User talk:CJinoz

• User talk:PageantUpdater/Archive 6
• User talk:PageantUpdater/Archive 7
• User talk:PageantUpdater/Archive 8 (archive created 11 March 2010)
• User talk:PageantUpdater/Archive 9 (archive created 5 September 2016 - yes I've been away for a while!)
• User talk:PageantUpdater/Archive 10

Hello, welcome to my talk page!

If you want to leave a message, please do it at the bottom as a new section, for better formatting. You can do that by simply pressing the plus sign (+) on the top of this page. And don't forget to sign your messages by four tildes, like this: ~~~~ Thank you!

FYI

I saw your question at ANI. There is a series of paid editing inquiry/warning templates starting with {{uw-paid1}} which you may find useful in situations like this. I usually put it in a stand alone ==Paid editing inquiry== section. Sometimes it works, sometimes they lie and sometimes (probably rarely) they really do not have a paid/coi. It is most useful for editors who simply refuse to respond. If they continue to edit without responding drop an escalating template each time. If after 2-3 times they have not responded ask an admin to block them until they do. Jbh ^Talk 20:18, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

WP:RS

Don't ever expect me to think it makes sense to claim that only hearsay is admissible evidence.That policy harms the accuracy of articles in the name of helping it.12.144.5.2 (talk) 17:46, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

About your question

There is no "clash" with my comment ([1]) and the comment by Nyttend ([2]); What Nyttend is saying, if I may paraphrase, are two things: 1) To clarify that WP:ANRFC is only for discussions that are ready to be closed. 2) That backlogs are normal, and protocols shouldn't change because easier requests are naturally handled first while difficult requests are often overlooked.

It would be incorrect to interpret Nyttend's comment as that it's acceptable to post backlog threads at WP:ANI every time there is a backlog somewhere. There will always be backlogs, see Template:Admin dashboard. WP:ANI is for addressing specific incidents, hence the page title; while WP:AN is the general noticeboard for issues concerning administrators. As there are far more editors/administrators that keep WP:ANI on their watchlist, posts on ANI will usually receive more attention, but again that does not mean you should be posting backlog threads there because it simply isn't what ANI is for. It is counter-productive because there are usually far more other threads concerning user behaviour that requires prioritised attention.

It is fine to post occasional backlog threads to AN, but as previously mentioned, many of the commonly backlogged places are already being watchlisted by administrators that regularly patrols these areas, so when there is a backlog it simply means there isn't enough administrators at that moment to patrol these areas. This happens fairly frequently, because as I mentioned in a previous edit summary, administrators are not backlog clearing robots, and should not be treated as one.

If you have a urgent request, it is far more efficient to log on WP:IRC and request assistance through live chat. If you haven't made any requests that needs to be addressed, and are simply posting backlog threads on regular basis for the sake of "notifying" administrators, it is simply not helpful because now potential patrolling administrators will now be checking two places instead of one. If some requests are not receiving attention after 24 hours for example, it is not because they are not being seen, but because there isn't an administrator that are confident enough to handle that request.

You may want to read Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_compulsory; the same goes to Hhkohh. I am happy to answer any questions at my talk page. Alex Shih (talk) 15:43, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the response & the time you put into it. I wish I would have had the opportunity to ask the question & have that explained right from the get go, it would have saved a lot of unnecessary palaver (& I stand by my point that I felt the two issues were in a small way related, because it came down to things being closed (/archived) sooner than was helpful. I'm still a bit confused, because most of the backlogged items at RPP the first time I came across it did not seem in any way controversial, but I will defer to your experience on that one (until that day I had actually half forgotten it existed, then I came across a persistent IP and I realised page protection was probably the most helpful remedy). As I said somewhere buried in the discussion, at Davey's talk page I think, Wikipedia and the ins & outs can sometimes be a bewildering place even for an experienced editor - in years if not in dealings with the "meta" side of things. I'll admit I still feel that the advice I was given was somewhat contradictory, but I have a better understanding now & again, I appreciate that you took the time to try & explain it further to me. ...   CJ [a Kiwi] in  Oz  15:53, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct about Wikipedia can be a bewildering place even for experienced editors. I didn't think Davey2010 was incorrect in closing that latest backlog thread you were questioning about, because you may not be aware, that was the fourth backlog thread in one week by the same editor, Hhkohh. What makes it slightly more frustrating is that Hhkohh themselves have not submitted any requests in these backlogged places as far I am aware, so they were simply posting for the sake of notification, in which I have explained, not really helpful. While they were by all means done in good faith, I hope we can come to an understanding that this kind of frequency should be understood as excessive. But your question was certainly genuine, although if you have administrator-related questions I think it will be better to ask an active administrator rather than an experienced editor.

If I may explain a bit about RfPP, what may seen uncontroversial might be different from the perspective of administrators. The proper procedure is to check the page history, assess whether or not the description in the request fits the situation in the article, because often times it does not. Going through the recent diffs to assess the following questions: 1) Are these edits disruptive editing or content dispute? 2) Is there sufficient amount of recent disruptive activity? 3) If this page is going to be protected, what would be the appropriate time length based on the protection history? The list goes on, you can also take a look at Template:RFPP; there is a reason why there are many templates for declining. For administrators that regularly works in maintenance areas (not myself, unfortunately), sometimes the process can be quick, but not always. A recommended reading on what could go wrong for an administrator that actively patrols the maintenance areas ([3]). Alex Shih (talk) 16:37, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

File:Робот пылесос Roomba 780.jpg

Thanks for the link - enlightening. And please accept this roomba! ...   CJ [a Kiwi] in  Oz  16:43, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

I couldn't say how many were posted but I certainly noticed a growing trend in the notifications being posted, Looking back I shouldn't of closed it not because it was incorrect but because I had no desire to make that call on whether they were fine or not and I had no desire to discuss it any further so in that respect I feel it should've been closed by someone who either wanted a discussion on it or who would say "Yeah it's fine" or "No it's fine", I feel my closure was more unhelpful than helpful in that respect. –Davey2010^Talk 16:56, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

About the IP editor

Thank you for letting me know about the prior incident. I'm going to make a post on WP:ANI as well. Aspening (talk) 22:04, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

No worries! ...   CJ [a Kiwi] in  Oz  22:04, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Re: your thread

Hi, you probably haven't been on many noticeboards where !voting occurs, but if you want that ANI situation to be taken care of anytime soon, you should bold the entire thing you are supporting, as the first three !voters did. The more the consensus stands out, the more quickly action will be taken. Right now, at a glance, it just looks like the first three people support the same thing, and the bottom two people support something but aren't very strong or sure about it. That's how a thread looks on a very full board like ANI, which is currently more than 200,000 bytes long. If you say you want action, you need to make it look like you really want action if you want it anytime soon. Lots of threads get ignored without action until they are auto-archived by a bot, so the call to action needs to stand out. Hope that makes sense. :) Softlavender (talk) 13:58, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion and the general ANI advice, appreciate it :) ...   CJ [a Kiwi] in  Oz  14:02, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

You're welcome, and it seems to have worked! :) Haha I wrote "Hope that makes sense" twice above: I've deleted the first one. Softlavender (talk) 14:34, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Glad to see it, thanks for your support :) ...   CJ [a Kiwi] in  Oz  14:44, 27 October 2018 (UTC)