i am new to this, and I am really trying to learn. I wanted to re-edit the tempelate for the Palestine project to make it more efficient. Do you have any recommendations? could you guide me in the right direction, of resources at least? hope to hear from you soon. --Zakouma (talk) 08:52, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please re-up FACT band. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.152.218.144 (talk) 15:08, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't understand why you modified The Philippe Juvin Page. All contributions are true and can be found in the french press. Are you a Pj's spindoctor Regards Emilien renouf —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emilien renouf (talk • contribs) 21:30, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• 
  I hereby award you the PSI ! Awarded to helpful users as a blessing for good mental health. Thank you for your perspicacity and help in taking the time to get involved at AN today. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 20:22, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

as soon as he comes back he will just add his website again--Thearmed1 (talk) 10:58, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We'll deal with that when it happens. Please do your best to let this go for now. Thanks. Nja²⁴⁷ 11:51, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TOLD YOU.--Thearmed1 (talk) 17:32, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

hes blocked now, i wonder how long until he edits from another computer!--Thearmed1 (talk) 18:22, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey nja. I had trouble parsing your comment so I'm not quite sure whether you meant to say whether semi was unneeded or needed (else the uploader flag is useless). It seems more useful to me, to have edit-semi as an added feature, and to ensure this doesn't get confused with simply adding ability for admins to grant the flag as-is, I made a separate subsection. You may wish to ce and/or move your comments to clarify. best, –xeno^talk 15:01, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay, I've been busy. I think my view is the same as chillum's, ie anything that would give the option to allow someone to edit before autoconfirmation would be a bonus, whether via the uploader flag or a new and sub-flag of edit-semi. Nja²⁴⁷ 10:14, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, i think you have been a little OTT in fully protecting that page. My arguments are here. Please notice that i am the main author of the article, as you can see from the article's history, which means that it can be safely assumed that i know what i am talking about. Thank you, --RCS (talk) 16:01, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• FYI, this was brought up at ANI (permlink), I've lowered the protection for now, per my comments there about the IPs not coming to the table to discuss in good faith. No prejudice to reprotection. –xeno^talk 18:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[1]. Please note that not only this IP does not respond on the article's talk page, it does not even respond on its own talk page! The case for semi-protection (i said: semi-protection, not full protection) is made once again. Cheers, RCS (talk) 12:21, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As noted by myself and another admin at the discussion you opened at ANI, the original request was viewed at the time as a content dispute and semi protection would have been disproportionate as it would have locked the IP out. I understand it's now clear they're likely a troubled editor, so I recommend warning them with escalating templates when reverting. This will allow admins to consider blocking the IP outright. As for another protection request, I am currently busy at the moment offline, but you may request protection and/or unprotection for admin consideration at WP:RFPP. Cheers, Nja²⁴⁷ 12:32, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I left a notice on User:Xeno's page as well, so never mind blocking on the spot. I keep watching the page anyway. Cheers, --RCS (talk) 12:35, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They have started to soapbox like crazy now, if you check their edits on the talk page they are absolutely not commenting on the stated facts but ranting. As for the edits in the article itself, it is 3RR now. See Dieudonné M'bala M'bala (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Talk:Dieudonné M'bala M'bala (edit | [[Talk:Talk:Dieudonné M'bala M'bala|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Thank you! (note also left on User:Xeno's talk page)--RCS (talk) 07:31, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see the IP user has engaged on the article's talk page. As you just gave a last warning to them on their talk page we should wait until they have a chance to comment. Further this is starting to appear like a content dispute again, and if so you're both encouraged to seek dispute resolution if need be. Nja²⁴⁷ 08:34, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. But, as i say on the talk page, agreement cannot be reached as long as Mr. IP writes “anti-racist” assciations in scare quotes and other rethorical tricks like these. I am not the only user to be quite clear on this. --RCS (talk) 09:01, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Nja247,

As stated on the MacBook Pro's talk page, I am currently fiddling with a new format for the contreversial formatting of the Unibody section. I'm currently trying to perfect a timeline-like format in my sandbox. Tell me what you think on my talk! This will hopefully bring about a compromise to satisfy you, Butterflyofdoom, and me. When time allows, please take a look and give suggestions! Thanks, Airplaneman (talk) 21:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Will do soon mate. Busy this week, but hopefully I can chime in by this weekend. Cheers, Nja²⁴⁷ 22:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I now think that the new revision is ready for integration with the MBP article (replacing the old content). When you have time, please look at it and tell me what you think of it on my talk. Thanks, Airplaneman (talk) 21:11, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the final product of our labors :). Unless you have any concerns, I'm putting it on on the 24th. Thanks! Airplaneman (talk) 03:34, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You will remember this AfD which you closed a few days ago. The same James Crittenden-Cavendish made a first appearance in January with an article claiming a ludicrous list of names and titles, which was demolished at AfD here.

In May an IP, registered to the University of St Andrews where J C-C is a student, replaced the closed AfD debate with this, complaining that it was slanderous. I consulted the closing admin, who courtesy-blanked it.

Having demolished James's latest claim to aristocratic titles, I am not surprised to see that an IP (from San Francisco, which his Facebook entry gives as an address) has now heavily edited the closed Habsburg-Reuter AfD debate, complaining this time of libel rather than slander.

I'm glad to see that you are a lawyer, so you can decide whether my remarks in the AfD nomination are in fact libellous: my own view is that everything said is true and documented, and if he doesn't want to be made fun of he shouldn't make hoax claims. I don't think we should leave the debate in this emasculated state; either restore (and perhaps semi-protect) it or, if we feel kind, courtesy-blank it like the other one and hope he has learned his lesson.

Regards, JohnCD (talk) 22:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well I don't particuarly wish to involve myself in this as it was handeled by another admin in good faith. However in terms of libel law, it differs on jurisdiction. Overall it's much easier to establish in England than in the US, as here you only need to show that the statement caused someone to think worse of him or her. I believe the test is more strict in the US, partly due to the right of free speech. Also in the US each states' defamation law may have variations. Regardless of the differences, there are common defences to libel, particularly if the statement is based on fact that's already within the public realm. If it's not, then sometimes there is a test to meet on whether its disclosure was in the public interest. The only thing that usually automatically makes statements defamatory is if there's some malice or purposeful misrepresentation behind them. So as long as you're not doing the latter, and you reasonably believe what you're saying to be true, then it's hard to bring a claim, even in England where it's generally easier to do than in the US. In terms of Wikipedia however, you must keep in mind that it's part of a private not for profit organisation, so its rules may not accord with certain rights, such as the American right to freedom of speech. I'd recommend that you take up your concern up with the admin who did the blanking. Cheers, Nja²⁴⁷ 09:48, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; my remarks about your being a lawyer were really in jest, and I was not asking your involvement in the earlier AfD. My question is about this one, which you just closed, and which an IP, almost certainly the subject himself, refactored with this edit. I have reverted him, as I don't think closed AfD debates should be revised to suit those concerned; what I am asking you, as closing admin, is whether this debate, like the earlier one, should be courtesy blanked to protect him from the consequences of his own folly. I don't have a strong view either way - I guess he has probably learned his lesson. If you decide not to courtesy-blank, the debate may need semi-protection. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 10:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is definitely clearer! It's been a busy week and I must have misread. I have no plan to courtesy blank, but I'll watch the page and if there are further edits then protection might be in order. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Overall, I hope you enjoyed the likely boring and pointless mini comparasion of English and US defamation law :) Nja²⁴⁷ 10:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I never refuse free legal advice - may always come in useful some day! I am now away for a couple of weeks, but I'll be interested to see if there are any more developments. He is learning the hard way that what you put into cyberspace is not easily got rid of: already searches for his name turn up things like this. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 10:28, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you work for Microsoft? (Or why else would you delete a perfectly true statement made by 130.149.107.166?) 88.73.84.195 (talk) 22:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'll just have to keep looking for a source that meets your standards. This missing configurability option in Word 2008 is an extremely important point for anyone who does professional editing. Apparently you don't, otherwise you wouldn't be so rabid about this.

Anyway, why does something that can tested using even the trial version of the software need a source? (You still haven't answered that question; providing an answer might actually be more helpful than simply deleting my text.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.73.84.195 (talk) 07:11, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These aren't my standards, but the standards of Wikipedia that apply to everyone that edits it. Just because it's a trial version doesn't mean the policy of having verifiable sources doesn't apply as this is an encyclopaedia and not a web blog. Nja²⁴⁷ 08:29, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i along with other users of the 'Moate' Wiki page do not want Ms. Holloway(not a resident of Moate) advertsing herself or stating that she is a notable person of Moate. can i therefore say that i am a notable person and embelish on my own achievements. How do you define my objections as defammation. has the same been applied to Ms Holloways account. PLEASE EXPLAIN —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cursai (talk • contribs) 19:47, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain how these were valid edits. Also why you hadn't provided verifiable third party citations. Nja²⁴⁷ 20:12, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

hi Nja,

i have edited the shakira page from what Dave Burke had done to have citation needed for his uncited source

please did i do it right or wrong

i note you have moderated on the page so that's why i'm asking you.

kind regards, Phil User:Phil_Nolte 12th July 2009, 12:39 (UTC)

I'd say well done, as the citation "a rumor mill" was unlikely to satisfy Wikipedia's inclusion guidelines. Cheers. Nja²⁴⁷ 13:56, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Could you please undelete this one so that I can merge the cited context per the close? I will then immediately redirect the article accordingly, thereby per the GFDL (see Wikipedia:Merge and delete) maintaining the edit history, but by having a redirect still essentially satisfying the call to "delete," in that no one seemed to really oppose such a thing. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:22, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I emailed the text as the consensus was delete, with a merger in the sense of briefly naming Sisto in the main article with any verifiable sources that may have existed for it. It wasn't really a consensus to merge and redirect. Saying that, a redirect is not an issue for me, or likely anyone whom commented at the AFD. If this is unsatisfactory for some reason do let me know why it's so. Thanks, Nja²⁴⁷ 09:35, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An IP (Annoynmous who was under a long topic ban) made precisely the edits which led to that topic ban once again -- I asked that he self-revert pending consensus, but an extra pair of eyes on that article would not be amiss. Thanks! Collect (talk) 03:03, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I adhered to the topic ban I agreed to with Ryan Delaney which was for 2 months. Further more Collect knows this from his talk on Jclemons page where he got this response:

In Talk:Business Plot is asserting that his topic ban is for only two months, and that he has no other restrictions as he made a "deal." I did not see it, and as he removed your topic ban from his user talk page I was slightly astonished. [12] Collect (talk) 22:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

If he's behaving himself and working for consensus on the talk page for two months, I would have lifted it anyways. If he's not, he'll probably have gotten in more trouble between now and then, so there's no real point in making a big deal about it. Blocks are not punitive, they're supposed to be increasingly (yet proportionately) severe corrective action in order to encourage collaborative and harmonious editing. Even if he disagrees with you and everyone else, if he's being nice about it, there's no reason for him to continue to be topic banned. Jclemens (talk) 22:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I am doing what you are supposed to do, trying to reach a consensus edit on the talk page. I have made a compromise edit and hope there be a healthy discussion to reach a consensus. annoynmous 03:58. 13 July 2009 (UTC)

• As I am unaware of the details it may be best to try to discuss with someone with some knowledge of the background first, ie Ryan. Nja²⁴⁷ 09:35, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above.

