User talk:Nyttend

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
"You have new messages" was designed for a purpose: letting people know you have replied to them. I do not watch your talk page and I will likely IGNORE your reply if it is not copied to my page, as I will not be aware that you replied! Thank you.

Bragging about what you ignore[edit]

When people are blocked—even for a day or two—inaccurate system messages often say that they can post to others' talk pages when, in fact, they can only post to their OWN talk page. If you, as you so proudly advertise, refuse to condescend to visit others' talk pages, then how can people raise their concerns and have them addressed? That seems rather short-sighted to me . . .

50.128.184.140 (talk) 21:36, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

See [1]; I perform plenty of blocks and don't have time to go around to all of them every few hours. Meanwhile, see Wikipedia:Notifications. Imagine that you write something on your user talk page; if you include a link to my username, and if you sign the post, I'll get something telling me what you did. This feature isn't affected by blocks; I believe that notifications work just as well for things written by IPs as by things written by logged-in users. Finally, when you're blocked, the normal course of things is either to accept the block or to appeal to an uninvolved administrator with the {{unblock}} template. If you want my attention, you can let me know, but you're generally better off working with an uninvolved administrator. Nyttend (talk) 21:42, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
I wasn't going to comment on this, but I think I take exception to your statement that you "perform plenty of blocks and dont have time to go around to them every few hours". It has always been my impression that a good admin hands out blocks sparingly, and then they monitor unblock requests. In essence, if you are going to block, then - in all but the most trollish cases - you need to clear your schedule to make the time to answer unblock requests. If you don't have the time, ask someone else to block. Not saying that that was the case with me or Darkfrog24 (to the contrary; you responded quite quickly), but that is a bad statement in support of a bad attitude, and you will garner more than the usual amount of admin headaches if you treat your personal blocking schedule in such a way. I know having the mop is difficult, but you knew that before accepting the position.
Lastly, what template was I supposed to use to contact you on my talk page? Apparently, the one I used was incorrect. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:39, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Did you look at the link I gave to my blocks-performed log? Most blocks I levy are for vandals and spammers; we have no reason to be sparing with someone who replaces pages with obscenities or does nothing but userpage advertising. Can you imagine how much time it would take to go visit all of their talk pages with any frequency? I respond rapidly when people let me know with a notification or when someone else lets me know that the person I blocked is requesting unblock. Please check the IP who left this comment, by the way; both at his talk page and elsewhere, the guy's screaming at everyone who comes along, so it would help if you didn't go along with it. Finally, you didn't link my username correctly from the software's point of view: you have to add a link to my userpage and a link to yours in the same edit; if you simply add a link to mine without adding a link to yours, as you did here, the software won't know what you're doing. Nyttend (talk) 01:58, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
The examples you presented fall within my caveat of "most trollish cases". I know admins spend a lot of their time with the worst examples of internet humanity (I watchlist the ANI page) I am suggesting that it can build an auto response to anyone apparently doing anything wrong to block first and ask questions later. Blocking participants in an edit war - without knowing what's going on - does no one any good. In the situation between DF and myself, both were coming from a position where we both thought we were following policy. What we didn't have - and desperately needed - was some input as to which view was the correct one. It is a need that has yet to be met. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:54, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
So...why do you attack me for a response I made to a most trollish case? Meanwhile, all that's needed is verification that neither participant in an edit war is removing copyvios, reverting blatant vandalism, etc. I considered protecting the page, but I then remembered that we normally don't protect a page because of an edit war of just two individuals, due to its effect on non-warring editors; it does everyone else good to block a pair of editors who have been edit-warring for a week, and I will not inconvenience other editors for the sake of your block log. Nyttend (talk) 12:56, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
I am sorry that you feel I am attacking you; perhaps consider that I felt precisely the way you do now when you blocked me for actually preserving out sourcing policy. The idea of painting me as an edit-warrior when I was the one to exhaust every avenue of dispiute resolution before finally submitting a complaint to the admin noticeboard. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:32, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
You have demonstrated to me how wrong I was to unblock you; your article dispute doesn't play into anything here, since the only relevant thing here was the edit-warring of which both of you were quite guilty, and of which you currently deem worthy of defending. Meanwhile, I suggest that the preceding be your last word here because of your non-apology apology; if you continue anyway, either I'll ignore you, report you, or simply point and laugh, or I'll simply delete it and seek your block. Nyttend (talk) 19:46, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
This will be my last post, as you appear unwilling to discuss the matter further. I have already admitted that I was wrong to participate in the back and forth. Repeatedly. What I have been stating is that admin assistance before the disagreement escalated into the edit-war would have been so much more beneficial than a swift block without knowing the background. The edit-war wasn't "the only relevant thing"; the important thing was to understand how or why it had initiated to prevent it from recurring, Blocking is meant as protective, not punitive. If you don't solve the problem, you are only delaying further problems. And allow me to be perfectly clear: I will not be a part of that problem, as I will not be participating in any further edit-warring. The failure to address the problem will end up spreading to other articles. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 13:54, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Heads up[edit]

