User talk:NJA/Archive 12

This will be an archive of past discussions from NJA's talk page for the months of 1 January 2019 - 18 September 2019.
Please do not edit or add to this page.

If you wish to leave a new comment, please do so by clicking here.

< 11 (2 Dec 2013 - 31 Dec 2018) | 12 (1 Jan 2019 - 31 Dec 2019)

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]

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)[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)[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]

So I just made my wikipiedia account, and I don't know how to block. Can show me how to block a user? WuzzupHom13s (talk) 11:36, 15 August 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]

@216.25.187.5: Which block are you speaking of? The block templates are not always precise, e.g. if the name had or attempted to also make promotional / blatant advertising and or spam articles or links, then I may disable account creation to ensure an admin must consider the new account name before its creation so that the user is aware of the policy against conflicts of interests and paid editors, etc. NJA | talk 12:49, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The ones you made at 12:37 and 12:39? -216.25.187.5 (talk) 13:58, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. The “bot” name’s block was amended already and the other I had already edited the block text on the talk page to remove text indicating they could create a new account. NJA | talk 15:03, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Could you do just a modicum of research before declining a report?

Ummm, the account was blocked for sockpuppetry for promotion, every article created is autobiographical or promotion. The report was for promotion, from the outside looking in it doesn't seem like you looked into this, you saw the word sock-puppet and stopped. This may not be in the best of AGF but it's what it looks like. User:Akashjyotinath is the issue I refer to. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 15:36, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, that was not “AGF” on your part. I considered your report at AIV and I most certainly do not stop mid-sentence on anything before responding. I considered the edits and the previous block and whilst they may very well be disruptive, they are not obvious and blatant vandalism to enable me to comfortably block the user indefinitely as VOA. If you’re unhappy with this I’d raise with Berean Hunter as the previously blocking admin they may be able to best address this quickly and without needing to involve another forum. Otherwise I repeat if you believe socking is evident report to SPI or otherwise perhaps take it to AN(I). NJA | talk 15:47, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd argue you could have handled this just as quickly and accurately without pedantry. If I suspected sockpuppetry I would have state that was a sock. I stated it was vandalism by repeated and months of promotion, I'm curious how many recreations does it take to raise to your bar of problematic until you'd actually act? Unless you are prepared to say there is not problem after your "review" it wasted your time, my time and now Berean's time...shit just looking at the page and the LENGTH of time of abuse is enough. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 15:53, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you and I'm sorry for my tone. It's been a rough week personally and I shouldn't get keyed up. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 16:04, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I was clear why it was declined as a AIV report. I do not think being scrupulous when considering a block to be a bad thing. Notwithstanding all that, upon consideration of the deletion logs and further the failure of the user to engage in talk page discussions about their edits has given me confidence to block as clearly being NOTHERE. Also, no worries. NJA | talk 16:05, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Harlinsdale (previously YEGfilms)

Hi NJA. Just letting you know that I have unblocked this user, per their new username, apparent understanding of policy, and agreement to follow said policy going forward. Any problems, give me a ping. All the best, Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:22, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

IMPERSONATE

blocks are dealt from AIV. There's even a specific soft-block template designed to suit such purposes. And, we over OTRS routinely verify user-accounts with RL personalities.

Blocking such accounts who claim to be the subject (and make dubious edits) over their own biography is needed to protect their own RL reputation from being damaged by a media-article which discusses at length, about how the subject is whitewashing his own biography, when it was actually a joe-job by an impersonator.

That was a bad decline. ∯WBG^converse 16:45, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Huh?~~ I don’t really agree, but thanks for the drop by. Essentially before my decline it was stale on AIV. No other admin seemed concerned and I still believe that was not the best forum. Yes, it may be a NOTHERE account, though it was not obvious vandalism where I felt a block was needed immediately. Feel free to take to AN/I or another admin if you still disagree, but I will not be blocking that account at this time. NJA | talk 16:46, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. This involves a case where the high profile subject made a claim over his Twitter account about how his bio was being manipulated by leftists. Then we see the editor (who edits very sporadically) claiming to be the subject and editing the bio. On crawling his contributions, he seems to be more or less of a SPA around the locus of the subject and is often whitewashing the article.

You are missing the point when you dwell on the NOTHERE locus. This wasn't a routine vandal-report. AIV is a mean of gathering a quick response to impersonation-cases, to limit any potential damage.

There are a few cases, where admins shall use their judgement rather than pass the buck to another for not suiting to the part. board. But, then obviously, you are quite free to not use the tools and policy doesn't prohibit that. I will seek other venues. Best, ∯WBG^converse 16:56, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As you might have seen, the specific template that I linked over the first line of my message does not dwell on aspects of edit-quality. We block such accounts irrespective of whatever they edit if they claim to be some famous person or is editing in topics linked with some famous person who shares the same name. ∯WBG^converse 16:58, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for the comment. I am aware of the purpose of AIV and blocking rationale. I don’t know who the “we” are that you’re referring to, but I wish to reiterate again that the AIV report you are concerned over was stale by the time I looked at it. It was then cleared later from AIV by yet another admin. Maybe all of us patrolling admins missed something that is very obvious to you. I do encourage you reaching out other forums where discussion can be had. AIV isn’t a discussion board, whilst ANI is. Thanks,. NJA | talk 17:02, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:184.103.180.91

Hi NJA,

You declined my report of User:184.103.180.91 on WP:AIV saying they had been "incorrectly or insufficiently warned". Could I respectfully ask you to take another look at this one? This is a long-term block evading vandal - see User:Railfan23/CapVandals. This user has been warned multiple times, yet persists in making disruptive changes. It's clearly the same individual IP-hopping - note the WHOIS records that show they are all using the same ISP from the same ZIP code, and making the same changes to the same articles. They have been blocked three times on three different IPs for these exact edits, and are evading their current block and continuing to vandalize the same articles. I believe sufficient and correct warnings have been given to this user. Thanks, Railfan23 (talk) 15:42, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Railfan23: The decline rationale is correct in that the user has been given no warning on their talk page about potentially disruptive edits. There are on record only 2 edits today. I appreciate this may be a sock of an abuser you’re familiar with, but AIV is for reporting serious vandalism and obvious spam issues that demand an immediate block to prevent further disruption to Wikipedia. Unless an admin is fully aware of this particular abuser 2 edits with no talk page warnings is unlikely to result in a block from the AIV board. Other issues, such as the one you’re describing usually needs a bit more consideration and potentially discussion, which AIV is not meant to provide. In this case perhaps seeking page protection for the affected page may be an appropriate avenue, a report at WP:SPI or perhaps putting your concern up at WP:AN/I. Even now re-considering the issue, I do not believe with an appropriate level of certainly that blocking this IP would prevent further disruption to Wikipedia. If you have further information that would convince me the block is needed to prevent further disruption I’d happily consider it. NJA | talk 15:52, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but this user has been warned many, many times about this behavior. Please see User:Railfan23/CapVandals, which shows the IPs used and the long history of warnings given. Warnings apply to the user, not the particular IP page they use, so the fact they haven't been warned on this particular page isn't the issue. RPP isn't helpful, since they are ranging across a large number of articles, again listed on the page I linked above and in the original AIV report. This user has been blocked three times after reports at AIV, in the last 10 days for this exact pattern of vandalism on this and other articles. They persist in this vandalism until blocked. I'll happily take this to AN/I though. Railfan23 (talk) 16:18, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Railfan23: The specific IP you reported was not warned at all until I just warned them recently. They have not edited since the warning (atleast of of now). They pose no immediate threat to disrupting Wikipedia. I will monitor them for the next few hours, but you must ensure you understand the purpose of AIV. A report of an IP with only 2 edits with no warnings is not sufficient for AIV. I cannot say for certain how many edits or warnings the other IPs had when blocked from AIV, though you may ask those admins to review the situation if you wish (by ensuring you also tell them I declined the report and perhaps link to this discussion). I said clearly above that an admin with knowledge of the situation may feel the need to block, but other admins, such as myself, are unlikely and really should not, when coming upon an AIV report to block an IP with only 2 edits and no warnings unless we feel it will prevent further disruption to Wikipedia. I have said I was not and remain unconvinced blocking this IP for any short or medium period of time will prevent disruption. NJA | talk 16:27, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

