User talk:NJA

The admins' T-shirt. Acalamari 20:16, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Regarding User:Lazor poop UAA report

Un-collapse to view preserved discussion

Hi, I'm just curious as to why you removed my UAA report of UAA:Lazor poop as non-blatant. Granted, I realize he/she hadn't made any contributions, but it is still a blatant violation of WP:U, many editors (myself included) find having a scat term such as poop or shit in a username to be offensive and distracting, and usual practice has been to block newly created accounts that include the term poop. Thanks! -Senseless!... says you, says me 16:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC) Templated. Could be a good faith contributor, best to just uw unless it is blatantly an account name that is intended to be disruptive (as opposed to just being a new user which is unfamiliar with WP:IU). — neuro(talk)(review) 19:02, 1 April 2009 (UTC) Saying "usual practice" implies no admin discretion, and I'm not of the view that poop itself is offensive. If the user is editing in good faith there is no violation to me. And if there's no edits then we should assume good faith unless a blatant violation. Granted poop may imply an intention to be disruptive, but it's in no way offensive and I'm not 'welcoming' them to Wikipedia with a block without evidence they're actually going to be disruptive. The term poop in a user name is not the same as shit would be. Nja247 19:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC) Fair enough, I figured it was sysop discretion... though I disagree that a block with a polite request to create a new account in this instance would be bitey. There is a violation of WP:U if enough users find the username offensive or disruptive. -Senseless!... says you, says me 19:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC) Do you believe it would be a good thing that any user should be blocked simply because it's possible that enough people (who may be overly sensitive) could find it to be offensive -- even though there's no evidence that they will disrupt Wikipedia? I understand it could be accompanied by a 'polite request', but truly how polite and welcoming is it to be blocked? It's better to do as neuro has and template the user and if you're really concerned watch their edits for actual disruption and then report as then there's no question of whether there's an offence and further they've demonstrated they're not going to be acting in good faith. Note I'd agree with you if the word was indeed shit. Nja247 20:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC) Almost every other example I've seen of a user with "poop" in their username was blocked on sight, regardless of whether they were acting in good faith or being disruptive. My understanding was that consensus viewed "poop" as offensive, and if that isn't the case anymore, I'm sorry for bringing this up and now I know. Regardless, its done now, lets see if anything comes of the UW tag. -Senseless!... says you, says me 20:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Special Barnstar
		Many thanks for contributing to, and keeping an eye on, several articles related to CFLs. Johnfos (talk) 11:06, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Karmaisking

I admit to occasional outbursts of frustration in dealing with the dozens of sock puppets routinely created by this permanently and multiply-banned user. But I can't say I find your suggestion of dispute resolution helpful. In what sense is there a dispute over the proposition that banned users aren't permitted to edit Wikipedia? JQ (talk) 08:01, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:SPI is the proper place for suspected socks, not edit summaries or talk pages. Outbursts will not solve the problem, rather reports to the proper forum. When you feel too frustrated it's a good idea to walk away and take a little break. That's what I do! Cheers. Nja²⁴⁷ 08:05, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I went to WP:SPI and got nowhere. By the time they even got around to filing the report, six more socks had been created and banned by admins with a more flexible view. Semi-protection is the only measure that has had any effect at all, but apparently that's out too. JQ (talk) 08:10, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protection is suited against high levels of vandalism, but not that by a single user. In that case we need to block that individual, not the entire world from editing. It's really not too difficult to press the undo button and report issues as they appear. Nja²⁴⁷ 08:16, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

If you go back to the start of this, I anticipated responses like yours and asked admins to look at the dozens of socks created by this persistent troll. He has been permanently blocked for well over a year, to no avail, and will edit-war continuously, creating new socks as needed, until the article in question is semi-protected. Your advice to undo is totally ineffectual, and leads to accusations under 3RR. Can I ask you to confirm that you've reviewed at least a sample of his sock edits before jumping to conclusions on this matter? JQ (talk) 11:04, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

As a further minor note, the IP editor with the most recent edit to John Maynard Keynes is almost certainly KiK, taking advantage of your decision against semi-protection (several IP socks with the same top-level IP have been blocked already). JQ (talk) 11:19, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

So that is my fault? It's not difficult to undo, report and block. Protecting a page just for one person is not the best way to handle this. Nja²⁴⁷ 11:41, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm bowing out at this point. Perhaps, as a gesture of goodwill, you might handle the "undo report and block", at least for this article. I've done this a few hundred times already. JQ (talk) 11:46, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Note: Any sysops who plan to jump in, or who believe that the page should be protected against one user, please by all means go for it as I won't be offended or consider it a wheel war. -- Nja²⁴⁷ 11:51, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello

