purposes really. They are just others methods for other editors to request deletion of the article. Happy editing, NJA (t/c) 16:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NYFA

Thank you for your comments on [8]. Any further advice? Badcamera (talk) 09:26, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

HOCR (software)

This article was deleted by you after this discussion WP:Articles for deletion/HOCR (software). It was re-written and was re-deleted by User:Malik Shabazz using WP:CSD#G4. Since I believe the re-write of the article solves the original problem of lack of sources I want to follow the advice of User:Miami33139 in this dissolution WP:Deletion_review#HOCR_.28software.29 and re-post the revised article with the new sources. Can you advise on the subject ? Kzamir (talk) 09:30, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Arthur Amiotte

We're currently having some discussions on wp:fr on fr:Arthur Amiotte and we were a bit surprised that the article was deleted here on wp:en. We could find a lot of references in various museums, and at least a PHD thesis. Mr Amiotte was received in the German-American Institute Heidelberg Sharing the Sacred Lakota Traditions, and he has an article in wp:de.

The article was too promotional (G11), but I would like to understand better the grounds of the speedy deletion. It would also be helpful for us to know about recognized lakota culture experts or artists. Thanks. --Anneyh (talk) 20:15, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

StevenMario

He's asking for one more chance, saying he'll stop adding OR. What should our response be? Daniel Case (talk) 04:12, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I really want to say sure why not, but just reading his statement makes me not want to. Essentially he doesn't want to be disrespected, and he's trying to be nice, but no one agrees with him. He'll stop doing whatever it is that's wrong (he doesn't even know). I'll make some comments there. NJA (t/c) 07:42, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cat delete

Hi there. Could you pls delete this category? I created that category but a typo crept itself into the title and so I created a new cat with the correct name. Thank you. Amsaim (talk) 13:30, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done NJA (t/c) 13:32, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Amsaim (talk) 13:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

Hi, do you think you could look at my report? It has been a ridiculous 15 hours. CTJF83 chat 17:30, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is I'm inclined to decline as it appears some headway at a consensus has taken place on the article's talk page ([9][10]. Blocks are to prevent further disruption, and if there's agreement then that's unlikely. Unless of course I'm missing something that's relevant? NJA (t/c) 17:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New York Film Academy

Perhaps you accidentally archived this still-open case? New York Film Academy Just bringing your attention to it once again! Thanks Badcamera (talk) 18:29, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, sorry. However, I don't think I have any further advice for you. Looks good. NJA (t/c) 18:35, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sarina Singh

Hi,
for some reason I just stumbled across Sarina Singh and its author, Sarina Singh (talk · contribs), who you've blocked. I must say, that's a block I don't at all understand. She wrote an autobiographical article, that much is clear. That's no reason for a block though, and I don't see that she behaved disruptively. WP:ORGNAME doesn't match either, she's not an organization or corporation. Could you explain your rationale?
Amalthea 01:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think what happened is I put a lot of focus on the sarinasingh.com bit, and blocked for use to promote a website that's clearly affiliated with the name. Mistakes do happen, though I see her unblock request was declined. NJA (t/c) 06:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so unblock her, please, if you agree it was a mistake. Concerning the denied unblock, she's been able to edit for one day here before she was blocked - of course she hasn't gotten around much, we haven't given her the opportunity. Username policy forbids role accounts, and forbids blatantly promotional account names. Neither is the case here. Amalthea 11:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think? Cheers, Amalthea 20:45, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea to bump, totally missed it. Yea sure I could do the unblock. NJA (t/c) 20:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. :) We'll see if she ever edits anything else, or even notices. Cheers, Amalthea 21:43, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Speedy deletion nomination of User:Goodsofdesire/G.O.D.

Regarding the removal of article User:Goodsofdesire/G.O.D. under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, I would like to request the userfication of the page or have a copy emailed to me at [email protected], thank you.

I spent many hours compiling the information for this article and figuring out the coding to make it look presentable on Wikipedia but now understand that the wording may have been too promotional and that I needed to create the article under the name of an individual and not as a representative of the company.

Please help me out in any way you can, any assistance would be much appreciated.

