User talk:Ningauble

2601:202:4180:D3E0:9471:8F74:D771:661F
I'm not totally sure it's super productive to block a Comcast dynamic IP for a year, or full protect their talk page indefinitely. Looking at the article, the user switched IPs at least three times in 48 hours. Unfortunately, I can't do a range block, since it seems likely to block like half of New Jersey and New York. But them's the breaks. Dynamic IPs are a pain, and dynamic IPV6s are more so.

Anyway, you may be more likely to mess up somebody random than actually prevent the problem there in any meaningful way. G M G talk  21:28, 23 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I may have overreacted. This particular "disgruntled user" has been effective in finding ways to create mayhem, and tools to managing the situation are limited. I previously proposed something that could have averted the whole situation, but it was declined. I have recently considered proposing to restrict the Template: namespace from unregistered users, which would address part of the problem, with its own collateral damage. For now, if you just want to unblock and unprotect I have no objection. People above my pay grade have blessed IP editing, so you can turn them loose. ~ Ningauble (talk) 01:36, 24 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Objection. Someone of that IP's attitude (especially its profane edit summaries) will never stop unless it gets its way. Maintaining indefinite blocking and protection is the right thing to do. Besides, deleting the page would only result in the same vandals recreating it. It would never stop. DawgDeputy (talk) 11:38, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

SheSaid
Hi

The SheSaid project is bringing in a lot of wannabe good-faith new participants to WQ. It is also getting support from existing new and long-standing WQ participants. As one of the influential admins at WQ, it would be great if you could move this project up in your list of priorities a notch or two IMIO.

A while ago you left a short note on the WQ:SheSaid project talkpage. The note sounded (to me and maybe some others readers) as critical of some aspect of the SheSaid Campaign. I guess you either did not see the question I asked or did not have the time to answer?

Thanks in advance for any feedback you may have, Ottawahitech (talk) 18:43, 21 November 2021 (UTC)


 * No disparagement was intended. I will attempt to clarify there. ~ Ningauble (talk) 20:15, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Philologist
Hi ,

Can you please restore the page Philologist which you deleted on 15:13, 15 September 2011. Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 16:35, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry to jump in, but the page that was deleted did not contain any quotes - merely a statement that provided an incorrect definition of the term. If you have validly sourced quotes on this topic, feel free to create the page again. ~ UDScott (talk) 21:13, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * @Ottawahitech – There is nothing of value to be restored. (When the deletion log has been annotated to indicate exactly why the page is of no value to Wikiquote, you may be assured there is nothing to be restored. This type of nonsensical entry borders on vandalism.) Please feel free to create a new quotations page from scratch. ~ Ningauble (talk) 19:50, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

How we will see unregistered users
Hi!

You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:14, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello
Saw you were active, mind protecting the admins noticeboard for a day or so. Cheers --Synoman Barris (talk) 17:43, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I am very reluctant to lock out that important message board, and it does not appear to be necessary at this time. ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:02, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Nathan Bedford Forrest on Wikiquote
Hello Ningauble, I noticed on https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Nathan_Bedford_Forrest the first paragraph was edited by an IP user on 2 June 2021 to remove neutral language and insert language biased in Forrest's defense. You deleted the talk page, which is why I am contacting you. Does this concern you? It concerns me. But I am not an experienced Wikipedian and don't think I'm the person to revert the changes.
 * As indicated in the deletion log, the talk page was only a test page. It contained no meaningful content, nothing to be concerned about. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:56, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Please undelete List of the White House Coronavirus Task Force members
Hi

On 17 October 2020 you deleted List of the White House Coronavirus Task Force members which I created on 2020-09-16 in good faith and had invested time and effort in. You did not notify me of your deletion, and I don’t remember whether I commented on the talkpage or whether I discovered the deletion much much later. In any event, I am surprised you decided to delete this page without community discussion at VFD.