205.118.89.2

205.118.89.2 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Hi there,

May I ask for your rationale for the duration that you chose to block this IP address for?

Aside from their long block log: [1] (although that's obviously not very relevant anymore--since the IPs last block expired in 2017), it looks like every single edit that was made in 2019 so far has been vandalism of some sort. On that note, I would have expected the IP to be blocked for at least a few weeks if not more. Regards. 123.218.188.28 (talk) 19:30, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@123.218.188.28: It was the duration of time I felt necessary to prevent disruption to Wikipedia. I also think it an appropriate amount of time as the IP hasn’t been blocked in quite a while and the last set of recent warnings were over a month ago. Should they start up immediately or in the near term with vandalism edits, then another admin may think a few weeks or longer to be the appropriate. NJA | talk 19:59, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply (Re: Persecution of Christians)

Whether true or not, the source is from books written in the 20th Century by Psychologists. They are not historical in nature but are humanistic writings based on a non-exact science of Psychology. Though the “Roman authorities” tried hard to avoid Christians, the explanation given in one source states: Ref. “The Emotional Life of Nations. New York: Karnac. ISBN 1-892746-98-0. Both Christians and Jews "engaged in a contest and reflection about the new-fangled practice of martyrdom,"191 even unto suicide...and Augustine spoke of "the mania for self-destruction" of early Christians.192 But the Christians, following Tertullian's dicta that "martyrdom is required by God," forced their own martyrdom so they could die in an ecstatic trance: "Although their tortures were gruesome, the martyrs did not suffer, enjoying their analgesic state."195” This is a personal point of view by observance alone, not by experience. It may have appeared to the bystander that this was so, but to the one martyred, there was more to it as a Christian. Christianity is not that same as the Muslim who would carelessly strap a bomb to his waist for a promise of Vestal Virgins forever in eternity. The Scriptures clearly teach that life is precious, and we should not seek martyrdom, but if martyrdom finds its way to us, we are not to love this life unto death. This author is misled, supposing to inflect his own opinion to the masses and to mar the faith of Christianity. This was only the “VIEW” of Tertullian, but other Christians avoided martyrdom. In this article, there is no reference to a specific Tertullian work where it is written about “Tertullian's dicta”. --Mitchlock (talk) 20:31, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mitchlock: I appreciate the explanation here, but the talk page you should be using is that of the article itself. That way editors with an interest in the topic and who have edited that page can engage in a dialogue with you. You shouldn't be removing a large section of text that is sourced, despite its age or whether there’s other schools of thought, etc. You can however discuss with users on that page to perhaps negotiate better wording, most importantly asserting other reliable sources to support your point of view (while ensuring you remain neutral). Thanks. NJA | talk 20:39, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, I am still learning through all the confusion. No the less, could you please try and answer my inquiry? I would be grateful. Mitchlock (talk) 03:14, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mitchlock: I have answered the question, though very broadly. If you have reliable sources and as long as you edit in a neutral way, then introduce this concern about Tertullian’s dicta on the article’s talk page. However, removal or substantive revision of a block of sourced text without following these steps will lead to a dispute and possibly blocking. More tips abound here in dealing with disputes. Also I must advise to be careful with your words, although I understand what you say in your example above, it can be construed as insensitive and I’d recommend finding less contentious comparators. NJA | talk 11:11, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Medgirl09

Thank you for blocking Medgirl09 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Do you have access to revdel her blatant BLP violations (including edit summaries)? Or should I make a request elsewhere? WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:46, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiDan61: I think I cleaned it up. If anything is serious report to oversight at WP:RFO. NJA | talk 17:53, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries are clean (except this one on a user page. BLP violations still exist in the page histories themselves. I'll contact oversight to manage. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:35, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiDan61: I had another go. Overisght can double check if you’ve already sought their involvement. I didn’t do anything however to the userspace edit on purpose, as whilst disruptive, it didn’t seem to require any revdel. NJA | talk 18:52, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notifications

Pings don't work unless the edit is signed at the same time. --RexxS (talk) 15:30, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@RexxS: I did wonder after I did that. Now I know for sure :) NJA | talk 15:55, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Contested deletion Re:Au5Draft

I provided a reason for why Au5:Draft did not deserve to be deleted but it was subsequently ignored. I want to know what I should do such that the article has a chance to be on the main wiki now that the DRAFT ARTICLE is banned from being created. I thought the purpose of a draft article was such that fellow editors could contribute to improving the article? As I have the previous source code, I thought the first appropriate step was to put the previously deleted article on the draft such that it can be improved. Unfortunately, these attempts are quickly removed as the article was "too similar" to the previous one. As the source code was from the previously deleted article on Au5, how am I supposed to make it look significantly different to avoid deletion? Is there any way the Au5 article has a chance to make it onto the main wikispace? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LivinAWestLife (talk • contribs)

@LivinAWestLife: Hi. I realize it’s frustrating. I did not delete the article or close the discussion leading to its deletion, but I did protect it from being repeatedly re-created. There may be a chance it makes it live, but that’s not up to me. I have moved the deleted text (as edited just prior to deletion) to your own user space to work on. See User:LivinAWestLife/Draft:Au5. I suggest considering WP:YFA, WP:Draft and work on it in your user pace. Then look at WP:DRV and when you’re ready perhaps take it to WP:Refund. Good luck. NJA | talk 02:28, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@NJA: Thanks for the help! I was not previously aware of these options. I'll try to work on it in the meantime. Wish you the best. --LivinAWestLife

(talk page stalker) @LivinAWestLife: Once the draft is ready for submission, the appropriate place to challenge the result of an AfD is to pass it through deletion review. Just make sure you address the concerns regarding the deleted version in your appeal, which I see you have successfully done in your current version of the draft (after all, it's been at least a year since that AfD so any new developments were bound to happen). Other than that, good luck working on the draft.

