This is an old revision of this page, as edited by NJA (talk | contribs) at 16:08, 22 February 2010 (→User RFC: indeffed). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 16:08, 22 February 2010 by NJA (talk | contribs) (→User RFC: indeffed)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Welcome to NJA's talk page! Please click here to leave me a new message. |
---|
User RFC
Hi NJA, I'm seriously considering adding a user RFC to Simpleterms, as they just filed a meat-puppetry case against me and accused Gillyweed of being enlisted to my cause.
That editor hasn't commented on the talk page yet, and looks like they never will. I have expressed my desire to understand what the issues are on that page, but they seem to be ignoring this.
Can I get your take on my next steps? The sock-puppet investigation was closed in short order, thankfully, but I think this is a bit disruptive. Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Tbsdy lives. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 11:13, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
- Oh hell mate I'm not too sure what to do, but I would attest that I've tried (off-wiki) to get the user to discuss the concerns and she flat out said that aspect of Misplaced Pages was annoying! NJA (t/c) 08:22, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
- On second thought, I reverted the account back to the indefinite block. As you can see on her talk page, the terms of the unblock were "agreed that you're aware of our guidance on conflicts of interests. You also agree to source your edits with reliable sources to maintain the need for verifiability and neutrality." She is not editing in line with these terms, and is simply a POV SPA who doesn't wish to work collaboratively (I can confirm this from email conversations with her), thus I've went back to the indefinite block as this is causing too much disruption to Misplaced Pages. NJA (t/c) 16:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
I need some help, please
Hi NJA, I need some help. As you know, I have a mock sockpuppet listing that is on my talk page, but I'm trying to report this user and their various IPs. They've broken the rules time after time and today has started reverting flags once again. It's really creating tedious work and I've tried discussing it with the user on one of his talk pages, as well as the talk pages of some articles, but it's not getting through to him. Could you please help me to make a proper report of the sockpuppetry (because I don't know how, despite looking at the sockpuppet sections of WP) so that this can be dealt with finally. If so, thanks. Paralympiakos (talk) 18:00, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
I have a question to Paralympikos: Why are you trying (over and over again) to turn our disputes about "flags" and other FACTUAL issues into a PERSONAL ATTACK? Why do you keep labelling my edits as "vandalism", "harrassment" etc. and reverting them in a systematic fashion, instead of sorting those things out on discussion pages in a civilized manner? It is obvious, for example, that NOT A SINGLE ONE of my edits today (coming from 82.181.152.218) constitute vandalism.
As regards your accusations about "hiding" and "sockpuppeting": I am dependent on internet connections available in public places like cafeterias and so on. Therefore IP addresses vary. I am not "hiding" - all those addresses can be seen by anybody (unlike yours). As far as I know, this is not against Misplaced Pages rules.
I am very sorry to debate these kind of things on user NJA's talk page. Maybe this is the place you want to discuss on?
Thank you. 83.216.20.129 (talk) 19:44, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Addition: I took a look at the "sockpuppet list" that Paralympikos had composed on his/her talk page. Not all of those address are related to me; some are. It seems to me that you are having disputes with many people, and I noted you have been warned for your extreme attitude before. Please calm down a bit. 83.216.20.129 (talk) 19:50, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
On my talk page, there is an example of you being a sockpuppet on the Swick talk page. That was you and don't deny. It seems strange that every IP I quoted are from Helsinki and all making the SAME edits. Don't even try to deny it. You've had the flags business explained to you but you keep ignoring it. Then you basically stalked me by reverting any page I changed and you've also been warned for vandalism on a couple of those IPs; actual vandalism, not the flags issue. Also, I've been warned....by you. You've still not told me why I will be "terminated" from the site and who this mysterious admin friend is.