Would you kindly undelete it, so I can see for myself whether it should be voted on by the community. Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 03:11, 28 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Ottawahitech: It was deleted pursuant to the Proposed deletion process, which does not require a vote. Here is a brief timeline:
 * 16 September 2020 – Page created by Ottawahitech.
 * 16 September 2020 – Proposed for deletion a few hours later by UDScott, with reason Not sure of the purpose of having this page (and it contains no quotes) - seems like it fits better at WP.
 * 19 September 2020 – Page edited several times by Ottawahitech, during which the proposed deletion notice was prominently visible.
 * 17 October 2020 – Page deleted by myself as proposed, essentially because it contained no quotes, a standard reason to delete pages.
 * As UDScott observed, this was encyclopedic information. (Information on membership of the now-defunct task force may be found on Wikipedia at White House Coronavirus Task Force, as with its replacement White House COVID-19 Response Team.)
 * I hope you understand why the page will not be undeleted. ~ Ningauble (talk) 19:50, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * @Ningauble:
 * No, I do not understand why this page will not be undeleted. As you said information (quotes?) were added to the page by me, even though I did not remove the prod notice. I believe I explained my rationale on the talk page at the time, but I cannot remember for sure.
 * I would rather not waste any more time on this matter at the moment, because I believe my time could be better spent elsewhere. However, it is not clear to me why you are refusing to undelete this page. If you don't want it in main space you can put it in User:Ottawahitech/List of the White House Coronavirus Task Force members. Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 11:57, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Why are you deleting pages that I have removed Prods from
? Ottawahitech (talk) 20:03, 31 May 2022 (UTC)


 * this is a waste of precious volunteer time (both yours and mine) Ottawahitech (talk) 20:04, 31 May 2022 (UTC)


 * @Ottawahitech: A few days ago (5/31/22) I deleted some pages that you may be referring to. Although the prod reasons may have been debatable (e.g. questionable notability) or even incorrect, the articles I deleted were speedy deleted because they lacked any quotes. It is longstanding practice to speedily delete pages with no quotes, and it is a waste of everybody's time to treat them as something debatable at VFD to contest the lack of quotations. If I guessed wrong about which pages you were concerned about, or if you have any other concerns, please identify specific cases of interest. ~ Ningauble (talk) 01:45, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Mistake?
Hi. I see that you deleted File talk:Philosophy Tube - Sex Work - cropped1.jpg on the grounds that it was a "Talk page of deleted or nonexistent page" but this is not the case. File:Philosophy Tube - Sex Work - cropped1.jpg still exists. It probably shouldn’t thorough, as it is a pre-transition picture of a transgender person and it is not being used. Did you maybe mean to delete that instead (or maybe as well)? DanielRigal (talk) 16:16, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * DanielRigal, this was not a mistake. The mentioned jpeg file is from Wikimedia Commons and does not exist here at Wikiquote. Hence the talk page does not belong at Wikiquote. Don't ask me to delete the jpg because I am not an administrator at Commons. ~ Ningauble (talk) 00:01, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * OK. Thanks. I didn't know that. It seems odd that it lets people create talk pages for things that are not meant to have them. It would be better if it sent them to the right place to either create or add to the talk page there. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:50, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Signing
– Ilovemydoodle (Not a sockpuppet) (talk / e-mail) 20:08, 15 July 2022 (UTC)


 * , why warn for a 9-year-old edit? Considering Ninguable has been signing above, I think they know how to use the four tildes... --Ferien (talk) 20:14, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Why indeed, ? I was prepared to apologize for overlooking the signature (which must surely have happened a time or two in my 14 year tenure here, being only human) until I looked at the nature of the post at issue. It is actually common to not sign or otherwise attribute an unsourced section that contains no commentary or message to be attributed. There is no need to make a stink about it.
 * Why indeed! Consider WP:DNTTR before giving the impression of patronising and uncivil intent. ~ Ningauble (talk) 22:54, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Undeletion
Could you restore the page Category:Tswana lawyers under the new name of Category:Motswana lawyers? – Ilovemydoodle (Not a sockpuppet) (talk / e-mail) 23:14, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Restoring Category:Tswana lawyers as something else is unclear to me. Category:Motswana lawyers was not previously deleted, and there is no reason you cannot create it yourself. ~ Ningauble (talk) 23:27, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I mean undelete and then move. – Ilovemydoodle (Not a sockpuppet) (talk / e-mail) 23:28, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

– Ilovemydoodle (Not a sockpuppet) (talk / e-mail) 17:28, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Paywall - your old prod
On 28 April 2022 you inserted a WQ:PROD notice on Paywall, a new page I had just started on Wikiquote (WQ) at the time. You did not notify me of your intention to delete this article, and your edit summary on the article said:"was that intentional vandalism???"

