Ron Ritzman (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 110: | Line 110: | ||
You seem to be frequently closing a few hours early. This tends to lead to a race between admins. '''[[User:DGG|DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG|talk]]) 00:57, 16 May 2009 (UTC) |
You seem to be frequently closing a few hours early. This tends to lead to a race between admins. '''[[User:DGG|DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG|talk]]) 00:57, 16 May 2009 (UTC) |
||
:In the spirit of my name, let's go with 24 times 7. Okay, I'll mind the minutes. [[User:Nja247|<em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#6600CC">'''''Nja'''''</em>]]<sup>[[User talk:Nja247|<em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#63D1F4">'''''247'''''</em>]]</sup> 07:33, 16 May 2009 (UTC) |
:In the spirit of my name, let's go with 24 times 7. Okay, I'll mind the minutes. [[User:Nja247|<em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#6600CC">'''''Nja'''''</em>]]<sup>[[User talk:Nja247|<em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#63D1F4">'''''247'''''</em>]]</sup> 07:33, 16 May 2009 (UTC) |
||
== [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jerre and Mary Joy Stead]] == |
|||
Looks like the AFD closing script "blew up" on this debate leading to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jerre_and_Mary_Joy_Stead&oldid=290276415 this] and it didn't delete the articles. I fixed the AFD and put <nowiki>{{db-afd}}</nowiki> on the articles. Mr Zman's script doesn't handle batch nominations very well. --[[User:Ron Ritzman|Ron Ritzman]] ([[User talk:Ron Ritzman|talk]]) 14:33, 16 May 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 14:33, 16 May 2009
Welcome to Nja247's talk page! Please click to leave me a new message. |
Jan - Jun 2007 • Jul - Dec 2007 |
---|
A question that doesn't seem to appear in any policy articles
Hi, I am a rather new editor. I have a question. If I am in disagreement with almost all other editor on an article. However, if one reads the talk page, one can see that I am winning the argument for a change in the consensus and the other side simply refuse to respond to my arguments. What can I do to ever change the consensus if other editors refuse to listen to reason and do not respond? Or is it always that the majority win on Wikipedia, even when they are not rational?76.195.220.65 (talk) 07:07, 11 May 2009
- Really, the best guidance to start with is found here. Cheers. Nja247
- Please note that this is a person that you blocked for editing using IP Address 76.195.220.65, now using nearby IP Address 76.199.6.227. See also User talk:Jeff G.#Hi.2C_I_was_76.195.220.65. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 22:15, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the note. Cheers, Nja247 22:32, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
- There is nothing in the wikipedia policy that deals with the situation where the majority do not respond and do not listen to reason to hold onto the consensus. Well this experience at least taught me how to hold down any consensus on any article, no matter how wrong the majority is, just by not responding. All anyone have to do is to call out friends and rationality takes the back seat. 76.247.164.55 (talk) 23:49, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the note. Cheers, Nja247 22:32, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
- Please note that this is a person that you blocked for editing using IP Address 76.195.220.65, now using nearby IP Address 76.199.6.227. See also User talk:Jeff G.#Hi.2C_I_was_76.195.220.65. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 22:15, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
E-mail from a banned sock?
Hi. SinceAdamAndEva — one of the apparent sockpuppet accounts involved in the recent Northern Cyprus renaming proposal incident — sent me e-mail via Wikipedia earlier today, basically restating stuff previously posted on the talk page. I'm a bit confused because I would have thought an indefinite block on the account would prevent its being used to send e-mail. Any thoughts? Richwales (talk) 00:11, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
- I have changed it so that he cannot email now. Cheers, Nja247 06:40, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks. I suppose the same thing should also be done to the other socks involved in this same incident (AccountOfForever, AlterEnta1, Elderbrother45, Gercekkaynarca, Happy19April2009, NicestParadisers, Sisamvleda, SpeedyKostas, SustainedLifes, and UsefulOxygen). Richwales (talk) 17:23, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
RE: IRC cloak and admin channel
Yep - when you get it just ask me on my talk page or any channel op in the channel and they will give you an invite exemption (so you won't have to type that command anymore). - Rjd0060 (talk) 14:55, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Unblocked User:Annoynmous
For your information, I've unblocked Annoynmous (talk · contribs · count) because of his declaration on his talk page that he would stop edit warring. Of course if he starts acting up again, I have no problem if you (or another administrator) places a much longer block, given his history of misbehavior. --Ryan Delaney talk 03:16, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Scuro
Wondering if you could block User:Scuro from editing on my talk page. I wish to have nothing further to do with him. He has never and I now realize will never provide any referenced opinions. Many thanks.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:14, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
- Heya, what you need to do is explicitly tell him that you do not wish for him to do so. If he continues after that then that's disruptive and you could have it looked at. Also consider filing a proper WP:RFCU. Nja247 07:33, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Everyking
Rootology and Everyking are friends. It is Everyking's MO to not do anything actively on Wikipedia anymore. If you want to say that his false claims of hate speech against me are appropriate and then having Rootology take up the claims in a harassing way on my talk page, the RfA talk page, etc, that is your prerogative. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
- Was this even necessary? I understand your passion on this, but please don't extend this already beaten to death issue on to my page. Thanks. Nja247 18:00, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Unprotection For Roblox
Can You Please Unprotect The Roblox Page? Please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by JackOfBlades2 (talk • contribs) 13:47, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Sorry About My Edit On Spanish Profanity
It Was Constructive! Well How Comes People Were Allowed To Make Edits? --JackOfBlades2 (talk) 13:50, 13 May 2009 (UTC) (.P.S. Not Putting Signature on the Last Message.)
