User talk:Rjd0060

2007
	Aug 13 – Oct 14; Oct 14 – Nov 11; Nov 12 – Dec 26; Dec 26 – → ;
2008
	← – Feb 28; Feb 29 – May 16; May 16 – Aug 22; Aug 23 – Dec 14; Dec 16 – → ;
2009
	← - Jun 20; Jun 30 - →;
2010-; 2014
	Jul 2010 - Jun 2012; Jul 2012 - Dec 2014 ;
2015
	Jan 2015 - present;

Please leave new messages at the bottom of the page.
I will usually reply to messages left here on this page so check back for a response.

Emily Venter

The page LPK (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LPK) was removed from wikipedia while I was in the process of updating it and providing references. Can you please reinstate and I will complete the requested changes?

The Generation Rescue, et al situation

Resolved

Look, I think all or most of us would be quite happy to leave the situation if OTRS administrators were dealing with it. But so far, all you've actually said is:

That you are aware of it
[In response to proposed restrictions on OTRS volunteers] That this was an isolated incident.

You haven't actually given any indication that, for instance, the OTRS admins have procedures in place for dealing with it, and will do so, or even - and I do think this would be enough - that you have talked to Mdann, and are sure the situation won't arise again.

It's giving the impression that the OTRS admins either have no means in place to deal with volunteer problems, or don't see this sort of behaviour as an issue. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 20:05, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied on the board. Rjd0060 (talk) 00:21, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That should go a long way to calming the situation. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 08:46, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It seems the same OTRS team member has made assertions of "super editor" status on other articles. See Suzannah Lipscomb and the related discussion on BLPN. I think this is further reason for emphasis and clarity at VTR. Just informing you, I reasonably assume the situations with the individual editor are being addressed through OTRS admin. As this involves the same editor I am also going to assume it is not a widespread issue within OTRS, but I believe close scrutiny should be applied in reviewing OTRS team agents edits by appropriate admins, with particular attention to claims of authority and lack disclosure of COI driven edits. I understand the outreach value of OTRS and the volume involved but quantity is not an excuse for policy violation etc. My desire is not to cause extra drama, but to ensure policy is adhered to. - - MrBill3 (talk) 04:56, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That edit is over a month old. As I already stated, the issue with this editor has been addressed and policies/protocols, internal and external, have been clarified. Rjd0060 (talk) 05:03, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a clear and explicit policy that state ANY edit driven/inspired/suggested by a party with a COI made by an OTRS team member MUST disclose such COI nature on the talk page of the article edited? I think this is absolutely and urgently needed. Thank you for your time and attention to this matter and for your contributions to the project. Sorry for bringing old stuff up, it just came to my attention. - - MrBill3 (talk) 05:08, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It needs to be done. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:45, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again, as far as OTRS goes, we're done with this issue. If the WP community wants to continue to discuss things, go right ahead. But we've done everything that we need to do to ensure our agents are aware of policies. You may wish to continue talking with the other two admins who have stepped in if you still have questions. Cheers. Rjd0060 (talk) 05:49, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please point me to the OTRS policy on COI and the other involved admins. Thanks. - - MrBill3 (talk) 05:54, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please do. The discussions have shown that this type of stonewalling is creating a Streisand effect and not meeting concerns. We believe you when you say that you have been discussing these problems internally, but the community needs to see written measures which satisfy us that future problems will be prevented. We need more than assurances that "we are taking care of this", because they don't cut it. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:25, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

As I stated very, very clearly: I have supplied more than what was requested. If you wish to continue to beat this horse, you can do so with the assistance of some other OTRS admin. Both Keegan and Pajz have been commenting throughout. I am not prepared to continue the back-and-forth circular arguments about the same thing over and over again. I am not the only OTRS administrator and I have taken steps back from this situation several days ago. Good luck. Rjd0060 (talk) 18:15, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kingdom of Araucanía and Patagonia

Hello, Would you please restore the original version of this page before vandalism. The page online is not the original one but a vandalised one. Thanks a lot. Vulson (talk) 12:53, 4 October 2014 (UTC)Vulson[reply]

Hi Vulson. The article Kingdom of Araucanía and Patagonia is not deleted, it is protected from editing due to abuse. If you cannot edit the page you must request your change by adding it to the articles talk page. I cannot make an edit for you. Rjd0060 (talk) 18:20, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm not the author of vandalism. And the original page is a translation of the original French page, both vandalisez by two anonymous contibutors.Vulson (talk) 18:40, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I cannot help you. You must file a note on the article talk page (click "talk" at the top of the article). Rjd0060 (talk) 18:45, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, quick question