For the Committee MBisanz ^talk 00:10, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. Given the behavioural evidence I've indefinitely blocked this account. He (She ?) seems to have endless patience hammering home the same message in multiple places, with a huge number of accounts. I've lost track of the number I've seen in the past few months. - Peripitus (Talk) 12:20, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wholeheartedly agree with your action. I was planning on doing the same after hearing back from you. Cheers, Nja²⁴⁷ 12:26, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nja247 - I'm hoping you can provide a little direction or advice as to how I should proceed with an issue I've been having with an IP inserting unsourced info into an article and refusing to discuss it. It's tiresome to revert it every time and honestly I'm starting to think I should just leave it in and be done with it. The article in question is Cotter High School (Winona, Minnesota) where the IP User:64.238.244.2 keeps inserting a non notable alumnus without any sourcing (example here). I've responded on the article talk page and the user talk page and received no reply. A seperate IP also inserted the information, to which I replied as to why it wasn't appropriate here. I'm not sure I can request a third opinion on the 3O board if I'm the only one communicating, and ANI seems pretty drastic for this type of issue. Any conflict I've previously had with IP's has been outright vandalism, so I'm unsure how to proceed when it's a content issue when the other editor refuses to engage in conversation? Any advice would be appreciated. Cheers, ponyo (talk) 14:16, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've given them a final warning and will watch the article's page and their talk page to see if we've got their attention. If they continue I will block and continue to do so until they wish to discuss the edits. You were exactly right in that no matter where you reported it, if they didn't respond you wouldn't get very far. Whilst this wasn't a major issue such as a legal threat, etc, it is something that should rightfully have been brought to administrator attention. In the future you could do as I have and give the user a final warning (after you've exhausted all attempts), and then if they continue past that you should report it them at WP:AIV. Best of luck, Nja²⁴⁷ 15:11, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you kindly for the follow-up and advice. I wan't sure if this met the criteria for vandalism, so I thought it best to find out where to draw the line and where best to follow-up. Cheers, ponyo (talk) 15:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why is two merge, two delete (one of which indicates a preference for selective merge, and the other of which cites the first), and one keep !vote a "delete" outcome? Jclemens (talk) 14:27, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There were three deletes (with the nom), and your !vote initially was essentially delete (4). Then one keep, two merges (with your revised comments), so to me it was delete and any content to be merged could still be done, but what do you reckon the outcome to be -- no consensus? Nja²⁴⁷ 14:37, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd call it a merge--the one "keep" is pretty alone. If I weren't an admin, how would I get the content back (including the sourcing I added) to selectively merge the content into the other articles? BTW, I think this is an endemic problem with AfD outcomes, not something I'm singling you out over. I wish we had better tools to deal with it--e.g., move the article to an "article purgatory" which is outside of mainspace and not searched by default, but from which good content can be extracted. Jclemens (talk) 17:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That'd be nice. Well I do seem to get occasional requests to have deleted content emailed or otherwise made available, so I think I've gotten accustomed to that happening. Here I did think overall it was a delete, but merger did also have some steam. I could amend the outcome if you think it'd be warranted and will take on some points you raised. Cheers. Nja²⁴⁷ 18:32, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it changes anything--again, I can undelete it, userify it, and do the merge myself. In general, though, a close vote between delete and marge should probably end up merge, based on my readings of WP:DELPROC and WP:ATD. Just something to keep in the back of your mind for future closes. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 18:47, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thanks for warning me instead of banning me. I have a couple of questions:

How many more offences would it take for me to get banned? Does copyright violation often result in an instant ban?

Thanks for reading.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 17:56, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well to be "banned" you'd have to really piss off a lot of people to the point no one would consider your presence here as useful. I think you're referring to a block, which is more short term and not usually permanent like a ban. If you were to continue after my warning you are very likely to be blocked for a short period, and if you were then to continue it would escalate and then could up being indefinite. Obviously that should be avoided and really all you need to do is be careful of the relevant policies you've been alerted of on your talk pages so as not to continue to disrupt Wikipedia. Nja²⁴⁷ 18:36, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - well done for dealing with copy vio, but I wondered why you remove backlinks to pages which you spot & deleted under CSD G12. Copy vio (unlike e.g. non-notability) doesn't seem strong evidence that there shouldn't be a page created on Wikipedia - only that the page must, if it exists, have a different form. Best, Dsp13 (talk) 23:28, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious to know why the Haley Alexis Pullos page was deleted. Your response will help me to decide whether or not to attempt to post a new one.

Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.52.220.239 (talk) 03:42, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is why it was deleted. I would only repost it if all concerns raised in the deletion discussion are properly addressed. Nja²⁴⁷ 09:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I still don't understand. If Haley isn't "notable", what makes these entries "notable"?: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dylan_and_Jordan_Cline, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Refvem, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drew_Garrett

Thanks for taking the time to explain this to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.52.220.239 (talk) 19:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All I did was close the discussion on the deletion of the article. I am not able to explain why people had given the opinions that they did at the discussion. I will say though that those articles you linked to are very good candidates for a deletion debate as was done for Haley Alexis Pullos. Nja²⁴⁷ 19:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

About this: I know it went quite slowly, and didn't attract much notice. But two delete votes and a merge shouldn't result in a keep, which no one actually wanted. Are you sure you stand by your ruling? I may take this to DRV, if I have the energy. - Biruitorul ^Talk 05:56, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was actually "no consensus", not "keep" (same end result, but very different procedurally speaking). –Juliancolton | ^Talk 05:58, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes my close is clear and I stand by it "The result was no consensus. two deletes and a merge over two extensions is not a solid consensus". Nja²⁴⁷ 09:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)r[reply]

OK, let's move to review in that case and see what consensus emerges. - Biruitorul ^Talk 17:44, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Why was the page called Ranklets deleted? It says because of G12?

George —Preceding unsigned comment added by Geazzo (talk • contribs) 11:27, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the hangon on the talk page before deleting the article? What copied text did I leave in the article and can you show me where that alleged copied text in the last version of the article comes from?--Francis Flinch (talk) 11:34, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You need to finish the close of Abu Bakar bin Taha. Fences&Windows 02:35, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You left a ridiculously threatening message to me. I'm not an expert on Wikipedia and the two images Polly objected to are both owned by me or my wife and are perfectly valid. I just don't know all teh complicated Wiki codes to indicate that fact. It was not at all obvoius to me and still isn't how to indicate the ownership of these images, but for you to write this message saying I'm a disruptive whatever seems rude. Not everyone on Wikiepedia is going to be an expert and you ought to take a gentler tack, in my view. Tapirfoot (talk) 05:06, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Surely you're going a bit over the top on this. This is just an online encyclopaedia and being told that you'll be blocked from editing for continued copyright issues isn't something one would consider ridiculously threatening. Regardless I am sorry you took it that way, but I was sincere in that further issues would lead to a block. You should look at WP:IUP and WP:COPY. Nja²⁴⁷ 13:16, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why was the Mr. SOS article deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.189.156.121 (talk) 11:05, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest I'm unsure of which article you're speaking of, but I'd start looking at its deletion log. Nja²⁴⁷ 13:21, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A listing for FlexTraining was recently posted providing users with information about the Learning Management System and the benefits of e-learning, including the attributes and features of FlexTraining. We were surprised and disappointed that the listing was deleted, and especially so since many of our e-learning competitors have Wikipedia listings that are similar in style and content (i.e., Learn.com, E-leap Software, Articulate, Moodle to name a few).

Will you please provide additional information as to why the FlexTraining listing was deleted while similar listings remain intact?

Thank you, and regards,

ChristineNTS (talk) 15:44, 21 July 2009 (UTC) Christine Sheeran FlexTraining[reply]

I'm curious why you started a conversation with this user about his/her choice of usernames. It seemed to me to be a clear violation of policy as it is promotional in nature and was established solely to create a spam article on a non-notable organization, an article which has been speedily deleted.--RadioFan (talk) 15:11, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Amzone is not the same as Amdzone, and thus it's not a completely clear cut violation and we all should remember to WP:AGF. A new user is likely unaware of these policies and I wish to have a dialogue with them to establish if in fact that's the case and if so I'll direct them to change their name. I'm not saying you're one of them, but generally I don't understand the race to get accounts blocked mentality that is so prevalent, particularly at UAA. Nja²⁴⁷ 16:13, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the misclick, I reverted myself ASAP. Best, Dylan620 (contribs, logs) 19:42, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Nja247

good afternoon

I'm writing you, because I'm trying to post Isisuf's article. The Istituto Internazionale di Studi sul Futurismo it's an Historical Institution which must not be forgotten.

I know that I'm writing following the describing words used also at isisuf.org website. But this one is the only source available in English about this argument.

In Italy, Isisuf is a no profit organization based on last futurist artists, a Cultural Institution that cannot find (because of money)its right page into the book of other bureucratical institutions and collections.

Please let me post this article as a signal as a concrete presence of poets and artists that through Isisuf made a real piece of Histoty which cannot be buried into nothing

thanks again

yours faithfully

Cibiemmevu —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cibiemmevu (talk • contribs) 14:01, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Nja247,

I probably should have contacted you personally on your talk page much earlier then now. It may stopped this cascading series of events. It hasn't been pretty. You are a good administrator but we seem to have rubbed each other the wrong way. I wish that I could say it would be great if we get over our differences....actually we probably could.

The problem is that I can no longer objectively interact with you. This may well be my subjective bias here, where I perceive that there have been a number of instances where you have not been neutral. Regardless, when I see your posts on the page now I have an emotional response. In effect, this escalates my reactions to these situations and that is not a good thing now. I kindly request that we avoid each other on wikipedia.--scuro (talk) 01:59, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can (and have) avoided your talk page (per your request), but otherwise I will continue to do what I do here. What you're asking is akin to me asking you to stay away from that area so that we don't "see" each other. If there's an issue with me, then you need to sort it as it's not good to hold grudges. I did what I had to do to ensure that the disruption to Wikipedia had stopped, and unfortunately it ended up at Arb, but I didn't take it there. We shouldn't discuss this further however as it's past now and we must move forward.