You left me a message just now, however i'm not edit warring I'm trying to avoid an edit war by requesting help against vandalism and WP violations. Sorry for the misunderstanding. Please see my last few contributions. Greater Syria (talk) 08:02, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

If you truly wish to avoid an edit war then you should attempt a consensus on the article's talk page, which sadly was completely devoid of any discussion on this issue until my warning. Nja²⁴⁷ 08:08, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Building a concensus on the talk page doesn't protect against edit wars. Someone always just comes along and starts one. I have spent a lot of my time seeking out and adding reliable sources which are being deleted without any good reason. I expected more support from fellow wikipedians in a situation like this. Greater Syria (talk) 08:13, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Consensus is the whole basis on which things work mate. The fact that the article's talk page had nothing from you about this issue until my warning shows that you may have been going about it the wrong way. If you discuss the proposed changes first then there won't be anyone coming along and deleting it without an good reason because it will have been agreed upon. You have my support if you're going about it the right way, which you were not up until now. Nja²⁴⁷ 08:19, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

If a concensus is not based on facts then it's not valid, see WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. If statements can be reliably sourced then they are valid, see WP:RELIABLE. I don't agree that I have gone about things in the wrong way as I have sought dispute resolution [1], used the talk page [2], and i'm following wikipolicy. Greater Syria (talk) 08:37, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why you're preaching to me as I'm not in the content dispute with you. And yes it's a content dispute which must be addressed on the talk page, failure of which is an edit war that will get you blocked. Further, whilst I'm glad you're now using the talk page, the one post today after I warned you to do so is not a very illustrative example. Cheers. Nja²⁴⁷ 08:51, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

JQ and Keynes

Hi Nja! I'm a bit concerned about your handling of the RPP by JQ. Your decision not to semi is a matter of personal weighting - the rate of edits is not currently very high, but if you look carefully, you will see that there is indeed a pattern of a whole cloud of SPA socks pushing a POV over and over again. With this background, the warning you gave to User:John Quiggin is a bit over the line. He actually knows something about this topic, and about what he is doing. If his patience with the endless stream of socks wears thin, who can blame him? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:57, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry, but there is nothing over the line with my note that blanking pages and calling others a troll is disruptive. I've explained above how this situation would be best handled, and his actions whether out of frustration or not are particularly troublesome as he's not new here. Sometimes people need to know when to walk away to cool down instead of making the situation worse. Regardless I respect your opinion, but there's really no excuse for those examples of behaviour and he was entitled to a notice that further examples of that type of behaviour could lead to him being blocked for disruption. Nja²⁴⁷ 10:38, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

"Others" in this case being a cloud of socks that actually do troll. Conflict resolution can work between established users, but it cannot work between a user and an cloud of socks. As far as I can tell, CR has run its course, and the sockmaster has been blocked. What now needs doing is effective enforcement of the result of the CR process. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:00, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Nja²⁴⁷ 11:41, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I'ld like to back Stephen up here. KiK is a very persistent and rude troll, with a long history and an extensive collection of socks. He has repeatedly insulted various long term contributors. I agree that JQ's actions are a little over the line, but you should consider that KiK has repeatedly insulted many of us, and that tempers have sometimes gotten a bit frayed. LK (talk) 11:21, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I understand how frustrating things can get, which is why I said all along that sometimes you need to just step back and relax and press the undo button and file proper reports where needed. Overall you need to have a thick skin and try not stoop down to their level. I hope we can all just please move on now as I'd like to begin my Easter holiday soon ;-) Nja²⁴⁷ 11:41, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Just to note that it was filing reports in (what I thought was) the proper place that got me into trouble with you. I won't try that again in a hurry. JQ (talk) 12:04, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be getting irritated with me because of a decision which was mine to make. I've given my reasoning for the decision, which you're free to disagree with. You're not in trouble with anyone, but I felt you deserved to be told that certain disruptive behaviour regardless of how frustrated you are could get you in trouble. My note on your talk page had nothing to do with your actual report, but your past behaviour. You shouldn't be discouraged or feel victimised because of this or due to my decision that page protection was not the answer to the problem. I have mentioned what I felt to be the most appropriate ways to deal with issue and therefore I won't bore anyone by rehashing. -- Nja²⁴⁷ 12:20, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi, just want to let you know that we're not trying to second guess your decision on page protection. As you rightly point out, it's your prerogative, and we accept it. I left a message because I didn't want you to go away with the impression that JQ had been unfairly persecuting KiK. KiK is prolific, and rather than read through everything to identify good vs bad edits (which often have personal insults mixed in as well), a group of us have just been blanket reverting his edits whenever another sock is identified. Also want to say thanks for your admin work, which I know is a hard and thankless job. LK (talk) 11:31, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