Jalen D. Folf (talk) 04:07, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rayan Warfare

Somehow User:RayanWarfare is editing even though he's been blocked. He's doing a lot of damage quickly. Is there a way to check his block? Thank you! Orville1974 (talk) 02:28, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Autohaendler

You may wish to revoke talk page access.--Cahk (talk) 07:27, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Y0P9L81v

I want to let you know that user:Y0P9L81v was changing messages on their talkpage posted by other users. They were changed to the point of changing the meaning. Here is an example. [[2]]. There was a lot more, but here is another [[3]]. CLCStudent (talk) 19:44, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@CLCStudent: I did consider his edits, including those you linked. While not constructive, in this instance I cannot say it amounts to vandalism to the level requiring a block. I will warn them to not edit messages on their talk page (or anywhere) that would effect the meaning. If this happens again after the warning please do re-report. NJA | talk 21:12, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

May 2019

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --Kb03 (talk) 19:03, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:24.140.79.53

Hi. Since you last blocked User talk:24.140.79.53, I thought I'd let you know that his disruptive editing continues. I noted the most recent act of his (that I'm aware of) on that IP's talk page, with diff. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 04:13, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Nightscream: blocked for 1 month. If they continue after the block you may wish to raise at WP:ANI. N.J.A. | talk 10:31, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 14:36, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I feel ya

Regarding this edit sumarry: I tried to address this very issue and was basically told "a lot of those names get blocked eventually so the reports must be working." I don't buy that at all as what is being reported is generally not actually username violations at all, but with so little input in the discussion nothing happened. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:19, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Beeblebrox: Totally agree. I said my bit on the talk page. I wish I had paid more attention when posting on the same page about the stale bot reports. It makes sense to me that the backlog would be less an issue if there are less reports by the bot where admins aren’t able to do anything. N.J.A. | talk 20:04, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your rangeblock of 2a02:c7f::/32

Hi there,

I was just trying to edit an article to discover I wasn't logged in and my current IP address was blocked due to your rangeblock. I thought I'd let you know that that is a rather excessive range to block. It blocks one eighth of the 2a02:c78::/29 range which is the only IPv6 range assigned to BSkyB, the UK's second largest ISP accounting for 22% of our internet connections.

This IPv6 block is not assigned geographically at all, for instance my IP geolocates to Manchester (Central England), but I'm in Aberdeen (North of Scotland). So essentially, you've blocked 2.75% of UK internet connections more or less at random. Please could you consider unblocking this range and being slightly less sweeping with your rangeblocks in future? Thanks, --Newbiepedian (talk · C · X! · L) 19:58, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has in place methods to address those affected by a range block. I confirm the block is not the first block to that exact range this month, and it is as narrow as is possible to prevent disruption to Wikipedia with as little collateral effects on IP editors as is possible. If it were narrower it is unlikely it would be effective in preventing further disruption. I hope that provides some insight into your statement as you did not ask any questions. N.J.A. | talk 20:13, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I don't understand how blocking 2.75% of the world's #21 most populous country's IPv6 connections is an acceptable level of collateral effect. Is there any evidence to suggest that the disruption coming from the range has been co-ordinated? Otherwise, the argument here boils down to "there is a lot of vandalism from IPs in a fairly wide range", but that's rather self-evident given there are 34 billion subnets in that range – you could just as well block 2a00::/12 with the same justification.--Newbiepedian (talk · C · X! · L) 20:41, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: It appears that Sky is currently only allocating 2A02:C7d::/32 and 2A02:C7f::/32 out of the 2A02:C78::/29 range. This is why it appears that so much disruption is coming from one IP range: What you're seeing within your rangeblock is 11% of the UK's IPv6 traffic, not merely 2.75%. --Newbiepedian (talk · C · X! · L) 20:49, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The first of these /32 ranges (the C7D) has a block log at this link. The only previous block of that /32 range was by User:Gilliam for 72 hours in February. The second of these ranges (the C7F) has a block log at this link. The two blocking admins there were User:Materialscientist and (now) User:NJA for 72 hours. Regarding the idea of blocking a /12, the Wikimedia software only lets us block IPv6 ranges up to a maximum of /32. A /32 range is large but might occasionally be a good idea, as argued here by NJA. Comparing this situation with a related one on the IPv4 side, the largest IPv4 block that is allowed is a /16, but such wide blocks are indeed used from time to time. EdJohnston (talk) 01:21, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Block of 176.251.144.180

Can you let me know why you have blocked my IP address 176.251.144.180 from editing on Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:6051:4500:1D89:E434:5136:D145 (talk) 09:20, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You’re not from what I can tell and you shouldn’t be editing from another IP if you are indeed blocked. Use the unblock template on the user talk page of your blocked account, see WP:APPEAL. N.J.A. | talk 11:48, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thanks for processing my unblock request so quickly! SnowFire (talk) 14:10, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ANI report you handled and closed

Hi NJA! I was patrolling through ANI and saw your closing notes on this ANI report. I just wanted to let you know that I looked through those edits by the IP user and didn't see anything that required suppression. There were a couple of edit summaries that I restored public visibility to due to not meeting the RD2 criterion for being a serious BLP violation, and of those some I corrected to be revdel'd under RD3 instead... I just figured that I'd have your back and fix that for you. ;-) Thanks for adding the closing note with a suggestion for an oversighter to take a look; everything should be all set to go. :-) If you have questions, please don't hesitate to respond and let me know (ping me in your response; I'm not actively watching this page) and I'll be happy to answer them. Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:29, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:80.5.138.14 (IP changing British to English) at it again

Hi, you kindly dealt with my vandalism report about the IP user talk:80.5.138.14 who was changing several British BLP pages to say the subject was English rather than British by blocking them for 31 hours. They've started immediately back at it here: [4]. As you're already familiar with the case, I thought it best to notify you directly. OsFish (talk) 04:39, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks OsFish. The user has been warned he will be blocked if he does this again without discussion. N.J.A. | talk 08:51, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for handling this. Alas, it hasn't stopped: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wiley_(musician)&diff=prev&oldid=901410396 OsFish (talk) 06:05, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello - sorry to be bring annoying news, but the IP has started up again with the same thing. OsFish (talk) 01:39, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For now it was one edit nearly a week ago. They may need a specific ban from making such edits. But for now let’s monitor it and if they keep it up with any more recent issues then report here or at WP:AIV. N.J.A. | talk 01:56, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll keep an eye on it. Thanks for your swift reply. OsFish (talk) 02:07, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your block of Tanyagoldisdisgusting

Just a heads-up that the editor evidently has gone to the sock drawer. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 16:20, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Skywatcher68 - thanks. User is blocked and page protected for a couple of days. N.J.A. | talk 17:15, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Block!

