Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Factuarius (talk | contribs) at 21:40, 8 February 2010. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome to NJA's talk page! Please click here to leave me a new message.	01 • 02 • 03 • 04 • 05 06 • 07 • 08 • 09 • 10 • 11 • 12

David Tweed

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

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

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

Please help

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

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

Deletion of QCC Information Security.

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

Kind regards,

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

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

Your full protection of Kundalini yoga

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

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

Sock

Hello, Nja. Please, see this

User_talk:Tbsdy_lives#Human_Rights_Believer_.28II_appearance.29

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

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

Hi!

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

Michael Jackson album discography

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

UAA

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

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

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

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

CDA

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

Academic thesis as reliable source?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

KittyBot adding wrong category?

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

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

Participation at my RfA

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

?

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