Anyhow I too have an interest in the ADHD area now due to my involvement in trying to end the long running dispute. Sorry if this isn't what you want to hear, but I am interested in how things progress and want to ensure that behaviours are monitored in-line with guidelines and policy. I will do this in a non-admin capacity, ie if admin tools need used, then I will delegate that task to another admin, thus you have nothing to worry over. If you're doing nothing wrong then we will not bump heads mate. As you will note in your arb com request for enforcement against Jmh649, I only commented as an editor and not as an admin, and I simply supplied missing information, ie the link to the sanctions and relevant facts that were left out, and notably I felt both of you were pushing the boundaries of the sanctions as you both should be seeking consensus before making any potentially controversial edits. Nja²⁴⁷ 07:41, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Consider that the disruption hasn't stopped since your arrival on the scene, it has increased exponentially. Much of that escalation wasn't because of any administrative action on your part. Your participation though, may give others the impression that they are justified to: escalate, not seek mediation, not seek true consensus, or negotiation. It really doesn't matter what your roll is, you are still an administrator, and others are embolden by your presence. I can think of no better example of this then Doc James's block today[2]. Your immediate post after my submission, help turn a cut and dry block request into a drama filled vilification of myself. Your post was not relevant and clouded a very clear case of wrongdoing. After your post, others were uncivil and made very questionable accusations. A principle of Wikipedia is don't do anything that will hurt the project, and I'd like you to reconsider if your involvement with me is good for wikipedia. I've been seeking solutions for a long time, and as always, am open to suggestions.--scuro (talk) 12:57, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is simply silly saying that I am the cause of escalation. Please stop with this at once and consider looking in the mirror as the cause of your issues. Also please do not come here and lecture me about Wikipedia, as I am not the one with Arb sanctions against myself. As you're open to suggestions, my suggestion for you is to realise who's actually responsible for how you're perceived on here and stop finding someone to pass the blame on to. I ask now that you do not edit on this page unless you require my assistance with something. That should help with the avoidance of contact with me that you so much desire. Cheers, Nja²⁴⁷ 13:05, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then it would be appreciated if you could help iron out this mess in someway. I've tried, and none of the other parties have ever showed the slightest interest in seeking any form of true consensus, mediation, or negotiation. As you know I've been totally open to any avenue of consensus building all along. All of them do seem to respect you, and your endorsement to such an approach might actually...finally, get some forward progress here.--scuro (talk) 05:05, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly think you're putting too much stock into how much sway I have in this situation. I think once you have your mentor things will improve, not because you're necessarily troublesome, but because people will feel as though someone is involved to make things better. Until then I'd recommend to you (as I have to Jmh) to discuss things you ought to know (or even think will possibly) be contentious before editing. I am hopeful he will listen and that will prevent another edit war, but if not he will again be blocked. I do believe him when he said he misunderstood the restriction against him, so hopefully that will not happen again.

One suggestion is that it may be a good idea to link to a sandboxed version of things you plan to do that are likely to be controversial. That way people can comment and edit your sandbox without actually touching the article, and then once things are agreed copy it to the actual article. Just a thought, and if you need help creating a sandbox (aka subpage), just let me know. Nja²⁴⁷ 09:16, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This mentor is supposed to help with sourcing and citations. Not that I am opposed to more help, because editing is truly a frustrating experience again. The one administrator that I admired is not responding. A few other people that I looked up to have left, or don't edit much anymore. With regards to discussion, I've been advocating for discussion prior to edits, for a coons age, and it's not like I haven't initiated discussion since arbitration. Doc James did agree to "discussion first", back in the fall, but broke that commitment shortly after. No one else has even nibbled on my proposal. Best is if there is true consensus with everyone, whatever they want. They should be willing to also do.

You know I could be wrong about your degree of influence. But, seeing that your "in for a penny...", perhaps the best place to start is with us. What can we agree too? The inertia has to be broken.--scuro (talk) 13:08, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I used Twinkle like you said because my request was declined. The Twinkle said I'm too new for Twinkle. Can you help me fix that problem? Please reply at my Talk Page. WimpyKid (talk*sandbox) 02:15, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

You recently protected the article Genetic history of Europe. The main edit warrior, User:SOPHIAN has been blocked for a week for violations in other articles. Would you consider unprotecting the article. Wapondaponda (talk) 16:30, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Cheers, Nja²⁴⁷ 17:04, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wapondaponda was the other participant in that edit war. I don't know why SOPHIAN was blocked while he wasn't, but he's been in trouble before and is likely going to be in trouble again (and I actually think he was the "main edit warrior"). He only asked you to unprotect the article so that he could once again reinsert his contentious edits, knowing that SOPHIAN wouldn't be around to revert them. I would recommend for the time being protecting the article on my initial, more neutral version until this dispute can be resolved. ---- Small Victory (talk) 08:11, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Small Victory is an Euronationalist. He has posted many times on Dienekes website and some of his posts are clearly racist. I am currently compiling them and post them so that you can check yourself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.36.27.136 (talk) 08:17, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You all must use the talk page to come to consensus or face sanctions to prevent disruption. Stop bickering and try to work together. Nja²⁴⁷ 08:48, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have created this entry on the NPOV Noticeboard and removed some of the disputed text to the talk page. The combatants in this full blow WikiWar are involved in disputes on many pages over the past few weeks. Partial blocking and page restrictions are not likely to work. For the sake of improving the Main this warring needs to stop completely so that improvements (particularly layout and tone) can occur, no-one in their right mind would touch the page in the midst of this edit battle. I have told all three of them to change their approach and start trying to build a concensus, neither seems at all interested.PB666 ^yap 19:42, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, ever since they added the "Promotional account" button to the vandalism reporting part of Twinkle, I've been confused on which to click. Thanks though!Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 17:32, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please reconsider this closure as a no-consensus? The nominator, Rankiri, and I all believed that this topic did not meet WP:GNG. Rankiri's argument was pretty clear: that no secondary source gives this term significant coverage, and actually discussed the references in the article that might have given the impression of significant coverage by secondary sources and explained how they didn't (many not even mentioning the term). Also, not brought up during the AfD, but confabulation as discussed in the Hecht-Nielsen reference is something completely different than this article is about, and although is included in a final paragraph of our article, doesn't support the notability of "Confabulation (neural networks)". Sancho 15:43, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looking over it again, I find strong arguments on both ends and after such a long debate I truly don't see a clear consensus emerging. You could do another AFD based on this new information, but I do wonder if it will really impact the outcome. Nja²⁴⁷ 17:01, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Nja247, good afternoon. I'm trying to post Isisuf's article because it's an Historical Institution which must not be forgotten. I know that I'm writing following the describing world used also at isisuf.org website but this one is the only source available in english. In Italy, Isisuf is a no profit organization based on last futurist artists that cannot find its right page into the book of Institutions and collections.

Please let me post this article as a signal as a concrete presence of people that cannot be buried into nothing. thanks again, Cibiemmevu —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cibiemmevu (talk • contribs) 13:55, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information. Note that the issue has been with you essentially copy and pasting the text found on the website onto Wikipedia. That is not allowed here. If Isisuf it notable enough for an article then it's likely someone will come along and create an article for it at some point in time regardless. If you believe it meets notability criteria, then you may in the future try to recreate the article, but you must do so without resorting to copying the information off their website. You must type original prose. The article is protected against recreation for a short time until we can establish whether or not you're able to meet notability criteria that I linked to earlier in this statement, and also if you're able to create an original article that isn't copied. Nja²⁴⁷ 15:00, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You recently deleted GroundProbe Pty Ltd under WP:CSD#G12. I tagged the article G12; then the user expressed a willingness to grant Wikipedia license to use the content (See Talk:GroundProbe Pty Ltd). Would a switch to {{copyvio}} have been appropriate here?

Or, was this a miscategorized WP:CSD#G11 deletion? If so, Talk:GroundProbe Pty Ltd should go too. Thanks.—C45207 | Talk 07:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I read the comment, but I should have included CSD G11 and A7 in the deletion summary. Nja²⁴⁷ 07:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!—C45207 | Talk 07:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, blocked as a vandal. But certainly not a username violation by any stretch of the imagination. I would reconsider the indef template you left on the user's page. Law _{type! snype?} 10:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a disruptive username, as reported as such by the bot. Nja²⁴⁷ 11:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The bot is purely for suggestions. The bot is programmed by a human. The bot is also prone to false positives. We can't block users for party affiliations. You may not like communism, but a certain country of over a billion may disagree with you. There are admins and other editors who have pro-communist userboxes[3] - it's not disruptive in the least. There is certainly nothing wrong with being a communist. I would think that you would have more to go on than what the bot says. Law _{type! snype?} 11:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know what that bot is for, and please don't make my action out to be based on something it was not. I did not block the name solely due to communism, I blocked it because the user was not acting in good faith (vandalising) which is the main reason they were blocked. By vandalising they were being disruptive, and to me their actions along with the possibly disruptive name made it fall within username policy. My judgement call was based on policy, not politics. If the name were longlivedemocracy and was vandalising I can honestly say I would have taken the same action. However as you're concerned I will edit the template used and I would suggest that it be looked into on why the bot considers communism a username violation, though again that is not the reason I took action, simply ancillary. Nja²⁴⁷ 11:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I could only go by your answer - which said it was a disruptive username. I, too, would have indeffed the user, given the vandalism. I also agree that the bot needs to be looked into. If the user was trashing articles on political ideals, then your call where it was username/vandalism only would have been one that I agreed with. Sorry for the diatribe about the bot - I should have assumed you knew as much about it as I do. Law _{type! snype?} 21:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You deleted my article, H-clip, yesterday. Will you please email me at Rob.BritishCity@gmail.com to tell me why. There was NO copyright violation since I hold the copyright to that article. The same article was detected elsewhere on the internet, yes, because I own both pages. Please get back to me as soon as possible.

- Rob —Preceding unsigned comment added by RobsArticles (talk • contribs) 23:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see your talk page regarding how to donate or give permission to include copywritten material on Wikipedia. Though before you bother I'd make sure you understand our policies on the requirement for an articles subject to have notability and also our policy on no advertising and promotion. Nja²⁴⁷ 07:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi NJA/Archive 06,

I'm asking Wikipedians who are interested in United States legal articles to take a look at WP:Hornbook, the new "JD curriculum task force".

Our mission is to assimilate into Wikipedia all the insights of an American law school education, by reducing hornbooks to footnotes.

• Each casebook will have a subpage.

• Over the course of a semester, each subpage will shift its focus to track the unfolding curriculum(s) for classes using that casebook around the country.
• It will also feature an extensive, hyperlinked "index" or "outline" to that casebook, pointing to pages, headers, or {{anchors}} in Wikipedia (example).
• Individual law schools can freely adapt our casebook outlines to the idiosyncratic curriculum devised by each individual professor.

• I'm encouraging law students around the country to create local chapters of the club I'm starting at my own law school, "Student WP:Hornbook Editors". Using WP:Hornbook as our headquarters, we're hoping to create a study group so inclusive that nobody will dare not join.

What you can do now:

1. Add WP:Hornbook to your watchlist, {{User Hornbook}} to your userpage, and ~~~~ to Wikipedia:Hornbook/participants.

2. If you're a law student,

• Email http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:Hornbook to your classmates, and tell them to do the same.
• Contact me directly via talk page or email about coordinating a chapter of "Student WP:Hornbook Editors" at your own school.

(You don't have to start the club, or even be involved in it; just help direct me to someone who might.)

3. Introduce yourself to me. Law editors on Wikipedia are a scarce commodity. Do knock on my talk page if there's an article you'd like help on.

Regards, Andrew Gradman ^talk/_WP:Hornbook 05:34, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Nja247. Just to let you know, I've posted our disagreement on WP:3O. 05:43, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi:

Can you tell me what the process is for re-posting a page for the International Year of Chemistry. I believe I have fixed all of the copyright issues we had with the previous posting.