You little sweet talker. Teacher's pet. - 122.104.54.45 (talk) 11:57, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Copyvio

The article is a copyright violation from its very first edit, and whinging about 'good faith' is utterly immaterial. Copyright violations are deleted, full stop, and sparing your feelings and/or undergoing pointless--and, in fact, incorrect--processes doesn't enter into it. The tag is correct--indeed, required--so discussion is pointless and your 'warning' utterly misplaced. Strive to do better in future, please.

Also, I have no intention of watch-listing other people's pages, so if you have a reply, you'll have to actually leave it where it can be read. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 15:13, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Your absolute disregard of bed-rock rules of Wikipedia and copyright law and of ordinary rules of discourse and courtesy are not merely saddening but actively worrying. Reverting an edit has nothing to do with and says nothing what-so-ever about faith--good or bad--especially corrections of mistakes regarding objective and clear-cut criteria. Your leaning upon claims of 'good faith' as a defence against being reverted for doing something that is wrong is not only utterly irrelevant but intellectually dishonest. If you view having your obvious mistakes reverted as some sort of attack upon yourself, perhaps you should either cease making those mistakes to avoid being disappointed or learn to deal with correction: meaningless claims regarding 'good faith' offers not the slightest immunity from scrutiny nor correction. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 22:49, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

3RR report

Could you please explain why you think that there was no vio in the report I posted? Thanks, Mitsube (talk) 17:51, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Whilst there were edits, there weren't three reverts in an edit war within 24 hours. Overall you and the other user need to discuss the content dispute so as to not disrupt Wikipedia. Blocks are meant to prevent disruption, not to be punitive (see our blocking policy. I've spoke with the user you've reported, and they seem keen to discuss the issues, and I hope you'll do the same. Cheers. -- Nja²⁴⁷ 18:07, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Which one of the four wasn't a revert? Mitsube (talk) 18:37, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Again I spoke to the user who said they wish to work out the content dispute, which you are part of and therefore you should also work with them to resolve. Your time would be better used doing that rather than trying to argue to me that someone deserves a 12 or 24 hour block for an alleged 3RR violation that would have happened many hours ago. Blocks are not meant to be punitive and the user is currently not a threat to warrant a block to prevent disruption. Nja²⁴⁷ 18:47, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes he is, unfortunately. Having ignored your warning, he is edit-warring now, despite the fact that there has been a consensus achieved that his sources at not acceptable at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Users_Emptymountains_and_Truthbody. Mitsube (talk) 02:10, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

ColourWolf Socks

Here's the edits 218.186.8.246 made, compared with edits this user made. Elemental of Truth has been proven as a ColourWolf vandal before. The only difference between the two edits is the absence of a link to a website, operated by ColourWolf (the website has been taken off the net as of late).

Hope this is enough proof. Arbiteroftruth ^{Plead Your Case} 19:10, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Again for Your Help

I wanted to thank you again for your efforts to settle the OS X debate. I am sorry that 1) I lost my cool with everyone else on that discussion page, and 2) that I kind of dropped out of the discussion half way through. I had been traveling for work and was without internet access.

I really appreciate your efforts, but sadly, I think the whole experience has really turned me off to the whole idea of wikipedia. I still intend to use it as a reference tool, but I don't think I'll be contributing anymore.

Thanks again for your help, and keep up the good work!

ZooCrewMan (talk) 03:08, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Happy Easter!

On behalf of the Kindness campaign, I just wanted to wish my fellow Wikipedians a Happy Easter! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 07:49, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Question about page deletion

Dear Nja247,

re: 11:45, 5 April 2009 Nja247 (talk | contribs) deleted "Megan Olson" ‎ (G12: Blatant copyright infringement: Also A7)

Greetings, I'm writing on behalf of the american artist Megan Olson (www.meganolson.com). Ms. Olson came across her wiki page in a recent gooogle search. She has not ever created a Wikipedia page, and is curious if you can let us know who created the page and what it contained? If there is a way for us to view the originally submitted content, and if you have any information about who created the page, we would be grateful if you could forward us any info you have.

