User talk:NJA

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

SaveasPDFandXPS listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect SaveasPDFandXPS. Since you had some involvement with the SaveasPDFandXPS redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 15:00, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lawyers and law students' signatures needed for Supreme Court amicus brief in favor of publishing the law

Hello, given your userbox I thought you might be interested in helping Carl Malamud's case for the public domain, crucial also for Wikisource: https://boingboing.net/2019/04/25/happy-law-day.html . Best regards, Nemo 21:07, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jean Monnet

Please revert the IP's edits – as an examination of the references added by the IP should make obvious (as in common sense), it's blatantly conspiratorial bad-faith trolling. Monnet was not a "CIA operative" by any means; it's a far-right conspiracy theory which is not substantiated by any source, and none of the references in the article actually substantiates it. Mélencron (talk) 16:27, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jean Monnet

Why did you give me an edit war warning and not the counterparty? He's violated WP:3RR, and assumes bad faith by automatically assuming my edits are vandalism 86.80.168.128 (talk) 16:29, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I even asked the other user to disengage, because I am a new user, and that is required per wikipedia policy. He did not do so. 86.80.168.128 (talk) 16:29, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have some doubts that you're a "new user" if you're familiar with 3RR, but I'll remind you of WP:NOT3RR, which provides an exception for reverting blatant vandalism, which your insertion of blatantly conspiratorial/false content constitutes. Mélencron (talk) 16:31, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I ask that no personal wars between you both continue on my talk page. Take this to the talk page of the article. The alternative is blocks for violation of 3RR or otherwise disruptive editing. NJA (t/c) 16:33, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am not "warring with him" on your talk page. I am asking you a question. You should give him an edit war warning as well. Vandalism constitutes blanking pages or inserting expletives. Well sourced edits are not included in the definition of vandalism. Although I have made some edits before, I am indeed a new user. My router was recently changed by my internet provider. 86.80.168.128 (talk) 16:38, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits were and continue to be disruptive. You also were involved in an edit war. I was going to caution the other user, but you pinged me before I got around to it. In any event I now regret not blocking you for disruptive editing. I, or another user, may ask for another admin to review my decision in this case. I’m afraid that would likely result in your being blocked. I would quit while ahead. NJA (t/c) 16:43, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I will note that the page has now been protected in the state including the changes which are disputed; normally, per WP:BRD, controversial changes are kept out until consensus is achieved. I'll also note that having the primary description in the lede of "CIA operative" is inappropriate unless the person spent their entire career as a CIA employee, everything else in their life being secondary to that. Whether this person worked with the CIA at some point, they do not appear to have been primarily a CIA employee. Tarl N. (discuss) 16:44, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You will note the protected text is currently pre-dispute. As noted above I welcome a second opinion by another admin on this. NJA (t/c) 16:47, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tarl, does that mean it should also not be mentioned in the lede of former Presidents of the United States that they held this office? After all, they held that position for four or eight years and not their entire career. What about medal winners at the olympic games? Also not something they do their entire career. Also operative =/= employee. 86.80.168.128 (talk) 16:50, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I will say for the last time to discuss on the article page and NOT here please. Thank you.NJA (t/c) 16:56, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Schaumloeffel

You blocked this user for "Promotional username, promotional edits". I believe that Schaumloeffel is the user's actual last name based on the copyright notice at the bottom of the website, and while I certainly don't condone promotional editing, I don't think we should indef people for one edit linking to their personal website. shoy (reactions) 15:06, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The user is free to request on his or her own talk page a request for unblock. Saying that, I am doubtful there was an error here looking at both their contributions Schaumloeffel (talk · contribs) and hits to the edit filter. I do not plan to revise the block though another admin can review the situation should the user request a review personally. NJA (t/c) 15:11, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ClappedCuck

I think you have misjudged ClappedCuck. So did I, at first. The person is inexperienced and inexpert, but seems to be making good-faith edits. Their changes to List of school shootings in the United States and George Faulkner (ice hockey) have both turned out to be correct, and the school shooting contribution is actually very interesting and helpful (although the other one may be WP:UNDUE). The person has also responded well to User talk page dialog. I suggest removing that block. —BarrelProof (talk) 15:09, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are you serious? In any event I do not accept a 3rd party appeal unless there is cause. The user may follow the instructions on their talk page should they wish to block to be reviewed. NJA (t/c) 15:16, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding. Yes, I'm serious. I can't see what the user page had on it (since that page has been deleted and I'm not an admin), but the other mainspace edits look constructive to me, and the Talk page edit seems like just a "chat room" misconception attitude. —BarrelProof (talk) 15:23, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BarrelProof Thanks for the comment. Again, the user is free to seek a review of the block per the message on their page. The deleted page was done by another admin for improper use of wikipedia as a webhost. Their edit here, whilst not the worst thing ever, does not give me confidence they are here to progress the project. I am willing to overlook minor mistakes, particularly by new users, and they are free to contest the block and explain their intent to convince me or another admin they should be given another chance. NJA (t/c) 15:43, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, the user has submitted an unblock request. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:32, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NJA, your block message refers to the user's filter log, but as far as I can see, it is empty. What am I missing? —DoRD (talk) 17:40, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@DoRD: Apologies, I meant deleted contributions page. Happy for a warning / reduction if that’s your view. NJA (t/c) 18:14, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Recently uploaded file (by me) with copyright issues

Hello! Recently, you left a message on my talk page concerning a file I had uploaded who's source was incorrectly marked (a mistake entirely my own fault.) After searching through Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons, I was unable to find it. I searched for "File:Genetically_Modified_Skeptic" because that's at least the first part of the file's name. Since this yielded no results, I was wondering if the image has been removed, and if not, how I can access it to amend these issues? Thank you in advance. Singularities421 (talk) 21:01, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Singularities421: You would need to upload it again using the correct tags. See WP:IUP or raise additional queries you may have in the forums noted in that policy. NJA (t/c) 21:04, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, I'll simply not re-upload the file, as it was to be unique to the deleted article and I doubt that enough relevant and reliable sources will become available anytime soon. Thank you for the quick response and happy sailing! Singularities421 (talk) 22:45, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 special circular

Administrators must secure their accounts

The Arbitration Committee may require a new RfA if your account is compromised.

Use strong, unique passwords for your Wikipedia account and associated email
Change your password now if your Wikipedia account password or email password is reused on another website, exposed, or weak
Enable two-factor authentication now for improved security

View additional information

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:53, 4 May 2019 (UTC) Template:Z152[reply]

Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)

ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.

Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.

We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.

For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:04, 4 May 2019 (UTC) Template:Z83[reply]

205.155.45.164

In regards to your edit summary, user:205.155.45.164's last edit was recent. In addition, they are hopping to user:205.155.45.165 to avoid detection. CLCStudent (talk) 18:29, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

When I spot IP hoppers, I usually go straight to AIV. CLCStudent (talk) 18:29, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Although these are separate IPs, there was not enough disruption (as of now) to warrant both being blocked. Also, and from their talk pages both IPs were warned at or around the same time of their last edit (including any edit filter hits). As such there has been no vandalism or edits by either IP since the time of any appropriate and or final warning given (as at time of writing anyhow). NJA | talk 18:33, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your block of 216.53.168.61

You should revoke access to their talk page as well. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 20:47, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ponyo beat you to it. :-) –Skywatcher68 (talk) 21:10, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. CLCStudent (talk) 15:48, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question…

Shouldn't a soft block still allow account creation so that they can still create an account with an appropriate username? -216.25.187.5 (talk) 12:46, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]