Thank you for your time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wurdwiz (talk • contribs) 10:12, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here. Thanks again.- sinneed (talk) 14:59, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to inform you.: Analtap is Satanoid aka Morbid Fairy and this fellow, who has been blocked yet again. Cheers --Sikh-History 21:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you recently deleted a page I created, HJSplit. Apparently the reason was that I blatantly infringed copyright. However I'm sure this is not the case as I got most of my information from the official website, download.com and various other websites which all said the same thing. I would appreciate it if you could take the time to tell me what's wrong with it so that I can improve the article, as I'm sure it is notable enough to have its own place on Wikipedia. Also if possible please reply on my talk page. Thanks, Elppin (talk) 15:07, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lifting information off of various websites is the issue. As this is an encyclopaedia, things should be presented in original prose. It's okay to use information as references, but not copying essentially verbatim information. Another issue was the tone was made out to sound slightly promotional, so again if you write it in original and objective prose, that should address the advert-style feel to the article. Lastly, an article's subject must be notable enough to warrant inclusion here. As long as there are a handful of reliable third party sources that last guideline should be met. Overall I'd recommend seeing Wikipedia:Your_first_article, particularly numbers 4 and all three bullets under number 6. Nja²⁴⁷ 15:13, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I appreciate your help :) Elppin (talk) 15:24, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

BigDunc 16:40, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you meant Talk:Kamen Rider Decade and not Talk:Ninpuu Sentai Hurricaneger when listing the block notification. Because the stuff on the other page was resolved.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:15, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The block notice on their talk page lists the correct article as far as I can tell? Nja²⁴⁷ 08:20, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You used the wrong one first.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:21, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, oh well. Fixed though since you brought it to my attention. Thanks. Nja²⁴⁷ 08:22, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I uploaded the debated image used via wiki commons and signed off during the upload. doesnt wiki commons automatically create the copyright permissions. I specifically chose Creative Commons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eye2Sky83 (talk • contribs) 08:55, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Nja247. Thanks for having blocked 69.65.224.246‎ (talk · contribs). I hope the 24-hour block conveys the message to him that we work by coöperation and consensus here, not by unilateral dictate and retribution. However, 3RR violation on Honda Accord looks to be only one aspect of a larger problem with this IP editor's behaviour. His edit warring with contentious, presumptuous summaries extends to other Japanese-car articles,[4][5][6] he willfully refuses to engage in productive discussion [7] [8], he disrupts others' talk pages by posting inapplicable warnings — you can see from this sequence that he simply copied the (applicable/earned) warning from his page and pasted it to mine, then realised he needed to sign his own name rather than mine to it — and refactoring & abusively editing them [9][10], and he removes reliably-supported assertions that do not agree with what seem to be his guesses and opinions on the subject [11][12][13]. My sense is that RFC/U is not a very effective process against problematic IP editors. Frankly, I'm not sure what is (and he seems to know there's not much that can be done to stop him; see his comments here). Your thoughts would be appreciated; thanks in advance. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C17:04, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a RFC/U would be my first thought if this were an account. Considering all the warnings it's odd they've only received their first block today. I suppose I could give them a strong final warning to clean up their act upon returning or face a much longer block. Not really much more that could be done at this point. Nja²⁴⁷ 17:10, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, and I also found it odd that the AIV report was declined by an admin who apparently chose not to look beyond the 3RR. Perhaps a strong warning of the type you have in mind will help…it couldn't hurt! If he doesn't heed the warning(s), I'm sure we'll be able to spot 'im under whatever new IP he gets after he moves. Now: Care to join me in a variant chorus of the old Coca-Cola song? I'd like to teach the world to edit in perfect harmoneeee… —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C17:19, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I gave them a personal last warning, ie if they continue I'll block immediately. I'll be watching, but if I miss anything let me know. Cheers and thanks for being so diligent. Nja²⁴⁷ 17:27, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

hi. why did u delete Sujoy Ghosh's page, i dont know who you are but im his son and i think i know abit more about him than u! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bull09 (talk • contribs) 20:46, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:H0NK0N9 has requested to be unblocked. It seems the user has taken the last 2 weeks to review policy pages, and the COI stuff. They show basic understanding of those rules, and promise to edit within our guidelines in the future. Seems reasonable, and I'm willing to unblock, but I wanted to run it by you first. Your input would be appreciated. Thanks for your consideration. -Andrew c ^[talk] 22:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you viewed their userpage? It's an advertisement! However it's really up to you as I have no strong feelings about it and I will not say anything regardless of how you choose to close the request. Cheers, Nja²⁴⁷ 10:05, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, saw your message on the general incidents noticeboard. There doesn't seem to be much activity on the COIN page. Could you help out in some way? -Reconsider the static (talk) 12:14, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You've just made the report to COIN today, so let's give it some time and see what happens. Genuine issues are usually acknowledged there, though I wouldn't expect resolution of the issue today. Disputes take some time to hammer out, and COIN is the best place to address the issues you raised at this stage. If COIN were to prove unsuccessful, or if the issues become significantly worse, then a report to ANI may be in order, but not at this stage. Nja²⁴⁷ 12:19, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but from the history of the page, it appears that there is little activity. I'm certain that my edits will be reverted in a matter of hours. They've simply ignored my calls for a discussion. Sorry if I sound impatient, but this has been going on for several days and it has become quite frustrating-Reconsider the static (talk) 12:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You could head over to WP:RFP and request consideration for full page protection until the dispute is settled. Provide links of your calls for discussion and any attempts you made on the article's talk page or their personal talk pages. Nja²⁴⁷ 12:27, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, someone has attended to the problem. By the way, how do you modify your signature? -Reconsider the static (talk) 06:54, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent to hear. As for the signature, see here. Cheers. Nja²⁴⁷ 08:12, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: this. 03:35, August 3, 2009, 18:04, August 3, 2009, 19:08, August 3, 2009, 20:00, August 3, 2009 - I count for reverts within 24h. What am I missing? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:44, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well it's questionable, this wasn't a clear cut case to me. I noticed it was skipped over by at least one other admin who actioned reports that were filed later. Regardless, as you know it's not meant to be a punishment, rather to prevent disruption, and the disruption ceased at the time I had looked at the report. Nja²⁴⁷ 22:02, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Nja247 for your recent help with the Gianmichael case. I'm taking a few days off due to continued personal threats from those individuals at my private e-mail. Regardless... Thank you for your help. Kjnelan (talk) 17:36, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which account is sending the mail? Nja²⁴⁷ 22:04, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To my personal home account. So be it. I think it's simply time to let go. I dont' know if I'm coming back to Wiki. It's... very sick what he has sent me to my personal e-mail regarding the deletion of his page. Very sick. I really feel sorry for him.

But I still wanted you to know your actions were appreciated. Kjnelan (talk) 22:49, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, which account is sending the mail to you so I can block them from sending mail, unless of course they somehow got your personal email addresss? Nja²⁴⁷ 08:05, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They got my personal e-mail. You already blocked them, but the damage is done. Cheers. I've requested db-user. Kjnelan (talk) 03:45, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please block me with an expiry time of 1 hour? I know WP:SELFBLOCK does not permit self-requested blocks, but please do. Please note that this request is only to test how a block feels. Please keep talk page editing enabled, however, in case I'm done with my test early. Thanks! —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 15:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you 100% sure of this? Nja²⁴⁷ 15:58, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 15:59, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but only after you confirm this doesn't satisfy your curiosity. Nja²⁴⁷ 16:00, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. 1 hour, talk page and email enabled (to request unblocking in case I'm satisfied early). Use "user requested test block" as the block summary. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 16:04, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, There is continuing conversation about this on Mythdon's talk page.  Frank  |  talk  16:05, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You said that the two edits presented were done "months apart"; they were edits done on Aug 3 of old talk page discussions. This user typically does a global search for things such as the included template on that page, and edits as if it were a regular page as opposed to a constructive conversation on the talk page. Those of us who have been reverting these edits have tried commenting on the IP talk page, to no avail. Please see User talk:SpikeJones/Jump in Dot for a partial list of recent similar edits -- some made today, too -- by this user for more examples. If you could reconsider, or at least review your rejection notice so it is more correct regarding when those submitted edits took place, that would be swell. Thx. SpikeJones (talk) 21:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Nja²⁴⁷. I would like to notify you that the request for WP:3O regarding the dispute about the MacBook Pro section format has been removed without any opinion given. Therefore I have asked for an opinion here. Airplaneman ^talk 01:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, this is a comical version of my life til now. Please dont delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Payloadfan (talk • contribs) 10:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Make a facebook page then, don't use an encyclopaedia for jokes please. Nja²⁴⁷ 10:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, I'm not familiar with wiki processes, what do I do about IP sockpuppetry? 219.75.84.153 and 116.15.38.240 have been making identical edits, even with the same edit summary. -Reconsider the static (talk) 10:56, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well the IPs both are registered to the same ISP in Singapore, thus it is possible they're the same user. A detailed check would need done, which may or may not reveal more certain information. I think a full investigation would not be warranted at this time, thus I wouldn't pursue that option.

If both IP's had been given adequate warnings on their talk pages regarding their troublesome edits, then I could have blocked them. The 219.x has no warns, whilst I just gave the 116.x IP their final warning. The edits are not severely disruptive to warrant immediate blocking. I will protect the article for a few days to allow you time to address the IP's directly on their talk page so they become aware of the issues and have a chance to explain their side of things to you. If that doesn't work and the content dispute continues once the protection is lifted, then warn them on their talk page and if they still continue after the warning then feel free to report them at WP:AIV or to me here for blocking. Nja²⁴⁷ 11:05, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

how about Selwin wu (talk · contribs) who is a complete single purpose editor? LibStar (talk) 13:32, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would think WP:COIN would be a good forum for that name, due to it being a blatant SPA. As of now, the IPs and this name aren't blocked, nor are they editing in tandem to avoid breaking 3RR, thus there's no obvious abusive sock case (as of right now anyhow). Nja²⁴⁷ 16:01, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

--King ♣ Talk 20:12, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you delete the "Free Money Movement" page? are you trying to censor Wikipedia for your own personal agendas? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.192.13.107 (talk) 21:19, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello - the page you've recently deleted was in discussion to improve it. I've been discussing it with the author and he has made significant rewrites that I think brings the article closer to being original. This is all on the article's talk page. If you cannot restore the article, could you move it into my userspace so the author can improve it. It seems like a notable person who should be included in the encyclopedia. Thanks.--TParis00ap (talk) 22:05, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvios are usually deleted. It'd be counter-intuitive to restore or supply a copy of an article that was based on copywritten materials. The article could be recreated using original prose, of course assuming notability guidelines are met and reliable sources are provided. Nja²⁴⁷ 06:39, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At the time that Cronbot posted the copyvio, it was about a 50% duplicate of that page. The author has done considerable work since that point to fix the copyvios and make it original work. G12 says "Text pages that contain copyrighted material with no credible assertion of public domain, fair use, or a free license, where there is no non-infringing content on the page worth saving." Also, the author is claiming his work is the original work and that site copied his blog. If true, than it meets NC10. If you could restore it, I'd be happy to compare both pages sentance by sentance to make sure there are no longer any copyvios. Thanks.--TParis00ap (talk) 13:12, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It must be a 0% duplicate due to copyright. It must all be original with reliable sources to source facts. Editors shouldn't be editing Wikipedia in conflict of interest, but anyway the proper way to use copyrights on here is either to make a make a request or donate it. I've added the page to your userspace for editing, but it mustn't end up on the encyclopedia without all concerns addressed. Consider that a caution to not knowingly violate policy and copyright. Nja²⁴⁷ 13:25, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Roger, thanks. I'll make sure there is nothing copied from that webpage or others before I put it back. I'll get someone to 3rd party verify as well. Thanks.--TParis00ap (talk) 20:09, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Why was Shan Chandrasekar information been deleted?