Summary, you're a sockpuppet as you backed yourself up. Ergo ban for that and all the other stuff you've done. Paralympiakos (talk) 19:57, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
- Registering an account would assist in the appearance of socking disruptively, thus maybe you could consider doing that? NJA (t/c) 08:20, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Marie Seton
Hi. Back in December I was working on the article Embassy Theatre (London), which included a reference to Marie Seton. I redlinked it, because she seems to have been a significant biographer. I notice just now that you have unlinked it saying "Removing backlinks to Marie Seton that has been speedily deleted per (CSD A7);". This is the first I knew that anyone had attempted to write an article on her, so I have no idea what it did or didn't say, but it seems a bit high-handed of you to remove my redlink. It would have been different if the person who had created the article you disapproved of had also put the link in, but that was not the case. Looking at your contributions I see that you did the same of Sergei Eisenstein, Padma Bhushan Awards (1980–1989), and Paul Robeson and communism. I'm reinstating those links. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 10:36, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
- Redlinks are automatically removed when articles are deleted. It wasn't something I purposefully set out to do. It's nothing personal, and redlinks are generally discouraged under the manual of style. NJA (t/c) 10:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
- I was unaware that redlinks are automatically removed when articles are deleted. I hadn't seen it before. This is probably because most reasonable people would take the presence of lots of pre-existing inward links as in itself evidence of notability, and therefore would not speedy under A7. To say that redlinks are generally discouraged is an exaggeration. Responsible use of redlinks is a useful way of drawing atttention to wanted but unwritten articles. If notability was the sole reason you deleted Marie Seton, I think you ought to reinstate it. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 11:26, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
- I'm more likely to be helpful when I'm not assumed to be unreasonable by you, someone who I've never had the pleasure of being in contact with before. I would be willing to userify the article to your userspace so you can improve the article enough so that it is at least cited with reliable references. Then, it can go back onto the live site. Interested? NJA (t/c) 11:31, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, please do that. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 11:48, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
- I've just emailed it to you about 2 minutes ago as I was about to log off for a while. Cheers, NJA (t/c) 11:49, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, please do that. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 11:48, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
- I'm more likely to be helpful when I'm not assumed to be unreasonable by you, someone who I've never had the pleasure of being in contact with before. I would be willing to userify the article to your userspace so you can improve the article enough so that it is at least cited with reliable references. Then, it can go back onto the live site. Interested? NJA (t/c) 11:31, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
- I was unaware that redlinks are automatically removed when articles are deleted. I hadn't seen it before. This is probably because most reasonable people would take the presence of lots of pre-existing inward links as in itself evidence of notability, and therefore would not speedy under A7. To say that redlinks are generally discouraged is an exaggeration. Responsible use of redlinks is a useful way of drawing atttention to wanted but unwritten articles. If notability was the sole reason you deleted Marie Seton, I think you ought to reinstate it. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 11:26, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Deletion of category redirects
I notice that you deleted a number of category redirects yesterday as "empty" categories, even though the categories had not previously been listed on Category:Empty categories awaiting deletion. The deletion of Category:Living People was clearly incorrect: the category most definitely was not empty 24 hours before you deleted it, and only categories that have been empty for four days can be deleted. However, there is a broader problem, which is that there is no consensus that category redirects (which are suppposed to be empty) are eligible for mass deletion under WP:CSD#C1. I actually proposed deleting many of these redirects as empty categories here about a year ago, and the consensus was to keep them. Unless you find that there is now a consensus to delete these, I suggest that you should reconsider these deletions. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 10:50, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, looking over C1, it clearly wouldn't have applied. Obviously restoring the empty categories is a trivial matter, however I'm unsure of the utility of restoring a category that is empty? Would it not just populate Category:Misplaced Pages non-empty soft redirected categories with a bunch of empty cats? Maybe we should list them at WP:CFD? Though after looking over the old discussion, I think maybe it's time to revisit the matter. NJA (t/c) 10:59, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
- You're preaching to the choir about the uselessness of these categories (in many, but not all cases), but I don't think that everyone else agrees. So if you want to list these cats on WP:CFD, go ahead, but don't be surprised if you get an argument. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 11:04, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
- I should be surprised, but I'm not. I will restore them and discontinue any clean up in relation to redirects in future unless consensus changes. If this is revisited, do let me know as I'd like to make some comments. NJA (t/c) 11:07, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
- You're preaching to the choir about the uselessness of these categories (in many, but not all cases), but I don't think that everyone else agrees. So if you want to list these cats on WP:CFD, go ahead, but don't be surprised if you get an argument. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 11:04, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Undeletion of Neil Cooper (ROIR)
Hi NJA. My wife, User:DracoEssentialis, who is a WP newbie, yesterday (with my help) created an article on Neil Cooper (ROIR), cited to
- a 1990 feature on Cooper in the Philadelphia Enquirer,
- the subject's 2001 New York Times obituary, and
- a 2009 feature in The Guardian on Cooper and the record company he founded.