Thank you so much! Beatrice —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beatricelee (talk • contribs) 03:16, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done: NJA (t/c) 07:13, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies

I should apologize, really. I should have known better that WP:AN3 was the appropriate forum, but I didn't expect it to be "your average edit war" so much as it was a conflict between editors, and page protection was taking quite a long time. As it would turn out, AN3 does look like it would have been a better choice now, and I've made a mental note of that for the future. Thanks for taking care of the issue. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 09:32, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No worries mate, NJA (t/c) 09:34, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Messiah foundation etc

Why don't we wait and see what happens next? While the IP could show up under a different address, they did participate in the ANI discussion and may not edit war again. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 11:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After further review, I protected for a week. See my note on the talk page. Regards. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 11:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds reasonable. Cheers, NJA (t/c) 11:13, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Omirocksthisworld

I've also emailed the Admin who declined the unblock request also. Given his response to you, I think 31 hours is probably excessive, it doesn't look as though he would continue to be a problem if unblocked. What do you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 11:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've been in email contact with the user, and they seem to accept the block. Though if disruption isn't being prevented by the block then I'm not opposed to a reduction to 12h for a technical 3RR on multiple articles. NJA (t/c) 11:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Blocks should not be purely punitive and, when the editor accepts the reasons for the blocks, should be reduced or removed. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 11:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've reduced from 31 to 12 hours and alerted the user as such on their talk page. NJA (t/c) 11:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 12:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey...

Any final words for User_talk:StevenMario and his unblock? I'm tired of watching him abuse the trout :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:53, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heh..none. I've been 'watching' and ignoring the page. Obviously the terms of the unblock proposal haven't been met, and I'd personally decline the request at this time. Should you disable talk page access, be sure to link to this for good measure. Also, congrats mate! I missed the RfA, but I know you'll be an excellent and much needed addition :) NJA (t/c) 18:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring warning on Kundalini Yoga page... thanks.

NJA, thank you for your attention to this matter on Kundalini Yoga. I appreciate the warning. Actually, I have submitted the user Atmapuri to the Admin boards for edit warring. He already has a history of edit warring and breaking the 3RR rule. His edit reverts in this particular war go back to the exact same posting over a week ago on Jan 18th, including at least 1 dozen reverts to the same material. I have tried to reach consensus in talk pages. Unfruitful. Reported to admin and asked for dispute resolution, with little response (case deemed hopeless by one editor's view). Finally I have reported him for edit warring. I have tried my best to edit and shape the page, but he simply doesn't get the spirit of Wikipedia nor the rules of and suggestions for compromise and reaching consensus. Thank you.--Fatehji (talk) 20:53, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on your talk. NJA (t/c) 20:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Although the block is unfortunate, and I did get carried away, it was easy because of whom I was dealing with. It will be good to not have to constantly work to fix this page while another person simply reverts to the same exact paragraph a dozen or more times in a week without any understanding or compromise. Sorry, I know this is not neutral -- and I'm venting -- but the guy is ignorant, and his past history of conflicts and edits shows it. I'm just trying to do my best and learn while I'm at it. Thanks again for the warning.--Fatehji (talk) 21:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Community de-adminship (WP:GCDA)

Hi - I reverted to your changes as they stood after my edit of last night. I know you just made a partial restore (I only glanced at it), but in-between you doing that I said I'd do this on the talk page. I thought your copy edits strengthened the text, and if we proceed from our combined edits, we can easier focus on any outstanding issues. I think it's a good thing that people will have to re-read to catch up. The page formatting is important to me, and I know that many people simply have not been reading through it properly in its previous form. Matt Lewis (talk) 10:09, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure we can work together to compromise. It still needs to go through RFC, so the wording isn't set in stone. I've taken my main concerns about it to the talk page there. NJA (t/c) 10:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit distracted at the moment (hence all the typos). I'm happy to compromise, but it's hard to lose so much good work at this stage. I did make a major change, but it was very easy to highlight, and it needed to be easier to spot than it would have been without the serious tidy. There are people pushing for the RFC asap, so we have to move steadily, while keeping our eyes on the details of course. Matt Lewis (talk) 11:00, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, we can only do what we can. I saw on the talk your concern over 'editors of good standing'. If it's there once we go to RfC, I plan to ask for removal of it. The bar is already high enough, ie 10 editors with three months and 500 edits, thus we needn't add ambiguity and confusion about who constitutes an editor in good standing. Same issue with 'active admin' (though less of a concern than editors in good standing) -- it's just a word that adds confusion. If it were a law, inclusion of the word 'active' would easily lead to court cases to decide what 'active' means. Just remove it, as no one will endorse a report against an admin who hasn't recently committed some time of serious offence. NJA (t/c) 12:03, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll support you on the 'good standing' matter, but I could see a strong enough consensus developing against it on the draft page, and I doubt it will come back now (hopefully not anyway).