DT —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.115.145.96 (talk) 11:35, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks on blocking the vandal on 118.137.21.129 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), but can you expand the block on the guy. He has the same MO has the vandals on the following IPs and they're possibly the same person:

• 118.137.48.28 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 118.137.48.253 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 118.137.48.33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

In particular, the vandal on 118.137.48.253 restarted his vandalism after his 12-hour block. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 14:19, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I have blocked the 118.137.48.X and 118.137.21.X IP ranges both for 24 hours to get the user's attention. Not promising anything, but maybe it'll have some positive effect. Nja²⁴⁷ 14:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know about the progressive warnings, but in this case, what this vandal did was to reinstate previous vandalism that the others put and subsequently reverted. And the previous ones in this list vandalized the same articles. Because of the MO, which I'm familiar with , I have to give him the Immediate level 4. The guy has been doing the same thing for months on end. The ones I gave you are the ones that he used just for this month (August 2009). I can even give you the other IPs which he used for the last 30 days if you want to. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 14:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No that's fine, as long as you're aware. Like I said in this case straight to level 3 would have been okay, but what you did is fine considering your experience with the editor's MO. Good work. Nja²⁴⁷ 14:34, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, here are the other IPs he used in the last 30 days or so just for your reference:

• 125.165.94.178 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 118.137.20.194 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 118.137.68.183 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 118.137.68.163 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 125.161.148.89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 125.161.158.120 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 125.161.180.126 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 125.161.49.222 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

I've already reported the guy's MO on WP:AN/I twice, but each time, no resolution against him was reached there for some reason. Also, any communication to the guy to stop, as you can see, went to no avail. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 14:43, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If there's a very specific MO, you could put in a request here and maybe a edit filter could be devised to detect these edits and report to admins straight away. Nja²⁴⁷ 14:49, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the kind of vandalism the guy inserts on the affected articles, that'll take multiple filter requests. But thanks for the idea. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 14:56, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well it's either something like that, filing an Wikipedia:Abuse reports, or vigilant page watching. Doing a block on the entire 118.137.x.x.x range would affect 65536 potential users, plus it wouldn't be permanent as it'd have to be in response to very severe vandalism for that entire range to be blocked long term. Nja²⁴⁷ 15:04, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to disturb you but the vandal is back, now using 118.137.20.111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). I've already reported him to WP:AIV, but there has been no action so far. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 12:32, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No bother, and yes I noticed about 5 minutes ago when I blocked the entire 118.137.x.x range for 12 hours. Nja²⁴⁷ 12:34, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: your message on my talk page, yes, I will. BTW, I've also took the step of requesting semi-protection on the related MGM articles on WP:RFPP. I might request semi-protection on the related Digimon articles later. I know having the articles protected may not do much against the vandal, but I know it helps curbing his pattern of vandalism on some fronts. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 13:51, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

my article has been sourced from non-copyrighted sources and it is totally an accepted fact —Preceding unsigned comment added by Satyaki11 (talk • contribs) 07:16, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not only were there copyright issues from http://www.loc.gov/acq/ovop/delhi/salrp/kekidaruwalla.html, the article also may not have met the requirement for notability. Nja²⁴⁷ 07:58, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you can answer to my question.

If I understand right and there are some limitations for editors, what is the procedure to enter it.

Only example: the 'Category:Terrorism in the British Mandate of Palestine' what seems me not so complete, and my corresponding question in its Talk.

Thank you, - Igorp_lj (talk) 20:33, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Simply edit the articles you want to have in that category and at the bottom you'll notice where other categories are listed on the article. Paste in where the other categories are (without the period at the end) [[Category:Terrorism in the British Mandate of Palestine|{{PAGENAME}}]]. Once you save the page it will then be in that category. Or you can use something like WP:HOTCAT. Nja²⁴⁷ 09:01, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, - Igorp_lj (talk) 20:36, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Was it really necessary to username-block User:M1k3ypwns3? Just because of the "pwn"? That strikes me as seriously overreaching with the username policy. rspεεr (talk) 21:12, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was combined with their edit. If you wish to unblock feel free, though I did use the soft block. Nja²⁴⁷ 08:53, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was most likely going to be a vandal-only account... which is why I think it'd be better if we mostly judge edits, not just the usernames by themselves. -- Mentifisto 14:00, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You spend enough time on UAA -- you should recognize that reversing a softblock is a singularly pointless thing to do. I just don't see how one test edit and a username that's not a violation of anything in particular adds up to a username block. rspεεr (talk) 15:28, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So what do you want to be done? It'd undoubtedly have been a VOA as Mentifisto said. Though, I'm open to all suggestions you have to make it better and I apologise for this possible mistake in advance. Nja²⁴⁷ 15:30, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Being blocked is a poor user experience, and we can't do anything about it now. We can only try to change the culture at UAA to make this kind of overreaching less common. I'm not even convinced they would have been a vandalism-only account -- that one edit looked like a perfectly normal "holy crap can I edit this?" edit to me. The usual warning process would have sufficed, which I had started to do. There are two reasons that a username block was inappropriate: (1) you shouldn't block people based on what you think they're going to do, and (2) the name didn't violate the username policy. rspεεr (talk) 03:47, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since you were the protecting admin, can I ask you to unprotect the Chronic fatigue syndrome article, which has been fully protected for nearly a month. As I recall, it was actually just an anonymous IP that was vandalising the page. There are no significant disputes currently on the talk page, so I think we can try unprotecting the article and see how it goes. --RobinHood70 (talk) 00:32, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done There was a nice edit war on the 10th of July between users, but if the talk page is quiet then hopefully it's over. Nja²⁴⁷ 08:57, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Truth be told, there's often an edit war on that and several related articles...it's one of the hazards of a controversial subject. But at least for the moment, things are quiet. Thanks for the unprotection. --RobinHood70 (talk) 09:15, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Im just putting the correct information with reliable sources...and User:Flashflash; keeps reverting....the source is unreliable ,its a fan site.....and the cover is fake.....and the tracklisting is fake.......he also insulted me and talked to me in a very inappropriate way...he posted this on my talk page

i suggest u do the right thing and block him.....cause he's vandalizing the page....can u please also unprotect the page so the false/fake information be removed....Youdisapeartothesky (talk) 14:06, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been protected to prevent both of you from continuing to disrupt Wikipedia through an edit war. I am not going to take sides. All I know is the disruption had to end, and the options available to me were to block both of you or protect the page, and I chose the latter. The talk page is clean, thus not much discussion has taken place so you need to start there. If you can't sort it out there then consider dispute resolution. Also it wasn't the best decision to call you a fool, and I will remind him to remain civil in his discussion. Cheers, Nja²⁴⁷ 14:12, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Following Durova's advice, I've opened a topic here in the hopes of getting consensus moving. Just letting you know. Lot 49a^talk 16:39, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't think she might know that she personalizes the talk pages with her comments and judgements. Here is the latest example [14][15], and there have been several since arbitration. Your help would be appreciated. Perhaps a simple 1 on 1 talk would be all that it would take. This could be proactive. Having said that, my patience for that sort of stuff is wearing thin.--scuro (talk) 00:01, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you both would benefit from some WP:Mediation, particularly the WP:Mediation Cabal? Nja²⁴⁷ 06:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd do it if it she wanted to resolve things. She has no interest whatsoever in going forward with a med cab, nor does she believe she has personalized the talk pages. [16] No one should have to put with this indefinitely, do you have any other suggestions? Is there a role for Arbitration here? Point six of arbitration stated, "...editors must always comment on the content and not the contributor. Personalising content disputes disrupts the consensus-building process on which Wikipedia depends, and should be avoided". Passed 11 to 0 --scuro (talk) 18:17, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind that's a rather standard statement by Arb (just look through their other decisions), and there's no enforcement mechanism behind it. I haven't much time right now to consider things unfortunately, but I will do so soon (likely tomorrow) and if there's something I think I can do I will, or otherwise I'll try to give some feedback. Nja²⁴⁷ 18:40, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see some of the issues have some sources aspect to them. What has your mentor said? Or have you not found one? If not, I'd contact one of the Arbs as I think it's close to a month (in 2 days), and it looks best if you're upfront and let them know you've had trouble finding one. Cheers. Nja²⁴⁷ 07:05, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are no issues with my sources. They don't state I don't provide sources or that the sources are no good. They simply believe that my sources have little or no weight. To me that is an undue weight issue, regardless...other eyes on this can't hurt. I did notify arb that I couldn't find anyone, a few days ago. I used the e-mail address they had provided, but have heard nothing back...which is not unusual. I also did my first proper citation today. You can check it out in the experimental treatment sections.

Any thoughts on how to stop the personalization of the talk page? The last thing the talk page needs is a party who constantly "turns up the volume".--scuro (talk) 15:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did ya finally get that cite thing working? If not well done nonetheless. Also well done on contacting Arb before the month time. I realise it's a tough situation over there, and whilst things are completely rosy, honestly it's admirable the amount all of you do, including use of tags to distinguish whether things are sorted or not. As with anything in life, sometimes relationships with people are tense, but if there's no choice then you need to be the bigger person and just do the best you can to get the job done with as little drama as possible. Nja²⁴⁷ 15:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. No problem on being the bigger person, and I can give Literaturegeek time. But abuse is abuse. Slurs and inferring things is not being civil at all. Not dealing with that sort of thing, led to arbitration last time. When you get to arbitration they are focused on what policies have been broken. They have no interest in the cause. Incredibly they even missed the heaps of personal abuse being sent my way right in the middle of arbitration. No one wants to exam that stuff after the ruling.