Those are three features, spanning 20 years, that address the subject directly in detail, as required by WP:GNG, and explain what he is notable for. I am thus rather amazed you deleted the article. I told my wife exactly what sources she would need to satisfy WP:N, and she had them and cited'em. She's an award-winning radio journalist ... and this is a very unfriendly beginning to her contributing her subject matter expertise to this project. Could you please undelete the article without requiring us to go through DR? It was a clear mistake. Cheers, --JN466 11:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
- Here are references to Neil Cooper and ROIR in google books: --JN466 11:12, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
- Here are references to Neil Cooper and ROIR in google news: --JN466 11:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, fine. The issue is it was tagged by a bot as a possible and likely hoax, and whilst I do my best to delete only those truly hoaxes or otherwise (here notability issue), that is not always possible. Some of the hoaxes we get are amazingly detailed. I will restore, but that doesn't mean the article won't be subject to other forms of community based deletion discussions. Cheers, NJA (t/c) 11:15, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks a lot. Hoaxes do suck, and I am glad you are on the lookout for them. A while ago someone created Hannibal Fogg, citing obscure and not easily verifiable books in the bio, inserting passing mentions of this fictitious individual in a dozen articles, using a fictitious 80-year-old book by him to source an unsourced statement in an unrelated article (!) ... In case you're unaware of it, there is a place at User:Shii/Hoaxes for documenting interesting hoaxes. -- My wife is very happy to see her article again. I am confident it will survive any AfD, if there ever should be one. Cheers and thanks again! JN466 11:29, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Hello, NJA, and thank you for your welcome message. I must say I was shocked to find that you had deleted my first article. Thank you for putting it back up after an exchange with my husband, JN466. May I suggest that in future, new articles get reviewed by people familiar with the subject matter before deletion? You questioning Mr. Cooper’s notability makes me suspect you didn't find the time to read the article or the references I had provided. My husband explained to me that as an admin, you probably have a long list of articles to work through, which doesn’t necessarily leave time to scrutinize them all in detail. Hence my suggestion for referral to an expert, in line with the Misplaced Pages credo of assuming good faith. Looking at your user page, your areas of expertise seem to be software and legal matters. I will try and find more sources for my article to bring it more in line with your standards. Today, though, is a busy work day. Since you kindly offered advice, please allow me to take you up on it. I tried entering the names of Mr. Cooper’s wife and children in the infobox on the right. While they are visible in the edit, they do not appear on the actual page. Is there a way of tweaking this? I used the template for ‘musician’. Surely, they are allowed to have a family ;)? Thank you in advance.--DracoEssentialis (talk) 15:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you for the tip, and I'm happy it's sorted for now. Don't worry about it looking perfect straight away. As for your query on the infobox, I will be completely honest in saying I'm not quite sure why that is happening. You may wish to scan over Help:Infobox and possibly use the talk page there to ask the question so that someone who has more familiarity with infobox issues may see your problem and find a solution. If I find anything though I will alert you on your talk page. Cheers, NJA (t/c) 15:52, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Socks
User:Filolog16 and User:Philolog14 may also be socks, I'm writing to you because you blocked other similar accounts. Regards, Anna Lincoln 11:32, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
- Almost certainly. Thanks for the heads up. NJA (t/c) 11:34, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Fujifilm FinePix S200EXR
Why was article for Fujifilm FinePix S200EXR deleted for being duplicate article for FujiFilm FinePix F200EXR? They are two different models, S200EXR being prosumer/bridge camera, and F200EXR being compact Point&Shoot model.
"11:56, 22 February 2010 NJA (talk | contribs) deleted "Fujifilm FinePix S200EXR" (A10: Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic: F200EXR#F200EXR)"
BrainDead (talk) 12:33, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
- There is already an article Fujifilm FinePix S200EXR. NJA (t/c) 13:54, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Sinha Conjecture Prize
The OTRS team has received an email releasing the information on this page to Misplaced Pages under the CC-BY-SA-3.0. Could you please restore it so that I could add the relevant tags? The ticket number is 2010022210013458. Thank you in advance! Panyd 14:34, 22 February 2010 (UTC)