It says you blocked me! Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Angloguy (talk • contribs) 23:59, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

you flagged my edit to a Will Genia article

There is no source because he told me directly. Growing up i was a huge fan of his and my father would take me to his training and there Will would talk to me about his childhood. I wish that my dits will be added back to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomtheman999 (talk • contribs) 10:54, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tomtheman999. Unfortunately that does not meet the relevant policy nor is it a reliable source. Comments would need obtained e.g. at WP:RSN. N.J.A. | talk 11:32, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

IP User resuming Disruptive Editing

I saw you blocked this IP User - 98.122.163.34 - because of disruptive editing. Well they started up again after their block ended. Can you block them again, because I now think the IP is just being used for pure vandalism, and not any form of constructive editing... GUtt01 (talk) 09:16, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Remove Talk Page access

Hi, you have indefintely blocked this user talk page access because of this. Sheldybett (talk) 04:21, 14 June 2019 (UTC) Looks like the vandalism is the IP address maybe related to the indef blocked user. Sheldybett (talk) 04:23, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Sheldybett. It looks like you handled it. N.J.A. | talk 11:47, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lionel Cole

Hello NJA, Quick question. I added a link to Lionel Cole's official website to his Wiki page. Why did you revert the edit? If there is another way to add his website, please educate me. I am managing his website and he likes wiki to link to it. Is there maybe a way to list external resources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by KatCol LA (talk • contribs) 16:49, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi KatCol LA. I’ve added the link to the official website following the linking guidelines (hopefully!). Be sure however you review and are aware of the policies on paid editing and conflict of interests. Cheers, N.J.A. | talk 17:45, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

176.110.96.143

Hi. The IP keep adding unsourced genre after the block expired. See [5][6][7][8][9][10][11]. 2402:1980:8247:D843:9B8C:E282:8BE2:8640 (talk) 15:10, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	Many thanks for this, Seeing the users edits over at So Awkward I thought my next venue was going to have to be 3RRNO and then to my surprise I find out they're indeffed so I simply wanted to say a big thanks for finally putting a stop to this users nonsense!, Also many thanks for your valued contributions to the project :), Many thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 19:08, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Sujoy home services pvt ltd

You may wish to revoke talk page access.--Cahk (talk) 07:55, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Caalamus

Please delete 1 2 revisions : Criteria 2 applies. -- CptViraj (📧) 12:46, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CptViraj - although it looks like “normal" incivility to me, I have rev’ed the one edit that was a bit more than the typical “F off” on their own talk page. N.J.A. | talk 12:52, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Regards! -- CptViraj (📧) 13:06, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jamuna Boro

Sir, a user is vandalizing Jamuna Boro article. User has deleted reliable news sources and changed sourced content with his/her own POV. It is evident from the user's edit here and here that it is disruptive since the user has changed the sourced content with two different names. User has also removed Wikilinks - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 18:06, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fylindfotberserk I’ve given a final warning as the edits seem significant and do not make sense without proper discussion and evidence. Hopefully they’ll back off or otherwise engage in discussion so a consensus can be had should changes be required. N.J.A. | talk 18:24, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks sir. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 18:44, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question About Link Removed From The Prize Linked Savings Account Page

Hey NJA- I had a quick question and would like some further clarification on an external link that I thought would have clarified an entry a bit more.

I believe the link I posted was comparable to most of the other links on that page that were directing people to the specific prize-linked savings account programs.

Could you please elaborate on how the link I inserted is different from the links under the the following items: "Lucky Savers","Lucky Lagniappe", "Neighborhood Credit Union","Save to Win", and "Saver's Sweepstakes" — Preceding unsigned comment added by AneesHakim (talk • contribs) 17:16, 26 June 2019 (UTC) @AneesHakim:: honestly I can’t. What a rubbish article, but I cannot see a reason why I’d revert again in relation to that specific page. Normally the edit would be spam. Cheers --N.J.A. | talk 17:35, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks in unblock request

I was just about to redact that attack against Letcreate123 and their disability — why would you leave that attack displayable? El_C 18:30, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: oh wow can we blame this on trying the full desktop version of Wikipedia on an iPhone ? I was emailed that some IP tagged me and was checking the editing history and apparently my fat thumb reverted you. I left everything alone and didn’t double check as I saw you were on it. Cheers N.J.A. | talk 18:47, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, okay. No worries. Looks like it's resolved now. El_C 18:49, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Spam account

Hi, sorry to bother you. I noticed that you recently blocked Mcfarland18 for spam, and it looks like Michelle331 is inserting the same link repeatedly as well (examples: [12] [13]). I thought I should let you know. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 04:18, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Wallyfromdilbert: Thanks for letting me know. N.J.A. | talk 12:08, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	You've been recognized! ;) Just happened to notice your diligent admin work and want you to know it's much appreciated, as there's a whole lot of stuff to mop up and not enough of us to go around! Thank you for keeping enwiki clean. œ^™ 16:25, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Boris Johnson

A user vandalized Boris Johnson but I cant revert the edit because it is locked. 99.53.112.186 (talk) 14:01, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

G-41614 ...

... says Thank You for IP-exemption. --G-41614 (talk) 10:50, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your message about the High Bailiff contribution

Hello NJA,

You wrote: "Hello, I'm NJA. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to High bailiff (Vermont) ‎ have been undone because they appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted; Wikipedia articles should be written objectively, using independent sources, and from a neutral perspective. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. N.J.A."

I am new to trying to edit Wikipedia (and non too good at it!). What I tried to do is add a workable link to the cited article from the Addison Independent. The published link no longer works:

http://www.addisonindependent.com/201610no-pay-no-work-why-not-say-two-high-bailiff-candidates

the one from the NewsBank database does, q.v.:

https://infoweb.newsbank.com/apps/news/openurl?ctx_ver=z39.88-2004&rft_id=info%3Asid/infoweb.newsbank.com&svc_dat=AWNB&req_dat=1026F45C6CE0E79A&rft_val_format=info%3Aofi/fmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Actx&rft_dat=document_id%3Anews%252F16056B6329246110 — Preceding unsigned comment added by RAOeser (talk • contribs) 02:26, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RAOeser are you trying to cite something in the article using this link as a reference or are you trying to insert it as an external link? WP:RS may assist. N.J.A. | talk 10:55, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback

Hello there!

I wanted to reach out to you about being granted the ability to rollback. I’ve been working on monitoring Recent Changes, username violations, and overall anti vandalism tasks. It would make things a bit easier in helping contribute to Wikipedia. Thanks for taking the time to read this and reply, :) --Giooo95 (talk) 20:12, 24 July 2019 (UTC) @Giooo95: Done. N.J.A. | talk 20:14, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --Giooo95 (talk) 20:17, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The name Carlos

Hello NJA,

Seeing that you were the last one to edit Cody Fern's wikipedia page, I'm assuming that you said that his future character in American Horror Story: 1984 is to be named "Carlos" . I was writing to you to see if you can confirm it and to provide evidence.

I'd appreciate your honesty and cooperation.