User requestion unblock
A heads-up that this user has requested an unblock in order to request a new username. Best, TNXMan 14:15, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks. I'm busy atm, and I won't mind any admin looking it over (won't be considered wheel warring). Nja247 15:05, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Re: Edit war note
No, you don't have to advise me of that. Indeed, I followed the usual of initiating conversation at the article discussion page on a number of times within the two sections in article discussion, mostly to prevent edit-warring by opposing parties (1, 2). After user: Ulrauna sought out discussion and waited over two weeks for comment, he advised the discussion he was going to change the info. Immediately upon doing so, Sina111 reverted the matter, without discussion and without anything approaching a helpful edit summary. I'd point out that Sina has actually violated 3RR in the article (1, 2, 3, 4).
I reverted the matter back to the version which removed information that had been either cited to non-RS sources or had been uncited for months. As the article is of a contentious subject, it seems highly inappropriate to keep uncited info in place, hoping that at some point in the next three years, someone will write about it,
That isn't how Wikipedia works. We don't just add in info based on our own personal beliefs in the fervent hope that someone can cite it later, or that it will escape notice completely. Clearly, that is the intent here. Sina111 is a user with less than 300 edits, and the user only writes about - pardon me, argues about subjects involving Iran. Now, there is nothing wrong with that in and of itself, but when the user opts to allow biased information to remain in a controversial subject article that favors Iran, yeah, red flags go up. Did you notice that? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 16:06, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
- Re: RfPP; fair enough; I was a little miffed that I was accused of edit-warring when I was just trying to keep the peace. I didn't think you were doing it out of some beef with me but rather that you weren't aware of why I was doing what I was doing. I will let you know if it happens with the user again. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 03:58, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Scuro
Hi, thought that I would send you this message as you seem to be the only independent administrator who has followed the drama on the ADHD pages. The talk pages are continuing to fill up with unconstructive, unproductive comments by editor scuro. See from this section down to bottom of the page. Talk:Attention-deficit_hyperactivity_disorder#removing_social_construct_theory_of_ADHD What can be done to stop the talk pages descending churning out 100 kb per week of disruptive pointless debates?--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 19:20, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
- I had tried, but as shown here, my attempts were thwarted by blind bureaucracy. I suggest consulting the editors who voted against and closed that proposal directly. Further, it'd likely be helpful to open a proper WP:RFC/U. I'd endorse it if done. Nja247 20:02, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, I appreciate your help. Is it possible to just block such editors? I know you are trying. I have tried the ignoring tactic which I think works well for me but still they continue. I feel request for comments is playing into scuros hands as they seem to derive pleasure from debating and annoying other editors. There have been several RFcs, some started by scuro themselves already. They have already chased off a consultant psychiatrist because they did not like their edits to the ADHD articles. From what I have heard they have been doing these sorts of things and rarely if ever provide any citations, just fill talk pages up and cause headaches for editors.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 21:04, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Doc James filed one a few weeks back but I don't think that it was filed properly. Scuro has opened RfCs on other editors before.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 10:32, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- No Doc James' RfC was not properly done. The RfC's on others doesn't really address Scuro does it? Nja247 10:37, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
The RfCs made by scuro is just more of the same, wearing down your opponents and recreational drama. That was why I mentioned it. :)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 10:46, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Scuro again
user:Scuro continues to write on my talk page after I told him twice not to. [1] What steps can I take from here? Thanks --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:48, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- Report to me or any admin if done again and he will be blocked. I made it clear he's banned from editing your talk page. Nja247 06:45, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
You've got no right to tell me stop making legitimate alterations —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.14.205.112 (talk) 08:33, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Ban proposal
I think you need to rephrase this as a community ban, rather than discretionary sanctions. Policy supports a community ban on an individual editor following a noticeboard discussion (which we are having) but discretionary sanctions don't apply to individuals. Regards, SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 15:45, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- Quite right and will do.
However, what's an example of a discretionary sanction?Nja247 17:21, 14 May 2009 (UTC)- The problem was you linked WP:SANCTION rather than WP:RESTRICT. –xeno talk 17:21, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
A new suspected sock on Northern Cyprus
Please check out the latest apparition User:ElsewhereIam socking on Talk:Northern Cyprus. Thank you. --Zlerman (talk) 16:13, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the notice. Sadly I don't think he'll stop. Just keep reporting to me or to WP:ANI as they appear. Cheers, Nja247 17:40, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you...
Thank you for your support
Unfortunately, my RFA was closed recently with a final tally of 75½/38/10. Though it didn't succeed, I wanted to thank you for your support and I hope I can count on it in the future. Even though it didn't pass, it had a nearly 2 to 1 ratio of support and I am quite encouraged by those results. I intend to review the support, oppose, and neutral !votes and see what I can do to address those concerns that were brought up and resubmit in a few months. If you would like to assist in my betterment and/or co-nominate me in the future, please let me know on my talk page. Special thanks go to Schmidt, MICHAEL Q., TomStar81, and henrik for their co-nominations and support. — BQZip01 — talk |
7 times 24 = ?
You seem to be frequently closing a few hours early. This tends to lead to a race between admins. DGG (talk) 00:57, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
- In the spirit of my name, let's go with 24 times 7. Okay, I'll mind the minutes. Nja247 07:33, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Looks like the AFD closing script "blew up" on this debate leading to this and it didn't delete the articles. I fixed the AFD and put {{db-afd}} on the articles. Mr Zman's script doesn't handle batch nominations very well. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:33, 16 May 2009 (UTC)