It is lucky that I saw the prod notice and took the time to remove it and the rest is history.

However, since other pages I had created have been deleted by you, and since you have ignored me when I asked you to restore them, I would like to ask you why? Do you believe these actions are good for Wikiquote? I personally believe that trying to remove content without letting the community decide is NOT something a good admin should do. If you do not agree, will you explain why?

Thanks in advance for taking the time to reply,


 * Ottawahitech – The actual reason for proposing to delete the page was stated plainly in the prod notice, which you evidently saw since you deleted it yourself. (You can see the notice, and the purported quotation, in the article history.) You never explained why you disagreed with that reason, only that it was not "intentional vandalism". The next day another administrator nominated your page for discussion at Votes for Deletion, for the very same reason. I believe these actions, to remove nonsense and rubbish, are definitely good for Wikiquote. Subsequently, another user added some legitimate quotes and removed your bogus item. This is as it should be. Please to not add it back to the article. ~ Ningauble (talk) 02:21, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * P.S. I am not aware of ignoring requests for un-deletion. You may not have liked the answers I gave, but that is not the same thing. ~ Ningauble (talk) 02:29, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I am not trying to be difficult - it is just that we seem to disagree on a lot of issues. Please see:https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/User_talk:Ningauble#Please_undelete_List_of_the_White_House_Coronavirus_Task_Force_members . My understanding is that Prods should be uncontroversial, so should be automatically be restored when someone requests their undeletion, Ottawahitech (talk) 04:40, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * If I may, I'm not quite sure what your issue is with the cited deletions. They were done following the established PROD process - in which the notice was displayed for sufficient time for action to be taken to correct the deficiencies noted in the PROD tag. When they were not addressed, the pages were deleted. Merely having someone request to restore them is not really a good enough reason to do so, if the problem(s) still exists. Instead, any user is free to recreate such pages, provided they address the cited issue(s). I do not see anything out of sorts in the actions of Ningauble in these circumstances. ~ UDScott (talk) 13:35, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * @UDScott: Let me explain what my issues are:
 * If you read the whole thread carefully you will see that my initial complaint was about the lack of notification for the Paywall Prod, while the second point was raised when Ningauble said they were "not aware of ignoring requests for un-deletion.", so I reminded them of my earlier post on this very same page
 * BTW I appreciate the fact that you are questioning me without using abusive language. Thanks for taking the time, Ottawahitech (talk) 17:16, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Wheatfromchaff case
Hello, you have blocked for a month, after a rough check across all their contributions, including xwiki contributions. I'm proposing to extend this block to indefinite. Their behaviours include disruptive edits, lots of Ad Hominem and trolling. Since you are the blocking admin, I'm asking this for your advice. Lemonaka (talk) 02:36, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I have not researched the account history. I had only noticed a lot of annoying argumentativeness, not quite actionable, followed by a deliberate act of destructive vandalism. I have no particular advice about further action. ~ Ningauble (talk) 00:51, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Indeffed due to repeatedly sockpuppetry, talk page access revoked due to personal attack against nearly every sysop on this project. Lemonaka (talk) 01:48, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Yep. ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:13, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Good days, you may want to review their unblock request through our mailing list or on Administrators' noticeboard. Lemonaka (talk) 08:39, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I recommend against giving any time and attention to someone who is abusive to Wikiquote members and rejects core principles of the project. ~ Ningauble (talk) 23:02, 24 July 2023 (UTC)