Sincerally, Anonymous

Actually my last "Edit" to that article was to protect it from vandalism. The edit where "Carlos" was inserted is here and was done by User:88.17.151.187. There is no reference or source given. Discuss on the article's talk page and not here, thanks. N.J.A. | talk 16:26, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AntiCompositeBot

Hi. My apologies, but I messed up. This bot is confirmed here [[14]] because it shows AntiComposite creating the bot. CLCStudent (talk) 18:07, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Already done. CLCStudent (talk) 18:09, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@CLCStudent: Thanks and no worries. I hadn't actually seen your report at UAA (I noticed it when checking over the user creation log). As you note it seems resolved as User:TonyBallioni has unblocked. N.J.A. | talk 18:11, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

42.200.154.50

Blocked user:42.200.154.50 is abusing her talkpage. CLCStudent (talk) 14:09, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That BLP vandal

I think that this new edit would warrant an indef block on grounds of WP:NOTHERE. But it's your call. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 17:40, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yea I changed my mind as I was pressing the button. The additional edits thereafter helped push me to revise the block. Thanks, N.J.A. | talk 17:45, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tamil Sun TV IPs

Hi, NJA. I think Special:Contributions/76.64.46.61, who you blocked not long ago, might be the same as Special:Contributions/2401:4900:2306:CA6C:9C2A:4446:320F:94E2, Special:Contributions/2401:4900:3609:7D5:B097:F6B0:3001:7223, and maybe Special:Contributions/2401:4900:2301:8A82:2C34:FD79:BD2:10F6 and Special:Contributions/2401:4900:3605:9F0A:F471:C8A3:E3D1:F803 – note the edits to Sun TV (India), Template:Sun TV shows, and the unexplained removal of content, esp. Tamil templates and categories. There may be other IPs but I don't really know of a way to figure that out without going through article histories one by one. I also don't really know anything about rangeblocks and I don't have rollback, but I wanted to bring this to your attention in case either of those are called for. Thanks, – Levivich 02:34, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It’s hard to say it’s the same as the 76.64.46.61, but regardless that new range was making disruptive edits and is blocked for 1 week. N.J.A. | talk 10:13, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

93.78.16.209

Hi, I made a comment at User talk:93.78.16.209 (who you blocked) in response to their unblock request. Please could you have a look. Many thanks. --Money money tickle parsnip (talk) 18:44, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorted, thanks. N.J.A. | talk 02:33, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

removing my post

I don't think you should have removed that post. It was a town joke. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigsamsunc (talk • contribs)

I'm sure it's hilarious locally, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not typically known to be a joke site (depending on who you ask). Anyhow the removal is correct and let's leave it off. N.J.A. | talk 18:01, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bots Newsletter, August 2019

Extended content of post condensed for aesthetics

Bots Newsletter, August 2019

Greetings!

Here is the 7th issue of the Bots Newsletter, a lot happened since last year's newsletter! You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future newsletters by adding/removing your name from this list.

Highlights for this newsletter include:

ARBCOM

Nothing of note happened. Just like we like it.

BAG

Several (1 + 12 = 13) users have been retired/resigned from the BAG due to inactivity, per our new activity requirements (discussion).

BAG members are expected to be active on Wikipedia to have their finger on the pulse of the community. After two years without any bot-related activity (such as posting on bot-related pages, posting on a bot's talk page, or operating a bot), BAG members will be retired from BAG following a one-week notice. Retired members can re-apply for BAG membership as normal if they wish to rejoin the BAG.

Two BAG members retired
- Madman (talk · contribs) retired.
- BU Rob13 (talk · contribs) vanished and retired.
Three new BAG members have been voted in, welcome to the BAG!
- Primefac (talk · contribs) joined on 2018-12-12 (RfBAG). Primefac operates PrimeBOT (talk · contribs) which does a plethora of tasks.
- TheSandDoctor (talk · contribs) joined on 2019-01-21 (RfBAG). TheSandDoctor operates several bots including DeprecatedFixerBot (talk · contribs).
- Enterprisey (talk · contribs) joined on 2019-08-07 (RfBAG). Enterprisey operates EnterpriseyBot (talk · contribs), which does a plethora of tasks, RemindMeBot (talk · contribs) which posts reminders, and codes several scripts.

We thank former members for their service and wish Madman a happy retirement. We note that Madman and BU Rob13 were not inactive and could resume their BAG positions if they so wished, should their retirements happens to be temporary.

BOTDICT

Two new entries feature in the bots dictionary

Editor-hostile wikitext – describes wikitext structuring that is editor hostile, even if it renders correctly
Spectrum of usefulness – describes how tasks are deemed useful or not

BOTPOL

Activity requirements: BAG members now have an activity requirement. The requirements are very light, one only needs to be involved in a bot-related area at some point within the last two years. For purpose of meeting these requirements, discussing a bot-related matter anywhere on Wikipedia counts, as does operating a bot (RFC).
Copyvio flag: Bot accounts may be additionally marked by a bureaucrat upon BAG request as being in the "copyviobot" user group on Wikipedia. This flag allows using the API to add metadata to edits for use in the New pages feed (discussion). There is currently 1 bot using this functionality.
Mass creation: The restriction on mass-creation (semi-automated or automated) was extended from articles, to all content-pages. There are subtleties, but content here broadly means whatever a reader could land on when browsing the mainspace in normal circumstances (e.g. Mainspace, Books, most Categories, Portals, ...). There is also a warning that WP:MEATBOT still applies in other areas (e.g. Redirects, Wikipedia namespace, Help, maintenance categories, ...) not explicitely covered by WP:MASSCREATION.

BOTREQs and BRFAs

As of writing, we have...

20 active BOTREQs, please help if you can!
14 open BRFAs and 1 BRFA in need of BAG attention (see live status).
In 2018, 96 bot task were approved. An AWB search shows approximately 29 were withdrawn/expired, and 6 were denied.
Since the start of 2019, 97 bot task were approved. Logs show 15 were withdrawn/expired, and 15 were denied.
10 inactive bots have been deflagged (see discussion). 5 other bots have been deflagged per operator requests or similar (see discussion).

New things

All bot-related discussion pages now have a centralized and searchable archive box (see discussion). Discussions are searchable per noticeboard, or globally.
{{Bot}} now supports |status=expired (see discussion). This led to the deletion of Category:Indefinitely blocked Wikipedia bots as useless (see discussion).
WP:BOTREQ now mentions WP:SCRIPTREQ and WP:AWBTASKS as alternatives to bot requests.
The bot creation guide now mentions bot flags, and two new languages Awk and MATLAB. Other minor tweaks have been made.
AAlertBot has received major code updates. In particular, WP:AALERTS will now report splits, mergers, and AFC submissions.
Citation bot has received several updates (User talk:Citation bot/Archive 10/11/12/13/14/15/16/17). In particular, the bot stopped the automated removal of |publisher= from {{cite journal}}, and stopped the automated addition of CiteSeerX links, and now uses OAuth to authenticate those who make requests of the bot.

Other discussions

These are some of the discussions that happened / are still happening since the last Bots Newsletter. Many are stale, but some are still active.

See also the latest discussions at the bot noticeboard.