From my standpoint the lesson learned is deal with issues when they happen, no one cares after the fact. I could file for further clarification motion with arbitration, it would be justified. There are numerous recent examples, she has a lengthy history. I've brought up the issue before and the recommendation was to report it. Several administrators have not responded to my concerns. Can you think of another way to deal with this?--scuro (talk) 16:59, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, aside from the ADHD case, I hadn't had any experience with ArbCom. I always tried to stay away from disputes. You can maybe try Xeno, as I think he helped you before? Otherwise unfortunately I'm pretty useless unless there's blatant example of abuse, but those too would be best handled first via dispute resolution, ie requests for comment, WQA, etc. Nja²⁴⁷ 17:45, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You might be interested in WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Brexx (permalink to original report). Most of the disruption has been caused by a sock of a disruptive editor with an extremely long history. The correct article resides at Spirit in the Dark (Lindsay Lohan album), which was redirected to Lindsay Lohan long ago, when it became obvious that this particular album will never be released. Once the sock is blocked, I'd like to put this article up for AFD, and just get rid of it again. If I provide the nomination text, would you be willing to process that for me? I'd hate to see this thing live a month, fully protected in Brexx's preferred version, because Brexx would certainly see that as having "won".—Kww(talk) 01:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An AFD of course can be done by anyone at anytime, but I think sorting the socks first is a good idea. We'll see how the SPI goes. Nja²⁴⁷ 06:59, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I'll keep an eye on it. As for "anyone at any time", it's impossible for a non-admin to nominate a fully protected article for deletion.—Kww(talk) 10:40, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for butting in but I don't think an AfD is needed for Spirit In The Dark (Lindsay Lohan album) if Spirit in the Dark (Lindsay Lohan album) has had sufficient community consensus to remain a redirect. There are numerous misspelling possibilities that one could employ to remove the redirect but, in the end, all plausible misspelled redirects should point to Spirit in the Dark (Lindsay Lohan album) and the decision on whether to let it stand or serve as a redirect should be made there, not at each individual misspelled redirect. Sockpuppetry notwithstanding, Spirit In The Dark (Lindsay Lohan album) should redirect to Spirit in the Dark (Lindsay Lohan album) with, of course, the double redirect being fixed properly. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 14:48, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum to the above: the CU results confirm sockpuppetry accusations. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 14:59, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised there was any doubt about that part. Permalink to confirmation is here. The problem is FlashFlash and Tasha Kay Kennedy, both of whom seem to be good-faith editors that have worked on the article. Perhaps the best solution is to place a protected redirect here at the improper capitalization, and tell FlashFlash and Tasha Kay Kennedy to start a discussion at Talk:Lindsay Lohan if they really want to recreate this article. The historical version from here can always be used as the new article if that makes sense. Of course, as always, there's Lindsay Lohan's Forthcoming Studio Album to deal with. All of this would be simpler if we could just make "deals with an unreleased album or single" a speedy deletion category. I can always dream.—Kww(talk) 15:13, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for putting Book of Mormon on semi-protection. (Taivo (talk) 03:40, 11 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I wonder if we could lend your help in moving this page, I proposed a move which was endorsed by the majority of people, however, as the destination name already exists, the page move process doesn't work. I'm not sure how to perform a move in this case. Izzedine (talk) 04:34, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's the destination name and where's link to the talk about the consensus for the move? Nja²⁴⁷ 06:57, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, the destination name is Syrian military presence in Lebanon and the move proposal is here. Izzedine (talk) 08:25, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well that was closed as a no-consensus and I'm not one to override community consensus. You could try it again. Nja²⁴⁷ 08:29, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody closed it hailing "no-concensus" but it was 8 to 6 in favour of the move, why would we give his verdict precedence? Izzedine (talk) 09:23, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well consensus isn't voting, thus 8 to 6 isn't really having a strong consensus in favour of the move. It's not a vote. But there's nothing preventing you from making another strong case and trying again. Nja²⁴⁷ 09:34, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, I think mediation is the way forward for this. Appreciate your advice. Izzedine (talk) 09:41, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The photo I uploaded that you removed was in error. I hold the copyright to the image and run the website ChrisD.ca. If you need to see further photos from the series, I encourage you to visit: http://www.chrisd.ca/blog/12616/philip-lee-lieutenant-governor-of-manitoba-photos/ or e-mail me through the website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RonBurgundy (talk • contribs) 03:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. After my request for page protection you warned the edit warring IP 87.241.161.114 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) here: [17] Soon after that he came back as 87.241.165.117 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Since it was Sunday, I missed that rv, but it is obvious that the IP editor shows no signs of stopping the edit war and does not wish to discuss his edits with other editors. What would you advise doing to stop the edit war there? I'm sure he will be back soon reverting the article again. Grandmaster 05:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I semi-protected it for a month. Hope things get better. Nja²⁴⁷ 06:55, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Grandmaster 07:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

87.241.169.158 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) appears to be the same person, stalking me in other articles. Is there any way to stop the vandalism from that IP range? Grandmaster 10:22, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well I didn't do the whole 87.241.x.x range as I'd prefer not to cause collateral damage to over 64 thousand users, however I did do 87.241.160.x - 87.241.169.x for 12 hours. If that wasn't good enough (the range) then let me know, but if it continues after the block you may need to consider Wikipedia:Abuse_reports. Hope things work out mate. Nja²⁴⁷ 10:30, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your help. Grandmaster 10:47, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed your comment on my talkpage. The block is now lifted so there is no point is going to "stage one" of the process you outlined. What I seek is a review of the behaviour and actions of DrKiernan and have his Admin powers removed. Could you please outline the steps I need to follow? Regards Sarah777 (talk) 12:17, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well my note was trying to get at this actually, sorry it wasn't clear. I want to note first though that admins are people too, and we do make mistakes. Anyhow to answer your query, the first step would be to discuss your concern with the admin directly, and if that doesn't work then the next step would be to take it to request for comment on use of admin privileges. In a request for comment the community considers concerns (or requests for removal of adminship) and will give feedback and views. Note however that a Request for Comment requires a second user to certify it, who has also tried and failed to resolve the dispute. The other option is to take it to ArbCom, though unless it's a very serious case they will likely refuse and expect you to discuss and seek a request for comment first. Also, as I noted in my post on your talk, ANI probably wouldn't be the most appropriate option here as there's no issue that needs immediate admin action (ie you've already been unblocked). This post is a summary of the info found at WP:ADMINABUSE and Removal of adminship. Nja²⁴⁷ 12:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The way I feel right now I don't much feel like talking to my blocker! But I'll proceed as you suggest is best practice. Regards Sarah777 (talk) 15:33, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I asked them to look for possible connections to User:ThreeE and/or User:Grandma Dottie. Has that been done? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Versageek did a CU and based on the results of it it didn't seem that those accounts came up as connected. Though you may wish to ask directly on their talk. Nja²⁴⁷ 13:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where are you seeing that within the report? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:16, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The first two bullet point under 'Conclusions'. Nja²⁴⁷ 13:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently you added the two after those posts. I'd hit up Versageek on their talk page about it. Nja²⁴⁷ 13:26, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Alan Roger Currie. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Stifle (talk) 20:22, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nja, you blocked User:Tallicfan20 yesterday for 24 hours for 3RR at Palestinian refugee. He had also been reported at the same time for 3RR at Avi Shlaim, [18] but wasn't specifically blocked for it — you presumably decided that the 24-hour block should cover both reports. However, as soon as the block ended, he returned to reverting at Avi Shlaim, [19] so he appears not to have got the message. Would you be willing to reconsider the decision not to block him for the second report? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:45, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you do decide to review this report, please make sure you review the edits of RolandR, the person making that report, as he quite clearly violated 3RR on that same page, at the same time, as well. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 03:23, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't notice both at the time, but nonetheless I think 24h for a first violation was good. Possibly page protection or a report to AIV is most appropriate from here on out? Nja²⁴⁷ 07:19, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

page protection, perhaps, but i really don;t see how AIV is relevant - this is a content dispute, no vandalism involved. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 15:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nja, immediately after the block ended, he carried on reverting on one of the articles he'd been reported over, and he continues to revert on others. Usually when that happens, the blocking admin will take action, because the block hasn't worked. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The version he reverted to is the one enjoying consensus on the Talk page. TF20 made one revert, and the article seems to be stable now, with other editors supportive of his version. Blocks are preventive, not punitive. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 17:33, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have time as of now to look into this. I would recommend requesting page protection, or reporting to WP:AN3 for edit warring. Cheers, and sorry I can't be more helpful right now, just a busy day (notice my lack of activity today). Nja²⁴⁷ 17:36, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your advice was to seek dispute resolution--I am not going to take that advice, since there is no point to it: the editor in question has never responded to any attempts at communication, as a quick glance at their talk page and contributions makes abundantly clear. I filed this case on the suggestion of User:EdJohnston but it seems to have been a huge waste of time. I did, however, have the pleasure of being patronized by William M. Connolley, so I guess that's a net gain. Drmies (talk) 14:42, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nja247, I just noticed this. I think I know what's going on, and the "move warring" refers to possible future move warring by the recurring sockpuppeteer. But just to ease my mind, I want to make sure that you didn't think User:Big Bird and I were move warring over the target of the redirect. We were actually agreeing with each other, just fixing each other's typos on the 4-5 similar redirects (like this one). Anyway, probably silly of me to bring it up, but I wanted to check. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, no worries. Done just to prevent further future disruption. Nja²⁴⁷ 16:44, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:04, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(picking random admin)...uninvolved, but this has to stop, somehow. Seb az86556 (talk) 20:56, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to harp on you about the way you apply the username policy, but you blocked User:Zz022 for a "promotional username", because he has the same username on Blogspot as he does on Wikipedia, and he linked to his Blogspot.

That's seriously not what the promotional username rules are for. That's cause for a minor warning about external links. Do you disagree? rspεεr (talk) 09:04, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you've read the block log and their talk page? I didn't block specifically for username, rather addition of spam links, conflict of interest by advertising, and yes it could be said their usename is tied to the spam links added and is therefore likely promotional. Although again that latter reasoning was not in the log or made out as a major reasoning in the block template. It is beginning to become frustrating and I seek clarification from the community on this as it's hard to make these distinctions at present. Nja²⁴⁷ 09:11, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) You used a username block template to explain why you blocked them right away, you didn't decline Mandarax's report as being invalid, and I believe you went after them just because Mandarax (who appears to be quite prolific at dubious username reports) listed them on UAA.It's not just about whether it's "specifically" about the username, you've been escalating things using the username policy when the problem has absolutely nothing to do with the username. rspεεr (talk) 09:19, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ECx2) You know, when an admin process becomes frustrating, there's an easy way to deal: work on something else. rspεεr (talk) 09:19, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As for looking for clarification from the community, that's what's been going on at WT:U, where I doubt you would find much consensus for blocking M1k3ypwns2 or Zz022. I see I've actually discussed things with you before on that page, where you were arguing against UAA being a one-stop blocking shop. What happened? rspεεr (talk) 09:25, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I only used uw-advertise template and I added my own words a minute or two later. I never used a username template in this case. I blocked for the reasons given in the block log and in the template, and if you have issue with another's UAA reports than I'd reckon it's an issue with them and not me. I make my own decisions when blocking as my name goes on the log. I do not base them on a report alone. As you know, I often decline and remove non-blatants at UAA, and I have gotten into tiffs with other users about consistent bad reports. On the last one you had some basis and I apologised and I thank you, but I don't share that view in this case. On this block, I would advise you seek community consensus if you believe it to have been wrong as I think the reasoning in the block log and on their talk page is clear and within policy. Nja²⁴⁷ 09:33, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You added "tied to your user name" to the template, indicating that the reason you blocked so quickly had something to do with the username. I prefer to talk to admins about invalid blocks; there are many more invalid username reports than invalid blocks, but the invalid reports wouldn't be a problem if they didn't convince admins to block the person. I wish you would have stuck with declining invalid reports -- it doesn't matter if the reporting users bother you about it, you shouldn't let them pressure you into placing hasty blocks in the presence of other options.

I can bring this to WT:U, but I'd really rather not. From the previous WT:U discussion, I would say we agree much more than we disagree, so I'd hate to bring this disagreement out in public. But I do strongly disagree that the username policy gives you a reason to block M1k3ypwns3 or Zz022 -- and this especially concerns me because I wrote most of that text and am wondering what I did wrong that made you interpret the policy that way. rspεεr (talk) 09:40, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again I consider each report myself as my name goes on it. What I said above, along with what's on the block log and the uw-advert template best describe the block. Nja²⁴⁷ 10:00, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's good to see another person found the templates and made use without any problem I haven't yet put it in the documentation but all of these must be permanently fully protected so we never get vandalism to a z template transcluding into pages they appear in, and I just did so to the three.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:28, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I donot understand the reason for deletion of sonoclot page. this machine is used worldwide for managing hemostasis (bleeding). this is not a regular coagualtion machine. sonoclot analyses the global hemostasis management which a normal coagulation machine cannot do.

when a similar product TEG can have a page on wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thromboelastography why not sonoclot which is much more advanced than TEG and provides much more usefull information than TEG.