Thanks and best wishes, DArchuletta (talk) 09:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

There isn't really much to report, except that the info in the deleted Wikipedia article was extracted from http://davidsoncontemporary.com/artists/grid.php?a=5&n=Olson -- Cheers. Nja²⁴⁷ 08:37, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Law Society page

Dear nja247, I am rather disappointed to see that you have deleted the list of Presidents of the Law Society that I worked on last night for Wikipedia. There are certainly other examples of lists of members of particular societies on Wikipedia (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Fellows_of_the_Royal_Society) and many Presidents of the Law Society are certainly 'notable' people and some already have biographies in Wikipedia. Can we have a discussion about this? I could setup a different page that was the list of Presidents that would not make the main Law Society page so long (I realise that visually I did not lay this out very well). Best regards, Dr Gavin Thomas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GavinThomas (talk • contribs) 09:14, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Gavin, I will certainly work with you on this. I know you did work on the list and I personally know how it feels to have stuffed removed from articles, although I assure you that I did not do so for an arbitrary reason. The issue is Wikipedia's guidelines on notability. It's an encyclopaedia, not a directory and/or repository of information (see what Wikipedia is not). The example you gave exists (admittedly by a thread) due to notability guidelines being marginally met, though I think even that list needs some attention. Anyhow if notability guidelines could be met here then it could be re-added, though I'd think by use of a well drafted table rather than a long list of names. Regardless I'm unsure how past president's of the Law Society are really going to be notable enough for inclusion into an encyclopaedia. This is not to say that a particular president individually may be notable for something extraordinary that they've done, which means they could be added. However the lot of them as was done is unlikely to meet the guideline. Nja²⁴⁷ 12:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

You answer on WP:ANI

You seem to have misunderstood the nature of my post. Could you have another look at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#Wikiaddict8962_reported_by_Debresser_.28Result:_No_vio_.29. I don't know if that makes any factual difference, though. That's up to you. Thank you. Debresser (talk) 11:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

No mistake, there was not a 3RR violation. I've given sufficient direction to the other user and hopefully now things will be sorted. Nja²⁴⁷ 11:05, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Indeed no 3RR violation. But an edit war there was (as you indicated yourself in your warning to User:Wikiaddict8962). Shouldn't the "result" parameter reflect this? At the moment it reads only "No vio" which seems to implicate that nothing untoward has been detected. Debresser (talk) 13:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I've updated the result to reflect what happened. Thanks. Nja²⁴⁷ 13:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your curteous and quick reply. Debresser (talk) 13:25, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Quick note on RfA

I recently added a discussion re: Goodmorningworld's neutral !vote. I encourage you if you have time to read that discussion, and Goodmorningworld's own additions to his commentary. Thanks. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:39, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Ladysybilla block

I'm wondering if you would consider an unblock of User talk:Ladysybilla to allow a chance to at least make their argument before the article is deleted. I'm confident that it's not likely to find any WP:RS and will likely be deleted but those edits were not the most horrible thing we've had. If the promotional conduct continues afterwards, then a reblock can be done. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:24, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Especially following this comment. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:23, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't have considered this due to the clear guidance found in the username policy, however the latter comment gives me confidence that they are aware of policy and are unlikely to disrupt Wikipedia. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Nja²⁴⁷ 07:34, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

GrandpaTroll

It couldn't be possible that it was referring to a troll in gaming? (As he edited a gaming article.) -- Mentifisto 19:19, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes I thought about that, but overall the edits were pushing a specific gaming site and thus in my view disruptive to Wikipedia. However I'm completely fine if you have an alternate view and wish to revise things. Cheers. Nja²⁴⁷ 19:21, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually what I meant is that the edits seemed to be pushing the organisation the article is about, in particular implying affiliation with it personally. For example here 'our members' 'our community' 'we', etc. Nja²⁴⁷ 19:30, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I understand... it was borderline to me, so I don't usually do anything in such cases... -- Mentifisto 19:38, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

The Riversider

Hi there! For your information, I tagged this as G3 and not A7 because it is a copy-paste of Gandhi's biography, in other words a blatant hoax. That's my opinion, anyway. decltype (talk) 20:15, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Saint Thomas Aquinas High School (Fort Lauderdale) & Gerard Schaefer

I added Gerard Schaefer back to the page, and added a link to back up my claim.

Please let me know if this is acceptable to you.

Template:Allmovie title/doc

Hello, NJA …

Thnx fer the administrative cleanup of this doc page … I'd forgotten that it was still on my watchlist until it went redlink. :-)

FYI, please note this user talk about Template:Allmovie … {{Allmovie title}} has been redirected to {{Amg movie}} … I made matching documentation for the companion template, {{Amg name}}, and then I Moved On!

Happy Editing! — 138.88.91.205 (talk · contribs) _{00:15, 20 April 2009 (UTC)}