You answered a post I had on another page so I thought maybe you'd answer one on your own. :-)

I have a problem with an editor. I'm working on talking it out, although they are currently dismissive and not at all assuming good faith ("useless edits" and accusations of NPOV against me for no apparent reason) and I have had no response from them yet. They've even warned me about edit warring, although I could equally do the same to them... Anyway, my question is: how do I escalate a conflict? If I find a person is being protectionist/possessive of a page or otherwise intransigent in a way that isn't related to appropriate Wikipedia behavior, what is the next step? I'm a long-term user, since 2004, but my edits are normally not very confrontational: I fix wikilinks and spelling and grammar and formatting (cites, etc.) so honestly I don't know what I do next. Ogress _smash! 21:36, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ogress, I happened to see this and left them a note of my own. A lot of their recent behavior is contrary to a few policies so if they continue, we'll be having more discussions. WP:ANI would likely be a good place (if it escalates) given that there is more than one issue so a separate noticeboard would be inappropriate.

For other information on dispute resolution, see this page. I hope this helps. Rjd0060 (talk) 21:51, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! Thank you. I'm just hoping they are simply tired of pro/anti-Dorje Shugden trolls and were having a bad day, we've all been there. I had posted on their own page a hopefully polite laurel branch. Ogress _smash! 21:54, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rjd0060, I've been watching these articles and trying to be a neutral there, but I am seeing an ongoing pattern of WP:BAITING of VG by a bunch of people who appear to have single use accounts or even sockpuppet accounts (Notably Audrey37 for the latter) and are dogpling her with POV pushing all linked to the Western Shugden Society perspective. Ogress appears to be new to the party and may not realize the environment she has waded into. VG is probably feeling a little besieged and needs some support; she's up against some people who aren't playing fair. Montanabw^(talk) 22:01, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Montanabw, unfortunately that does not matter when it comes to the civility, potential ownership and/or other issues I saw. As I said, I was not commenting on the content - but anybody would agree by looking at the history that things are not right. Ogress is surely not the only one at fault as it typically takes two to tango, but I still stand my my comment on their page. Ogress has the same dispute resolution options as everybody else. Rjd0060 (talk) 22:05, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just saying that in this case, we have about five tangoing, and some are trolls... FWIW. ;-) I'm trying to watch out there, but I have other drahmahz elsewhere too. Sometimes "ownership" is quality control. But I do think there was a point about piped links and I commented on it at VG's page. I think she trusts that I am not one of the trolls attempting to sanitize the article. (If you want some background, note the pointy RM request by yet another user at 14th Dalai Lama) Montanabw^(talk) 22:11, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. :-) I briefly skimmed the situation prior but I realized the content issue itself was a bit too much for me to opine on. My only intention is to encourage more discussion and less banter. Thanks for the help. Rjd0060 (talk) 22:15, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Postano

Hi Ryan,

I work for TigerLogic and the product Postano which was marked as 'deleted / spam'. We're an actual product (www.postano.com) actively selling and we use best white hat only practices (nor am I aware of any grey or black hat in the past). We'd like to reopen the page. Would you please suggest what materials you would need to undelete us? thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scotthuber (talk • contribs) 23:22, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ryan,

I'd appreciate your help on this, or if I'm requesting in the wrong way, I'd appreciate the feedback. Thank you.

-Scott Scotthuber (talk) 21:59, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Articles can only be kept on Wikipedia if they meet certain inclusion guidelines. They are quite specific to the topic area so you should probably start at WP:N. Rjd0060 (talk) 23:24, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sofia Kenin page removal

You did removed "Sofia Kenin" page. The reason ; "this player is not notable by project standards; she has no Fed Cup or WTA main draw appearances, has not won any ITF tournaments above the $25,000 category, had no remarkable junior career (neither...)" It show how little , if nothing you know about tennis(Junior tennis) ... She is 15 years old !!! What are you talking about ??, "no Fed Cup or WTA main draw appearances"?? No remarkable junior career (neither...)????! . All information is on internet ! She is one of the best players in USA and in the world at her age .. Unless you did it on purpose... There could not be any other reason.. Please, do your research before removing an article and leaving completely incompetent comments ..