I have been using this machine in cardiac surgeries and I can tell you how it has helped the patients and attending doctors in saving lives & effectively manage blood product usage. Harbindervirdi (talk) 04:58, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:CSD G12 for reasoning please. Nja²⁴⁷ 08:45, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a side-effect of addressing a cross-project "If article X then article Y." argument made at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leonardo Ciampa, I've turned up pretty conclusive evidence that User:BonGens is both a sockpuppet and Ciampa xyrself. Once again, it seems, we have at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/THD3 a sockpuppetteer accusing others of what xe is in fact doing xyrself. It's clearly, as noted, a frivolous SPI request. I hypothesize that sockpuppetteers do this because they reason that since they themselves operate sockpuppets, everyone else must be doing so, too. So: Where do you want the BonGens sockpuppetry evidence diffs? There? Or somewhere else? Uncle G (talk) 08:05, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I had a feeling something fishy was happening as the THD3 SPI was baseless, as I noted there. I suppose stick them into the THD3 SPI, then we can take action. Sound good to you? Nja²⁴⁷ 08:38, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The page has been deleted, and BonGens blocked as a sockpuppet already. I'll have a word with Bjweeks. Uncle G (talk) 17:18, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Back to revert article right after expiry of block. How is dispute resolution possible when the other party is just being uncivil[20][21] and don't care about posting on the talk page? —SpaceFlight89 11:30, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

86.1.207.130 appears to be the IP address of the previously banned Haroldcoxley994/Harold.w.coxly/Haroldcoxly sockpuppets. For evidence, look at the IP address's revision history; most articles revised by that IP address were also revised by one or more of the other variations. Also, that IP address has a similar history of vandalism.

Dedetch (talk) 15:02, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

regarding your question.

Section 1 of the Street Offences Act states:

It shall be an offence for a common prostitute to loiter or solicit in a street or public place for the purpose of prostitution.

Advertising is legal, Soliciting in private, or over a telephone is legal.

You might find the following informative: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7736436.stm http://www.sw5.info/law.htm http://www.punternet.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=17 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.100.172.118 (talk) 17:15, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS. The article is in poorer state because of the other party who made three reverts to remove my additions. While my good faith edits are lost because I honoured the three revert rule. Allowing the vandalism to stand punishes the victim of the vandalism. Please review these changes (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prostitution_in_the_United_Kingdom&diff=308292925&oldid=308292459). You will see they are all good faith and backed up by the cite.

1) I changed not illegal to legal because not illegal is weasel words. 2) Keeping != Owning. Keeping is managing, running even being a maid, but not owning. Land lords are not breaking the law if their premises are used as a brothel. 3) The Police own this Brothel but they are not keeping it in the legal sense. http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/Policeowned-sauna-back-as-adult.5549669.jp 4) Prostitution is legal in the UK, many prostitutes operate quite legally from flats or as escorts.

The whole article is pretty shabby, it is a long way from a balanced point of view, but to be honest after the shabby treatment I've received I'm not even sure I can be bothered any more. 83.100.172.118 (talk) 17:56, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article just went through AFD and was deleted a few days ago, and then it failed to be overturned. the same user has recreated it again. is it a candidate for speedy deletion? or should it go through the same process of deletion again Theserialcomma (talk) 04:48, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

response - Theserialcomma, you were the editor who suggested that I write a new and improved article for Book Author Alan Roger Currie with significantly more citations and references(!) Then, you turn around and recommend that the new article (which barely resembles the original article) is deleted again?? "G4" criteria says that a new article should only be deleted if it is IDENTICAL to the original article. My second article was NOT "identical." Chicago Smooth (talk) 09:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Theserialcomma recommends that Chicago Smooth draft a new, different and more improved article, Part 1 Theserialcomma recommends that Chicago Smooth draft a new, different and more improved article, Part 2 Chicago Smooth (talk) 09:36, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are advised to seek community input before having another go at it. I'd recommend taking your query to either Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests or Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard. Only ask for help on article creation and content, and not on editor disputes. I'd try the former noticeboard first (ie editor assistance request). Good luck. Nja²⁴⁷ 15:46, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay ... will do. Chicago Smooth (talk) 11:02, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nja, I just took a look at this article out of curiosity, and I would not consider it "substantially identical", as per the requirements of G4. The structure of the 8/16 version is notably different than the 8/11 version, and it contains inline cites, which the original didn't. Can you consider restoring this? Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:37, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm currently busy, but if you think it's okay even though it was deleted via AFD and declined during a deletion review, then feel free. Nja²⁴⁷ 18:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll check the deletion review -- thanks! I do realize that it went through AfD already, but I think that it's been sufficiently expanded since the deleted version that it doesn't qualify for G4 any longer. If it just had the added sections without added citations, and/or didn't have inline cites, I'd agree with the G4.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

what a surprise to see you here, SarekOfVulcan, wikihounding my every move because i disagreed with you about another, unrelated article[[22]]. yes, please use your admin tools to counter my position on an issue you are unrelated to in any way [[23]]. please do. Theserialcomma (talk) 19:24, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused. I thought you supported Chicago Smooth's new version?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:19, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

yes, you are confused. Theserialcomma (talk) 19:24, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The review, and note concerns about Chicago Smooth being a WP:SPA. Nja²⁴⁷ 06:02, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that the anime/movie vandal from the 118.137.x.x range has returned. This time, it seems, he did his vandalism with the same MO yesterday under the address 114.59.100.70 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (yep, still in Indonesia). Just a heads up. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 04:58, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great. Nja²⁴⁷ 06:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I found another IP the vandal used: 114.59.207.115 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). But he only did one edit (on MGM Television) and it was on the same day the above IP address was used by the guy. Probably, the guy used this address for testing before switching to 114.59.100.70 and implemented his misinformation. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 15:47, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I did the whole range for 12 hours and that specific IP for 24. Long term semi-protection may be useful if there was a pattern of typical target articles. Obviously MGM itself, but specific articles would be useful. Nja²⁴⁷ 15:54, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I'm trying to contribute to the PIRA killed/injured discussion, however Domer48 is removing my comments with no explaination as to why. I appreciate that this is a heated debate, however I don't feel that peoples comments should be removed in this manner. Is their anything that can be done to prevent Domer48 behaving in this manner. Thanks. Cromwellian Conquest (talk) 12:34, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In accordance with WP:TPO, no editor should alter or delete another user's talk page comments without their permission. Revert his edits, but obviously don't violate The three-revert rule. Remember to assume good faith, he may not know the policy on talk pages. But you can certainly link him the one I linked above. If it continues, he'll likely be blocked. --King Öomie 12:59, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your help. This is happening again, this time with user Tfz. I don't want to get into a slanging match with anyone, however this guy has also slandered me on the same discussion page. What's the best way forward for getting this stopped? Thanks. Cromwellian Conquest (talk) 12:14, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked Cromwellian Conquest to change his user-name, see his talk page. Tfz 12:55, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've not sure why my user name has any relevance to Tfz removing my comments on the PIRA article? Cromwellian Conquest (talk) 13:07, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This now seems to have developed into a case of harassment. I've reported Tfz for removing my comments within an article, Tfz responds by starting up a campaign aginst my username. Pathetic stuff really, but is there anything in place to ensure vandals such as Tfz are stopped ? Cromwellian Conquest (talk) 13:30, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I refuse to involve myself with that area due to sad people, harassment, and drama. Consider asking the admin who recently involved themselves in the situation (User:LessHeard vanU). Good luck, and sorry I can't be of more help. Nja²⁴⁷ 14:25, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks for responding. I see you've been on the receiving end during the PIRA "discussion". I don't blame you for backing out. It really is a "no win" situation. Thanks anyway. Cromwellian Conquest (talk) 14:49, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Last question. Is it possible to get a neutral admin to look at this. It appears that Öomie is somewhat biased in this matter - even going so far as offering to raise a complaint about my username on behalf of the user (Tfz) I orginally complaind about. Thanks Cromwellian Conquest (talk) 15:20, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ignore him. "Bias" does not mean "Disagrees with me". I have no real opinion on the topic in question. I take issue with your CONDUCT. --King Öomie 15:27, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The question was not directed at you, however - i though you took issue with my USERNAME ???? Cromwellian Conquest (talk) 16:10, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can it be both? Because it's both. Stop trying to catch me in a lie, and stop posting here, because Nja isn't interested. --King Öomie 19:37, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that I'm not interested, it's just that I refuse to get involved in the dispute again as it's not worth it. If you're having troubles with users' I'd take it to WP:ANI as the issue was just there and maybe then fresh admin eyes would be directed there. Nja²⁴⁷ 08:59, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Check out the IRC guidelines at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC/wikipedia-en-admins/Guidelines and see if that looks like a route for you to follow. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:22, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, sorry, I see from the userlist you already know about that venue. Didn't mean to give useless advice... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:28, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see from this you feel that a sock is at play, are you talking about the PIRA article? If so is Cromwellian Conquest not a block evading sock it is clear that this editor is the IP address that is I think currently blocked, not sure though as no time limit was stated in the block here by Toddst1. BigDunc 13:15, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately it seems likely a full sock investigation will be in order to determine who's doing what. Nja²⁴⁷ 15:10, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, leave that up to you so. BigDunc 15:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yea seems two socks at play, possibly the one you mention and possibly another more recent one. I'm seeking some comment from other admins first, but it does seem investigation and lengthy and/or indef blocks are in order as socking on an article's talk page is not only sad, but it won't be tolerated. The last thing needed is more drama to disrupt any hope to sort the ongoing saga of one sentence in the lead at that article. Nja²⁴⁷ 15:27, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per this, shouldn't this editor be indef-blocked? He's only on a one-week civility block by me which expires tomorrow. Meanwhile, he's contacted me on my Talk page and I don't feel inclined to unblock him given the SPI case. Rodhullandemu 17:02, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say so. Done. Cheers, Nja²⁴⁷ 18:07, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll block his latest sock. Rodhullandemu 18:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are mentioned here BigDunc 21:05, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunate we should meet again so soon after you questioned an edit of mine in error. But it appears you do make a few errors! Could I ask you, for the sake of the project, to resign your Admin powers in the light of the harsh judgments made regarding you behaviour at ANI? Thanks. Sarah777 (talk) 01:32, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What judgements? I in no way used my admin tools, but as I noted to you there's a procedure should you wish to complain. I understand you lot stick together, but please get ahold of yourself. Don't you recall how I assisted you? Thanks for the return of that assistance and good faith. Nja²⁴⁷ 06:52, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"You lot" would be who? While I am indeed grateful for any assistance rendered the gratitude would never extend to ignoring Admin abuse against an editor I know well (on Wiki). As for the "procedure" that remains an option if a sense of realisation regarding the propriety of your actions is not manifest fairly soon. Sarah777 (talk) 08:21, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah, you can do as you please anywhere else, but I ask that you no longer post here on my talk page please. Thank you. Nja²⁴⁷ 08:49, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

tried a goodfaith attempt at saving an article from deletion. author is being very uncivil. gave 2 uw-attack warnings already. he now left note on my talkpage, calling me a libeler. see edit history user's page Thank you Seb az86556 (talk) 08:25, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Issue is being addressed already. thanks. Seb az86556 (talk) 09:16, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have opened a general discussion regarding username blocks at WP:AN#Username blocks. Cheers, seicer | talk | contribs 22:11, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Nja247. I just wanted to apologize for not responding to your request for assistance regarding sockpuppetry last week. Your email reached me as I was traveling, and I did not have email access until my return home this weekend. What I would have told you then, is that there is very little chance that Domer was sockpuppeteering, that is just not his style. I regret that, in the absence of that information, the subsequent request spiraled into anger, in turn resulting in blocks.