You've made a good point about "currently active administrator". Like you, I'm inclined to think we should drop everything related to activity (ie the first line mention, and the later paragraph 'Removing the flag from inactive account' residing in "what this what this process is not"). Either that, or we specify a time scale for inactivity. But what whould that be? I think I read somewhere that about 800 admin are 'inactive', and what about 'discovered' CDA-worthy behaviour from admin who could theoretically come back at any time? Although I agree this is unlikely (and arguably would not meet the various terms of CDA), it is best just to say administrators can be put up for CDA (ie remove the active/inactive detail). I'll make an edit, and give the reasons in talk. Now the page has settled again, it's easy for things like this to be put back. Matt Lewis (talk) 14:35, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't really mean we should use the process to de-admin 'non-active' admins, rather that adding the word just adds a little bit of mystery that allows people a way to challenge things. Essentially a truly non-active admin is unlikely to do something that would lead to a de-sysop through the process, thus just leave the wording out. NJA (t/c) 14:41, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I've done. I just suggested really that if we do specify anything at all, it may as well be to include inactive admin (for the remote posibility that I detailed above). But clearly it should be left open. Matt Lewis (talk) 15:15, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/KittyBot

Yuh, as a non-admin I couldn't approve the bot myself. Anyway, I've approved the bot now, it should be flagged fairly soon. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 10:55, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking edits to Kundalini Yoga

I agree with the block, if the page is restored to its original non-violated state before it succumb to Vandalism. The three edit rules does not apply only to one editor, but to all editors which have violated the three edit rule. If you violate the admin rules and try to override the settling of dispute, your admin rights will be challenged. Atmapuri (talk) 13:54, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Goethan

Please take a look at the debate on the Talk on Wendy Doniger. Goethan keeps on removing the criticism section. I agree that the current criticism section is not NPOV so I have revised it with counteropposing views. I tried to make it NPOV but it keeps on getting reverted. Please take a look. Raj2004 (talk) 15:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Answered, I hope

Hopefully, I've answered all your questions about CDA at my talk now. My colleagues are getting restless, so if I've failed to address anything adequately, please let me know soon, lest we forge on prematurely. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:27, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eh?

Hey... in my last message on Toddst1's talk page I wrote that I "will restrict my further comments to the Etiquette page." I think I signalled my intention not to make further comments on his talk page fairly clearly with that last edit... but I could be wrong. As you added your comment suggesting that that I leave his talk page or else it will be considered harassment, do you feel that the comment was unclear? If so, can you give me some advise on how to clarify my intentions. Another message seems a bit... counter-productive. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 00:43, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Must have missed it. It wasn't a threat either, simply that in the past it's been sometimes considered harassment. I was trying to prevent any issues for you. NJA (t/c) 07:42, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry... I didn't mean to imply I thought it a threat, I definitely don't think that. In fact, I just wanted to see if I had made myself clear, and that's why I've come here to solicit your opinion as an uninvolved third party. I guess I was a bit concerned that there was some misunderstanding! But thanks for the clarifying remarks, this helps me understand the situation better now, and I appreciate your attempts to calm the situation down :-) I can be pretty tenacious, a character strength but also a character flaw that I must always watch in myself. And I agree with your thoughts, which is why I've already ceased the conversation on his talk page. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 10:46, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MacBook Pro

Hello, NJA. I'm just letting you know that I have nominated MacBook Pro, an article you contributed substantially to, for Good Article status. The review can be found at Talk:MacBook Pro/GA1. Cheers, Airplaneman ^talk 23:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, thanks! NJA (t/c) 11:53, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NYFA COI

Sorry to keep bugging you with this, but I've been following the COI on Noticeboard... and I cannot seem to find it anymore. As I'm relatively new at this, can you track what happened to it? I'm guessing it wasn't solved as the NYFA page hasn't changed. Thank you kindly, sir! Badcamera (talk) 06:14, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on your talk. NJA (t/c) 11:53, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]