We edit-conflicted here as I was unblocking. Remember, "Bob at Chevrolet" is an acceptable username, so is "Vorobieva IQ" if their name is Vorobieva. However, I've dropped {{coiq}} there because there were perhaps some other elements lacking the panda ₯’ 19:04, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm confused[edit]

If you were unaware of the ANI discussion, how did you become aware of our problem at Oathkeeper? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 01:33, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

See this diff; someone mentioned the ANI case in a protection request, but I was unaware of its existence until I saw that request, and I didn't look at until after levying the blocks. Nyttend (talk) 01:47, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Okay, so it was Donlago who colored a legitimate problem as a slapfight between me and Darkfrog24. How…helpful of him. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:20, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Processing MFD's[edit]

Hello Nyttend, regarding some of your recent MFD deletions, first let me say I have no objection to your speedy deletions! It is customary to not !vote and close the same discussion; if you want to speedy delete and XFD, please close it with your speedy deletion comment, that way it is marked done for everyone. An example is here: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Dranthonyalsayed. Thank you, and Happy Editing! — xaosflux Talk 01:40, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Ah, missed that, again no objection to the action; I ran my mop over the page since. If you want to close the MFDs the standard way here is how:
  1. Edit the MFD subpage (the one you were already on)
  2. ABOVE the section header "==Blah Blah" put {{subst:mfdtop|'''Action'''. Your reason. ~~~~}}
  3. At the BOTTOM of the subpage put {{subst:mfdbottom}}
If not, no worries, someone will get them anyway. Cheers, — xaosflux Talk 01:51, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Yup! That includes all of the collapsing code (it will appear open on the mfd subpage, but collapsed on the mfd master page). — xaosflux Talk 02:11, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
I just refactored to the edit notice for the pages to include the directions, take a look here to see it in action (big green bar at top). — xaosflux Talk 11:35, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Copyright Question[edit]

Hello. I am very new at this and I do not even know if I am supposed to be writing here. But you recently deleted the Climate Change in Lebanon page for copyright infringement (G12) because it was copied from a page on this website: climatechange.moe.gov.lb/energy. This website belongs to us, the people writing the page, we are the Climate Change team at the Lebanese Ministry of Environment and UNDP. This is the first time writing on Wikipedia, and we do not know the procedures so much. Could you please guide us to repost the page with the proper referencing? Thank you.

This may be of interest to you[edit]

And editor renominated a file for speedy that you had declined. I uploaded it; he had been the original nominator too. [2]. Thanks, Nyttend! John from Idegon (talk) 07:13, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

About your warning to me on slavic neopaganism[edit]

See my answer at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:195.150.224.186 also read talk page of article and also read history of editing, that ip user attacked me numerous times in past. I started answering in same manner he/she did. Did you warn her/him too? I hope so. 195.150.224.186 (talk) 21:17, 12 July 2014 (UTC) I replied on my talk page. Thank you for contact. I hope we can work together to make wikipedia a better place. Best wishes. 195.150.224.186 (talk) 15:01, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Baroness Emma Orczy by Bassano.jpg[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Baroness Emma Orczy by Bassano.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:02, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Carithers Store Building[edit]

I got the nomination form for the Carithers Store Building today; unfortunately, the building is definitely gone. It was located at 40°21′58″N 90°25′32″W / 40.366096°N 90.4255°W / 40.366096; -90.4255, in what's now the empty space along US 136 in front of the medical building. (The space where the medical building itself is used to be an Odd Fellows building, and wasn't part of the Carithers Store Building's plot.) TheCatalyst31 ReactionCreation 20:06, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

And now the building has an article too. Ironically, the building was considered significant in part for being the last surviving example of its type in the area. I mentioned your photo to support the claim that it's no longer standing, so you may want to prioritize uploading that one once you get to the Illinois photos. TheCatalyst31 ReactionCreation 10:04, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading the photo! TheCatalyst31 ReactionCreation 22:15, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Also that IP is also BCD.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:21, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

AN[edit]

Information icon This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic User:Shuffle 329. Thank you.

Malaysia Airlines Flight 17[edit]

Can you reduce full protection to no more than one or two years? Indefinite time on this article implies a possible breakdown of community in Wikipedia. --George Ho (talk) 23:54, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

And can you add Iran Air Flight 655 to the "See also" section? Supersaiyen312 (talk) 00:02, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Please unprotect this page; the protection is more disruptive than whatever editwarring was occurring. My full request/rationale is on the article talk page. Thanks. 9kat (talk) 00:30, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

  • I would like to know why you full-protected the article, Nyttend. Was it because a few editors were edit-warring? If yes, then the issues should be dealt with by blocking and not full-protection. Judging by the WP:ANI thread, there's consensus not to have it full-protected. I believe you should undo the full-protection and issue individual blocks instead. Heymid (contribs) 08:55, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Undue "edit-warring" warning[edit]