This is part of the reason that I have bowed out of most administrative duties on Wikipedia - I simply can't make the commitment that is required to deal with fast moving developments at the moment (I'm in the process of co-ordinating a transcontinental move). Best. Rockpocket 02:30, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh it's fine, don't apologise for being on holiday! I've decided to pull myself completely from that dispute and any dispute that involves that certain set of editors. Good luck with the move and thanks for the response. Cheers, Nja²⁴⁷ 05:28, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I demand an apology and to be unblocked. You are obviously a friend of commodore sloats whom he contacted directly. I had already reported him to all the proper messageboards and when he told you directly that he was editing for the third time you did not block him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.7.16.100 (talk) 19:18, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anything quite as rude as demanding an apology?

No, but seriously, you were blocked for evading a ban. Which you're doing now. --King Öomie 19:26, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad that you stopped User alchaemia from what he was doing on that template. It was a rough ride to establish consensus there and now he came to the template out of nowhere and started to change things to satisfy his agenda. It was completely unwelcome but we tried to direct him in the most civil manner to the talk page but he kept on reverting and posting bitter comments like how it's only two users who agreed on something 5 days ago etc. I just also warned him for canvassing after he invited some completely unrelated users to come and post a vote but considering he is blocked for reverts he will not be able to canvass either. He is also not very good with English and becomes aggravated if doesn't understand what people write to him. He also thinks that mirroring what is written to him back at the user who wrote (like a warning) is some kind of an argument.--Avala (talk) 21:30, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd take note of this, as it applies to you as well. Essentially, sort it now to avoid further issues or long term protection. Cheers. Nja²⁴⁷ 21:34, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would like some suggestions from you as an admin. How do you sort out an issue with a user who is stubborn enough to get blocked rather than to go to the talk page even after being directed there ten times and told that there is a consensus he is breaching or who writes warnings back no matter how absurd it is? I mean I am open for discussing issues but it's tough to do it with a wall. His English might not be the best but canvassing is against the rules as much as reverting without stopping is. Those users he invites can only sign themselves but that is not an argument just a shallow number.--Avala (talk) 21:37, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nja, thank you for the block, it was honestly warranted. I don't know whether you had time to review the brief tête à tête on our talks but I would hope that demonstrates just how impossible it is to debate with this user. That exchange was the first I had with Alchaemia, there is no history of bad blood between us. They arrive at predetermined decisions, and are unable to argue to support them. Their actions are sheer disruption and nothing more. After our exchange 'incivility' has become the buzzword of this almost-vandal, they are now calling everything from me to Avala to the template incivil. Their actions are the definition of juvenile. It's a shame there isn't some sort of block the lifting of which would be contingent on a Wiki-version of a driving test. I would be curious where you envision us getting with them on the template, no matter if we get the entire ArbCom on our side. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 21:43, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say if discussion is failing, then consider getting more uninvolved eyes on it by making a note of the situation at the relevant noticeboard. Nja²⁴⁷ 21:54, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That might be an option but it takes a lot of time so it can't work in urgent matters like edit wars and would require the other user to accept the dispute resolution process. The way things are at the moment he is only pressing the revert button and canvassing thinking that if the edit war fails then surely vote stacking will work. The first thing he needs to do is to stop reverting and then present his case in a civil manner on a talk page using arguments not insults and original claims and finally he needs to accept that he is fighting a strong consensus and that he will probably have a hard time changing it so he shouldn't go ballistic if he doesn't get the desired outcome.--Avala (talk) 21:59, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From my review of the user's edits, along with my discussion with them, I do not think it's a severe matter at this point. He got upset and civility broke down all around and it's time to take a second to cool down and focus on working out the dispute. I think if he were addressed in a calm manner that he would likely be much more cooperative. He can't edit war now due to the block, so do consider taking time now to talk with them to avoid further issues. If you're unable to then take it to a noticeboard like I suggested. He knows not to edit war and I believe he will be more careful in the future. It takes all sides to work this out, and discussion (not blocks or drama) is the way forward. Nja²⁴⁷ 22:11, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It will be difficult considering his "do not leave messages in my talk page" and his characterization of my warning to which I am perfectly entitled to if I notice disruptive behaviour, and I am even obliged to first warn before taking it to the ANI, as stalking. However I am not going to give up, I will try to civilly explain to him everything but I am posting this here just to inform you how things are going.--Avala (talk) 10:19, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alchaemia: Any "warning" from you to me is essentially false, and I'm not changing any behavior based on your "suggestions." I could be sticking templates all over your talk page too, but without solid proof it's just stalking. Sigh. Any suggestions?--Avala (talk) 11:43, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A user can in fact ask you not to post, and it's best practice not to if asked. I think you all should try to relax and step back for a while. Otherwise, you seem aware of policy and noticeboards and can likely escalate as needed, though I do think that is completely avoidable. Nja²⁴⁷ 18:25, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure but then don't hope for any dispute resolution at all because there will be no discussion with this user and without discussion nothing will change. I think I've shown a lot of good will to solve this problem but that can't be said about other parties so any blame for the future troubles is not to fall on me. However I am still puzzled with this circle - per rules I must first warn the user before going to admins and I must first discuss an issue with him before going to other instances of resolving disputes, but how am I going to complete the first step if the user has the right to forbid me to talk to him? Will I be bounced back and forth - admins will tell me to first post on his talk page before I can ask for their help and then he will tell me I can't post there and then admins will tell me that he can in fact do that and then I would ask them to react but they would say that I first need to post on his talk page and... and like that round and round? --Avala (talk) 12:14, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well the dispute should be addressed on the article's/template's talk page, or if you go ahead and post the problem to a relevant noticeboard then discussion can take place there. Nja²⁴⁷ 18:08, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to bother you, but I would like to ask which page was vandalised by this IP. There are 4 people that uses this IP and I nedd to find out who's the vandal. Any links to which and when page was vandalised would be appreciated. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moronical (talk • contribs) 14:31, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because you're logged in, we can't see what IP you're using, so if you could link to the talkpage with the warnings on it, we'll be able to backtrack and let you know. --King Öomie 14:38, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To refactor another editors talk page? [[24]] I have left a lvl 1 warning on this page for refactoring another users talk page that was clarly not vandalism. I have since been told that because I have a colorful history it is an invalid warning. I would like to have a few admin go and comment one way or another to this as I believe my actions were not only appropriate but very moderated. Thank You.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 10:08, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, a user can remove a warning from their own talk page if they choose. Essentially the action of removing it signifies that the warning was read and therefore it 'counts' if it's a valid warning if warranted. I won't comment on whether it was warranted or not, but I do hope I've answered your initial query. Cheers, Nja²⁴⁷ 10:14, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the issue is a different user removed it because they disagreed.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 10:15, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I missed that. You didn't link to the page that happened on did you? Anyhow, without knowing the details, generally that would not be the best way to go about things, unless they had good cause to think you're vandalising the user's page. Nja²⁴⁷ 10:19, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The links to the discussions invovled is.....[[25]] my page, discussion on The offending users page [[26]], and the reason for it all [[27]]. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 10:25, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, read through it all, and while her reply on her own talk page may not have been the best to de-escalate the tension, I do think she in a round-about way apoligised on your talk page. Honestly it's best to just move on at this point mate. Nja²⁴⁷ 10:32, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha, it not the lack of apology or implied as you put it. It's the fact that somehow my opinion is less then hers in someway because of a colorful history. The offense of refactoring talk pages is minor but a viewpoint like that especially from an Admin is detrimental to us all. That is my only issue with the situation.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 10:36, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The user threatened to revert the article[28] and I warned them with the 3RR[29] but they reverted anyway[30](which has/uses incorrect information). The user has also resorted into personal attacks[31][32][33]. Bidgee (talk) 14:20, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had seen your warn and their removal, which is something they are allowed to do. Getting personal on the other hand is not, but at this time, all things considered, a mutual warning is what I feel to be best, as you too had edit warred. Saying that, should they continue to edit war or issue attacks after my message, then please let me know and I will act upon my warning and block as appropriate to prevent further disruption. Cheers, Nja²⁴⁷ 14:24, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But what about the incorrect information which is clearly sticking out like dogs balls (an Aussie expression for some thing sticking out like the light of day). Really isn't any good to have articles that have information that conflicting information. I've pointed out some articles (one of the diffs above shows some) such as Articles that use Urban/Locality is Torquay, Victoria, Albany, Western Australia, Carnarvon, Western Australia, Goulburn, New South Wales, Calen, Queensland. Also ROxBo breached the 3RR and I almost (I did revert vandalism during the day so your warning to me was uncalled for). I'm not seeing very little point in sharing my researching and correcting articles if very little intervention is going to happen but to let an editor go even after warning them about assuming good faith and personal attacks just makes me want to leave this encyclopaedia even after the promises made to fellow editors here. Bidgee (talk) 14:34, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See the protection policy and consider requesting page protection. If granted, use the time the article is protected to chat on the talk page and try to seek some type of consensus. Should the fail, there's dispute resolution. This is something you have to sort out together, otherwise a block would be ineffective as the issue would just pick right back up once they're unblocked. Even if the page isn't protected, a civil conversation on the talk page working towards consensus is ideal. If there's evidence that you're doing things correctly, ie trying to get consensus on the talk page and they go on reverting, then an admin will know who's not being cooperative and who's to be blocked. Nja²⁴⁷ 14:40, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again you have failed to answer my question on the incorrect information. Have you looked at the figures in the infobox and article the editor added? The editor is unwilling to lession and keeps moving my comments in the article's talk page (Now my comments are not in the places I was replying to). Really I couldn't give a ____ about this Wiki as of now as it seems that I'm just waiting my time correcting and citing information only to have editors add incorrect information. I've kept my cool for long enough and really saddened to see the lack of actions by the Administration. Bidgee (talk) 14:54, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's because it's not my dispute. Editors are meant to sort disputes amongst themselves. I've already explained what I'd do if I were you, ie try to discuss and report if they avoid discussion and continue to revert. At this point there's nothing for an admin to action. Nja²⁴⁷ 15:16, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I deny my comments add up to "personal attacks". And engaged in plenty of discussion on the talk page. Bidgee persisted with edit waring, and subsquently made 3 reverts edits on the article's talk page. However I do not think, for now, further action is required. As for the article, I think time and more editors will settle it down. CheersROxBo (talk) 15:57, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, but what's this about? I do hope it wasn't just to antagonise an already clearly upset editor. Nja²⁴⁷ 20:01, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. ROxBo (talk) 17:08, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]