Thank you! edited by: Headbomb 17:24, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(You can subscribe or unsubscribe from future newsletters by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Contribution to Cognac Undone

Hi, I am quite surprised about your comment on my editing of the Cognac voice. Since you have undone the comment and marked it as non constructive I guess you understand that the part that you have put back is completely wrong. It is stated that Cognac goes from 70% alcohol to 40% just by ageing and alcohol evaporation. This is simply wrong. I removed that part and added a simple sentence to explain how you reduce the alcohol content from 70% to 40% (adding water). Before undoing please read carefully. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lellowiki (talk • contribs) 13:27, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please consider putting back my comment? Really, the statements in that voice are simply wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lellowiki (talk • contribs) 07:52, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Lellowiki: Assuming it’s referenced with a reliable source, you are free to re-add your comment. If it was properly sourced then I apologize for marking it unconstructive. N.J.A. | talk 09:56, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll put it back and add a proper reference. Thanks.

Would you consider a range block

for 2409:4052:2119:5116:0:0:7FD:48A4 (see these contribs as an example.) Praxidicae (talk) 13:53, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Praxidicae: Although I do see an issue, the recent IP is currently blocked for 48h and none of the others have edited in the past 24h. If the range starts up again before the expiry of the current block then I’d be happy to review a block of the “/32” or perhaps “/43” range. N.J.A. | talk 14:00, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

County Roscommon and Iron Age

Hello NJA, I'm wondering about this edit/undo you made in the History section. In the British Iron Age article, the lede says "typically excluding prehistoric Ireland". The change of link made by TickPaddy to Irish Iron Age (a section in Prehistoric Ireland) seemed reasonable. But as the first-mentioned ringfort dates from the Stone Age and the second from much later, perhaps post-Iron Age, my inclination would be to drop mention of an Iron Age altogether. Thanks Declangi (talk) 03:03, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:RUBAL EDUCATIONAL GROUP

You may wish to revoke talk page access.--Cahk (talk) 07:24, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Spam users at AIV

Hello NJA. You redirected two of my reports to COIN at AIV, but the guideline you link to seems to contradict your point. Accoriding to the guideline, cases of obvious WP:SPAM can be reported to AIV. Both User:Adedayo Ogunsanwo/sandbox and User:AbhishekThakur11 seem to qualify as spam under WP:BROCHURE (The same applies to pages in userspace and the draft namespace.). Could you clarify as to why these instances cannot be dealt with at AIV? --MrClog (talk) 16:06, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@MrClog: I understand the confusion. To be honest what I am about to type may not help. And it could very well not be the view widely held by all admins. Here goes: my experience in relation to what the header/guideline at AIV is saying in relation to "spam", which must also be read with the qualifying words posted therein "active, obvious, and persistent spammers". Spam in this sense is taken, I believe by most admins, but in any event by me to mean making edits to articles with link spam or otherwise editing articles for the sole purpose of spamming or consistent with an advertising only purpose. For a patroller it is easy when the username clearly matches the spam or advertising edits (in that case take it to WP:UAA), but in the two examples you cited (where the name does not match), and where the account isn't on a link spam spree, then, and as is also set out in AIV header/ guidelines, first start with a discussion with the user about their edits and if they continue to consider other venues like the COI noticeboard. Should they ignore these warnings and continue to edit contrary to these guidelines and policies then arguably a report to AIV would be appropriate and I would have then blocked for being an "Advertising only account". In this case these two accounts, while they edited in a promotional manner, the username did not tie them to those edits and importantly for a report made to AIV, there was only limited edits (that is they were not on a spam/advert spree) and also the edits were limited to their user space. As such these were not blockable on sight but rather required a discuss and if necessary take to a relevant forum approach. I note another admin deleted the user pages in question but did not block. Hope this shines some light? N.J.A. | talk 19:38, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your thorough response. --MrClog (talk) 14:42, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RoidRage

Hi there, his edits looked fine from what I saw, I may not see deleted edits but the edits he made appeared to be accurately sourced. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 17:10, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Message apologises

The CSD notice was placed here by twinkle, as you created the talk page of the user (to block them for username violations).

As they then added some promotional stuff, I tagged the page with G11, but as you created the page, twinkle notified you rather than the user. Should really have checked what twinkle was doing more closely Self-trout.

~~ OxonAlex - talk 18:00, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, all sorted and I eventually figured that is what happened. Thanks, N.J.A. | talk 18:01, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confused

Hi I am a little confused, I made a report using twinkle by checking the "Account is a promotion-only account" on the AIV section as this was the only place it exists. I supplied the relevant information as I have done in the past for similar cases. This has always been dealt with by an admin usually with a block this is the first time I've been told to take it to COIN. I could have cited the user name as being violation of a promotional username. Would this have been more appropriate? --Dom from Paris (talk) 16:08, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thanks for popping by. Your report was dealt with by me and I declined to block. Not all reports will result in a block. Having a conflict of interest is not the same as a serious spamming incident needing immediate block. As for marking it promotional, that would not matter as you said as such in your report. It was not a blatant username violation issue either. That report was more of a talk to the user on their page first and report only if they do not respond and continue type of situation. Hope this assists, N.J.A. | talk 18:02, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a range block

Now that school's back in session, this welcome action won't be sufficient [15]. I'm cleaning up after a number of edits from the school. Thanks, 2601:188:180:1481:DC2D:52EC:4C74:EA5E (talk) 17:39, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going to block for longer at this time. The disruption has stopped for now and they've left the talk page alone. When they become an issue again re-report and an admin will consider the length of any needed subsequent block at that time. N.J.A. | talk 18:37, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, another admin has blocked the range for a week. N.J.A. | talk 18:40, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked IP User

Hi, the IP User (92.99.250.172) you blocked is back with another IP (159.28.160.33) and doing the same, vandalising same pages. Panda619 (talk) 17:12, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Panda619: thanks N.J.A. | talk 18:38, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Contributions/176.110.96.143 doing the same genre warring after the block has been expired. 2402:1980:8244:C26E:9A3C:ED33:9B40:8445 (talk) 14:28, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

Hi, just a note to thank you for the speedy unblock; it is much appreciated. 2A02:C7F:4481:8300:90DC:E235:5074:54B0 (talk) 00:36, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, sorry for the inconvenience, N.J.A. | talk 02:36, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Declining appeals of your own blocks

Hello NJA. Just a friendly reminder: according to the blocking policy, you should not decline requests to unblock users that you yourself have blocked ("Since the purpose of an unblock request is to obtain review from a third party, the blocking administrators should not decline unblock requests from users they have blocked"), e.g. as you did here. – Joe (talk) 12:33, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the reminder. N.J.A. | talk 14:03, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Joe Roe: any chance you could review the two outstanding unblock requests by that user? It’s been 11 days and a new one was made yesterday. I’ve made my comments on the talk page telling the user another admin needs to consider his additional requests, N.J.A. | talk 10:43, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I prefer not to do block appeals because theoretically they could end up with ArbCom at some point. It looks like Category:Requests for unblock is a bit backlogged. Maybe ask at WP:AN? – Joe (talk) 11:09, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	Thank you for your valued contributions and admin actions to the project, They are greatly appreciated :), Many thanks, Regards, –Dave \| Davey2010^Talk 14:18, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

More specifically thank you for blocking this editor,

I was fully expecting to be told to take it to ANI but no to my surprise you blocked them,

Again thank you I do greatly appreciate that,

Have a great weekend :), Thanks, –Dave | Davey2010^Talk 14:18, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock?