Hi. Posting an edit-warring warning on my talk page 22:15‎, when my last edit was at 10:45 is ludicrous. The ludicrosity is enhanced still when said edit concerned removal of certified WP:FRINGE material. Please refrain from such actions, they are not productive. Thank you. Kleuske (talk) 00:05, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm well aware of what was going on; the problem is that a declaration that something is fringe does not absolve you of the requirement to be neutral or permit you to remove evidence of a different perspective — let alone edit-warring, missing a 3RR violation by just three hours. I cannot remember the last time that I saw "fringe" referenced, except by those seeking an excuse to avoid writing neutrally; this is definitely not such an instance. Nyttend (talk) 00:10, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Not quite sure what that last sentence means... This is an instance where WP:FRINGE is cited and the removal was not neutral or just the opposite? If you think removing the reference to Genemuiden wasn't neutral, please provide a reliable source to indicate any such connection. Kleuske (talk) 00:19, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
For some reason i have a strong sense you have absolutely no clue about what was going on. Kleuske (talk) 00:21, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Kleuske's been edit-warring against multiple users, and protecting right now would have the result of rewarding Kleuske. I've issued a warning for edit-warring and will enforce it with a block if this continues.

Q.E.D.
They are all the same "contributor", either admittedly or they pass the ducktest with flying colors. Rolf1981 is gaming the system an you took the bait hook, line and sinker. Kleuske (talk) 00:30, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
I see three IP addresses: 192.87.139.165 from Amsterdam, 82.157.236.177 from Amsterdam, and 90.20.171.182 from Orléans. Are you saying that all three of them are the same person as Rolf? Nyttend (talk) 00:41, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Either that, or they are meatpuppets all calling themselves Rolf matching him quite closely, taking up discussions where Rolf1981 left off, either here on on nl.wp.
Then there's subject matter:
  • Rolf1981: The Solar Garden, Battle of Berezina, Navalia (en.wp). SC Genemuiden, Edoeard Oespenski, Tsjeboerasjka (nl.wp)
  • 82.157.236.177:Battle of Berezina, The Solar Garden, Navalia (en.wp), SC Genemuiden (signs "Rolf" on the talk page), Tsjeboerasjka, The Solar Garden
  • 90.20.171.182:Edoeard Oespenski, Tsjeboerasjka (nl.wp)
And they're all interested in the same name that occurs once in classical literature and they all want exactly the same fringe theory in the article? The word "proxy" (either open or closed) is familiar to you? Kleuske (talk) 01:27, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Ah, yes... 82.157.236.177 also filed a block request on the dutch wiki, which was subsequently advocated by Rolf1981 (it was found frivolous). In the course of the exchange, Rolf1981 claims: "I'm not always logged in [...]. Where it says Rolf it's me, i assumed that was clear". Here and here he admits the block request by 82.157.236.177 was actually his. Kleuske (talk) 01:43, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Finally, I have extensively argued the case against "Navalia is Genemuiden" on the dutch wikipedia. I am quite prepared to do the same here, if you want, but it seems a waste of time. Kleuske (talk) 01:54, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Update[edit]

I was not the only one who thought it fishy. Dutch CU just confirmed 82.157.236.177, 192.87.139.165 and 84.85.238.54 as Rolf1981 socks, 90.20.171.182 as a "probable" sock. See here. HTH, HAND. Kleuske (talk) 12:28, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Latest: Rolf1981 got blocked indefinately on nl.wiki for sockpuppetry. Kleuske (talk) 15:19, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Administrator Barnstar Hires.png The Admin's Barnstar
Thanks for taking the decision to fully protect the article about the aeroplane crash. I'm glad there are still sysops that are willing to make tough decisions in the face of a mob. RGloucester 05:09, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I would also say that I appreciate the hard work on incorporating edits. It is actually going more smoothly than I had hoped for. All I can conclude is that the real edit warriors have simply gone away, not interested in actual discussion. Reading WP:AN and news links there, it looks like the timing was about perfect. Dennis Brown |  | WER 13:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • +1, notwithstanding my comments on best practices. The time to protect the article was right and you did the right thing in doing so. Protonk (talk) 18:11, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Best Wishes[edit]

My best wishes with your move to Pennsylvania. Thank you for your work with Wikipedia.RFD (talk) 20:03, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

RfA[edit]

Hi. A while ago, you suggested I should be an admin. If you're offering to nominate, I would accept Face-smile.svg. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 02:02, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Paxton First Schoolhouse[edit]

It might be another demolished site, but I checked the photo in HARGIS, and it doesn't match File:Paxton First Schoolhouse.jpg (which looks like a modern house to me). TheCatalyst31 ReactionCreation 07:18, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I suppose that's possible too, though the house in the HARGIS photo looks a bit taller. Either way, the building's aren't recognizably similar, so adding "site of" is probably best. TheCatalyst31 ReactionCreation 19:12, 22 July 2014 (UTC)