Can you please unblock this IP:[16]? ~~I reported them for vandalism~~ warned them for vandalism and reverted their edits but their edits were actually not vandalism... and you blocked them(these articles are about types of rollercoasters and can have more than one construction date).Lurking shadow (talk) 12:37, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I had intended to block them for "unsourced edits” and to tell you that the edits did not look like blatant vandalism. Any how, should they request unblock on their page, then I will let them know the rationale for the block and discuss whether they are intending to source future edits. Thanks, N.J.A. | talk 20:34, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Lurking shadow: Looking at some of the articles where you reverted to the IPs edit, e.g. those where they added the category “rollercoasters introduced in 2021", I would consider whether you are correct to revert unless there are references. For example, for the Harry Potter and the Escape from Gringotts article, it clearly says the ride opened in 2014, not 2021. N.J.A. | talk 20:38, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That was my thought, too, but these articles seem to be about a type of rollercoaster... which means that there might be more than one rollercoaster, with different opening dates(in these cases two or three).

This source I found seems to confirm the planned opening year and looks like it confirms one or two but actually doesn't without WP:OR; this source [17] is inaccessible for me(maybe not for you?). It wasn't vandalism, though.Lurking shadow (talk) 21:06, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I’m still missing the obvious, but they weren’t introduced in 2021 though, were they? I’ll remove the block and suggest any discussion about the sourcing and also the use of the category could happen on article talk pages. N.J.A. | talk 01:33, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Electronic Auditable Pharmaceuticals Transactions and Service (APTS)

You may wish to revoke talk page access.--Cahk (talk) 07:55, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Karaiskakis Stadium

hello! I do not vandalize i revert the vandal in this article see the talk page section location https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Karaiskakis_Stadium --Jjik43 (talk) 14:01, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

I've noticed you declining some reports at AIV and UAA lately, with thoughtful explanations given. I have observed lately an increase in reports at these two noticeboards that are not consistent with our current guidelines and it's nice to see someone giving a little pushback where appropriate. So I just wanted to say thanks for that. -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:24, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw your discussion last week or so on the admin noticeboard about this and although wanted to chime in, I didn't want to start having to name names (both the overzealous reporting parties and, shall we say "punctual" admins) :) - N.J.A. | talk 18:30, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Page move request

Are you able to move Seth is the biggest guy on campus back to its proper title University of Dallas? WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:50, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looks sorted. N.J.A. | talk 13:15, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

COI comments

Hi,

Thanks for writing me, NJA. I guess I don't understand who is supposed to update our company's page if not someone who works for the company. We wouldn't want anyone else editing our information.

Dan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dan at DLT (talk • contribs) 15:47, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Media in Thailand

Hi,

As you accepted Thaigers advert link for media and ThaiVisa has been around longer and has more traffic per month and also is a partner of the nation multimedia, i would have thought it was a valid link.

Please note that i look after the major telcom and media outlets in Thailand so I will be contributing more now.

Thank you in advance for allowing me to re-add the correct media chanels to Wikipedia to make this more factual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TwoBitDoctor (talk • contribs) 08:14, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@TwoBitDoctor: you must be aware of the conflicts policy and a requirement to WP:DISCLOSE publicly, per WP:PAID (if applicable). This does not mean someone else may not question the edits, but I think in regard to the single edit you’re speaking of that that website seems okay on reconsideration, N.J.A. | talk 10:09, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Yes aware, hence i only edited the link to be more accurate with the top media.

Thanks for understanding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TwoBitDoctor (talk • contribs) 14:53, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AussieBot

I created this account as a new bot account. A BRFA will follow shortly. In the meantime, would you mind unblocking? Thanks. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:17, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Sorry. Though had you created the new account is using your present account it would have tied the name in the logs and made things a bit easier, N.J.A. | talk 11:14, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Das Kriechtier (creation/page)

See, I'm not generally popular, so I decided to make myself a page - everything on the page is fact and biased or enhanced in any way. I'd rather be editing a page about me myself.

I'm new with Wikipedia, not using it, but editing. It'd be nice if I could remove "Draft" from the page title, but I guess I have to wait.

As for the "• if you've come to reply to a comment I've left on a talk page, then reply there and ping me." bit, I honestly don't know how. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daskriechtierofficial (talk • contribs) 14:49, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Block question

Hi! Quick question, who do you think OofenshmirtzEvilIncorporated is? Bradv pinged me to check them after they requested an unblock on IRC, and I don't see any accounts other than the ones in their account creation log. The CU log for the IP they were on also doesn't suggest them being an LTA, and given the ISP, I think the log would be pretty accurate historically. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:01, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tony. I cannot recall, but there must have been something happening around that time that I attributed to that account for me to disallow talk page access. I have tried to recall the factors of the situation and all I can see is the filter log hits. Checking the block log for around the same time has not provided more clues. I could have a further look at logs leading up to this for perhaps more clues, but it may easier to give the user another chance since you have after all looked at it, N.J.A. | talk 01:26, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Yeah, it's probably worth restoring TPA at the least . The username is a bit trolly, but I don't think they're an LTA based on the CU data. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:29, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks NJA and TonyBallioni. I've restored talk page access now so they can appeal. – bradv🍁 01:39, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

176.110.96.143

Hi NJA. The IP is back with unsourced genre after the block is expired. Can you block for three months? 2402:1980:8249:A532:E35B:3739:A1AC:B0DC (talk) 13:47, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reversion at Circumstellar habitable zone

Hi NJA, why did you do this, the user has a weird username but the two edits are constructive. Cheers Polyamorph (talk) 10:47, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They are globally banned. I reverted their edit as although perhaps adding a bit of information, it was the sort of edits a new account makes to allow them to be considered auto confirmed to then edit semi-protected pages. If there’s a source for the change you may reinstate without asking me about it, N.J.A. | talk 10:49, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for letting me know. Cheers, Polyamorph (talk) 11:12, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Need help with Patrick Fiori's Wikipedia Page Please

Hey, could you help me with Patrick Fiori's Wikipedia page? I think someone from the Philippines vandalized Patrick's page and added a bunch of Filipino stuff that Patrick never did. I tried to fix it but I think I accidentally took out a few things in the singles table and forgot what was there before. Here's the page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Fiori

If anything, I think there should be a page protection to keep this from happening again. This isn't good, and I wish to keep it as accurate as the French Wikipedia page has it for Patrick Fiori. Anything you can do will be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance.

Hajiru (talk) 16:12, 10 October 2019 (UTC)Hajiru[reply]

Hi. I've looked at the page's history and I do not see any serious issues at present that would indicate a need for protection under the policy. If that changes requests for protection can be made at WP:RFPP, N.J.A. | talk 16:59, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you go back a bit further before my edits, someone made weird edits by adding random names from Filipino actors, added that Patrick supposedly lived in Philippines, claimed he could sing and release music in Filipino, etc. I hope that made sense. Hajiru (talk) 17:11, 10 October 2019 (UTC)Hajiru[reply]

Hi, you may wish to review the policy in terms of when protection is warranted. There is not, at present, serious or ongoing issues that require protection. What you're doing, i.e. copy editing and explaining your changes in edit summaries and use of talk pages is the proper course of action at this time. Again, if the situation changes or escalates, list the page at WP:RFPP, N.J.A. | talk 17:14, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. Sorry for bothering you. I was just frustrated that someone would put false information that made no sense for that singer. Sorry for the trouble. Hajiru (talk) 17:16, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No trouble and thanks for bringing it up. I'll keep an eye if possible. All the best, N.J.A. | talk 17:17, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Sounds good. Thanks for your assistance. Hajiru (talk) 17:18, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I've noticed that there seems to still be some people messing with Patrick Fiori's page. Someone must really believe that Patrick Fiori is a singer and actor from the Philippines when he is NOT. Patrick is from France and has Armenian and Corsican ancestry. Even the other Wikipedias have this. Is there really someone out there that looks like Patrick, or is this some weird troll who won't stop? I'm so confused by all of this. O_o What is your opinion on all of this? Hajiru (talk) 00:48, 22 October 2019 (UTC) Hajiru[reply]

Blocking User:DutchBot

What a weird way to deal with contributors from other wiki’s to block them without the account being active on this wiki. I made the account to use as a botaccount on nl wiki. Shame on you for not investigating. DutchTom (talk) 01:23, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Let us just chill out with the outrage. I cannot run detailed checks on every “bot” name created and even if I did in this case they still are not compliant with policy nor can I see evidence they’ve sought bot approval. The user can request unblock on their page using the instructions thereon to explain their situation. This is not the place, N.J.A. | talk 01:29, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On nl wiki it is not required to ask for a botstatus when you make (less then) one automated edit per minute. Besides that, I am in the testing phase. It is required to show the bot works good and does not make mistakes before I could receive the status. It is just very very weird you block a global user with zero edits. I've never seen that before. Must be some kind of en wiki thing. Very weird. I am a sysop myself on nl wiki, we would never do this. As sysop people have a responsibility to check stuff before blocking. Now there is a blocklog for no freaking reason. DutchTom (talk) 02:10, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your comments but the policies and procedures between ni and en Wiki’s seem to be different. You’ve indicated, but not clearly, you may be the owner of that account. If so, go to its talk page as follow the instructions to sort this out. If you’re not the owner, then leave it for that person to resolve it. I am happy to unblock if you agree to undertake the steps required for approval. Again, the proper page is the blocked user page not here, but whatever, N.J.A. | talk 12:13, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever. Ugh. Always EN-WP and their sysops with weird policy's and hate to their neighbours. "I cannot run detailed checks on every “bot” name created" the only thing you had to do is look at the CentralAuth page. If that ia too much for you, you are not worth this role. Blocking users is a heavy thing you guys use as sweets. Since there are centralized accounts these automatically account creations happen when clicking an internal link to another wiki. As respected Wikipedian the first welcome you get is a block. And you seem to find it normal... LOL. DutchTom (talk) 01:46, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I said I’d unblock the account if you (they) made a request on their user talk page. All I asked for was a nod that you’d undertake the steps required for approval. Instead you waited a few weeks to post an insult on my page. Not very “neighbourly”. Please stop posting here and you the talk page of the blocked account, N.J.A. | talk 11:41, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And even though you failed to actually do anything I kindly requested I’ve unblocked so that you can move on and not do drive-by insults in future. Have fun, but do not run it as an actual bot without following the steps that you’ve been advised of N.J.A. | talk 11:48, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edward VII

Just wandering why my my edits about Caesar the dog were removed

Iwasntallowedemojis (talk) 14:28, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Because the edits were not written well. If they're relevant at all to the article, then consider the format of the text used to describe the same thing in the article about the dog, N.J.A. | talk 14:43, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It was a piece of information about the funeral and Caesar isn’t listed anywhere despite the kings fondness towards him Iwasntallowedemojis (talk) 17:07, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also may I add that the article you linked agrees with me as it says in the royal life section “ he led the procession with a highland guard behind the carriage”

Blocked 213.205.198.0/24

I see that you have blocked the above EE address range for a week, but unfortunately that means that I am blocked from any editing on Wikipedia whilst using my normal means of access. Is there any chance you could review your block? I am a reasonably prolific editor and disambiguator and am having to pay for the disruption caused by others. Apologies if this is the wrong way to go about requesting an unblock. but I have never been blocked before.

Cnwilliams (talk) 17:57, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cnwilliams, I've amended the block which may allow you to edit now while logged in to your already registered account. If this doesn't fix the issue let me know exactly the message you're getting, N.J.A. | talk 18:03, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help and it seems to be fine now. Cnwilliams (talk) 20:03, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

More stupid spammers vandalizing Patrick Fiori's page yet again

Title says it all. UGH! I'm so fed up with this nonsense! Can't those spammers be blocked permanently or removed from Wikipedia or something? Why in the world are they doing this to Patrick Fiori's page when there already is an actor who has even half of those things being added constantly! My patience with these people has run out. Please do something, even if it's to permanently protect the page from further edits until further notice. Sorry if I sound rude, but I'm just annoyed with these people and just want them to stop already. Why are they doing this? I just don't understand what is happening. I tried my best to revert it back to the way it was before. I'm not sure what else to try. I'm tempted to ask for page protection but I'm not sure yet. Sorry if I bothered you again. Hajiru (talk) 14:33, 9 November 2019 (UTC)Hajiru[reply]

Socks are blocked on sight and the page is now semi-protected for some time to see if that assists. Not much more I can suggest at this time, except to remain calm, N.J.A. | talk 13:21, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, and I agree there's not much else we can do for now. Thank you for your help! :D Hajiru (talk) 14:12, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

96.31.192.35

user:96.31.192.35 is abusing her talkpage. CLCStudent (talk) 13:06, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Page protected while blocked, N.J.A. | talk 13:09, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:06, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Likely sock using your name?

Hi there. I noticed you blocked User:Kidgaks as being a sock account. I saw a new user adding the same information as the previous sock to an article, word for word so it seemed suspicious to me. Then I noticed their username bares resemblance to yours: User:TwinNJAs and thought that was odd. I’m not fully sure of how to report suspected socks so I thought I’d bring it to your attention. Alex (talk) 16:57, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good find, thanks! N.J.A. | talk 13:53, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Global Disruptive Tech

You may wish to revoke talk page access.--Cahk (talk) 12:44, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail

Hello, NJA. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. KetanPatelVns (talk) 16:44, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]