User talk:Lectonar

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Talk Archive 1, Talk Archive 2, Talk Archive 3, Talk Archive 4, Talk Archive 5, Talk Archive 6, Talk Archive 7, Talk Archive 8, Talk Archive 9, Talk Archive 10, Talk Archive 11, Talk Archive 12, Talk Archive 13, Talk Archive 14,Talk Archive 15

Silly and funny stuff can be found here

Please post new messages to the bottom of my talk page. I will respond here unless you request otherwise.

I prefer to keep communications on-wiki if possible, but if you need to discuss something privately, please send me an email.


Second Amendment to the United States Constitution[edit]

Hi, Lectonar, I agree that the editing to the article is disruptive and a lock or editor sanctions might be appropriate, but which editor do you think has breached WP:3RR? Nothing recent, right? Are you talking about the June 27 battle?--Bbb23 (talk) 19:56, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, amongst others.....and I meant 3rr as edit warring per se in this instance (and as I see you left a message for the user in question, was on my way there to leave a message too). I had the joy of having to fully protect the article for almost two weeks in march. Lectonar (talk) 19:59, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
You should feel free to do whatever you think best. In fact, it would be appreciated as I consider myself WP:INVOLVED based on previous content edits to the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:02, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
I will think about it, but this has been going on virtually for years with some calmer phases...RfC might really be the only option. Lectonar (talk) 20:04, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Good thing they can't shoot each other. :-) It's possible that a lock and an RfC may be needed.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:16, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
That would not be trial by Wikipedia then ;)? Anyway, I will fully protect again at a pinch, and my suggestion for the RfC is already on the talk-page. We will see what we will see. Lectonar (talk) 20:31, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I strongly support a RfC. At present, one editor has deleted a US Supreme Court opinion because he believes a single law professor's opinion has more weight than twelve court decisions spanning 60 years (which he removed). I will make no more edits for 24 hours, but if this editors fails to change his/her view on this, I will post a Request for Comment or seek a resolution on the noticeboard at first just on this limited issue of reliability. GreekParadise (talk) 20:40, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

That's grand; as usual, use the articles talk-page for further discussion. Lectonar (talk) 20:44, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

AK-47[edit]

AK-47 was vandalized nearly 20 times in just over a month (this is on average one unconstructive edit every 1.9 days). That's not enough disruption for semi-protection? King Jakob C2 14:36, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm, what I see are around 20 edits from IP's in the one month, and not all of them vandalism, but some just being edits by newbies, unconstructive perhaps, but far from being vandalism....not everybody who comes here is an expert in wiki-editing....and to answer your question plainly (and I will quote from the protection policy first: "...Administrators may apply indefinite semi-protection to pages that are subject to heavy and persistent vandalism....): no, even 1 vandalism edit per day would not constitute "heavy and persistent" vandalism. Cheers and happy editing. Lectonar (talk) 15:58, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
As an example for heavy vandalism, have a look at the article history of Mohamed Morsi. Lectonar (talk) 16:02, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
What about applying pending changes protection? I understand that that requires a lower level of vandalism to be implemented. King Jakob C2 16:06, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia is supposed to be the encyclopedia that everyone can edit( even IPs): every protection which is applied changes that, because than not everybody can edit it; that is just Wikipedia culture and one of the 5 pillars. Of course I have thought about pending changes too, but originally pending changes were implemented to get a better hold of violations of the BLP-policy....and sorry again, as you might feel a little stronger about the article, what happens there is simple and pure, sometimes childish even, vandalism, in a not even very high frequency. I do not know how many articles you have on your watchlist (over 53, I see), but I am sure you get the feeling the article pops up a lot, almost every day, and you get annoyed with the vandalism. Just fyi: the article has been protected in the past, but the last time in the beginning of 2012. All in all, I stand by my decison to not protect. Cheers again. Lectonar (talk) 16:16, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

User_talk:Bearian#Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection[edit]

FYI, this is just a courtesy notice. There is no need to comment one way or another. Bearian (talk) 16:35, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I saw; this new system has some positive sides. Thx for your involvement. Lectonar (talk) 16:41, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Regarding what you said to me.[edit]

Don't worry, take a look on the date when these edits were made, there is no edit war here, i think you have misunderstood it. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:51, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I do not think so....the last edits were today. I also would strongly urge you to put the edit-warring warning back on your talk-page. Regards. Lectonar (talk) 19:53, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

What i meant was the other edits were days ago, while there were only two edits today and we have made one edit each, it's not really serious, since he has stopped. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:57, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I disagree; just stopping to edit for some time does not make the underlying problem go away....it just may be due to time-differences or real-life engagements. And edit warring is not about the number of edits. Lectonar (talk)

Those edits days ago were because of another reason, these edits today are something else. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:14, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

See below. Lectonar (talk) 08:46, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello[edit]

Hi Lectonar. Thank you for your warning on my TP. However, I feel you have mis-aimed the warning. You should be directing it to user:HistoryofIran who:

- came in and single-handedly changed [1], without any consultation, an established wording agreement for the lede - which had been setablished after lengthy discussion on the Scythians talk page [2] (where numerous 3rd party users already commented). His stated reason was simply because he was "tired of this word called Iranic". Forget propper English conventions, and established concensus, but lets go with the personal whims and feelings of single editor ? I could not allow that, I felt justified

- I then did try to counsel this fellow as to why his wording is problematic [3], highlighting differences between German vs Germanic, Italian vs Italic to draw on independent but related concepts, but to no avail, who merely continued his mass reverts and insiting he is correct.

- a third party editor then came in an made an acceptable re-wording, using duly specific linguistic terms [4] only for HoI to then again feel compelled to add an entirely nwarranted sentence which smacks of nationalism [5].

- again, i commented on his talk page to try and enlighten him as to the problematic nature of his edits [6]. For a start, the source he used is a questionable quality on-line web page of some "PhD' Dr Farook [7], so it fails WP:RS. In addition it is WP:WEASAL scholars are virtually unanimous.. Which scholars ? This "Dr Farook" is "virtually all scholars" ? Moreover, it is WP:UNDUE . The lede already stated they were an East Iranian speaking people; why does he need to further add they were related to the Persians of ancient Iran ? It adds nothing further to the article, is factually dubious anyway (a common language doesn't assure common identity, way of life or customs, as all western-educated people know) and is not WP:NPOV - that is not how the established scholarly mainstream describe the Scythians. They don't draw paralleles to ancient Persia, or Iran, but clearly described them as These Scythians constituted a subdivision within a larger group of Scytho-Siberian nomads inhabiting the Eurasian steppe. [8] No mention of Iran. And the Scythians was a broad term to refer to masses of different people from Romania to Mongolia, some were decidedly 'oriental' (eg mogolian). To link all these people to Iran is not only false, but achieves nothing than satisfying the unreasonable fanices of an editor who appears to have educated themselves from nationalist Forums rather than quality articles.

Again, i have left extensive edit summaries and comments on his TP highlighting these problesm but he continues to ignore and mass revert. IMHO, this is a new user bursting on the scene and making tendentious edits. Thanks again for looking at this, and for your advice about seeking dsipute resolution. I have made one last appeal on his TP, if I fails I beseech you to lock the page as is currently so we can get mediation Slovenski Volk (talk) 00:43, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your information, but you might have noticed that I left a warning for the user you mentioned too; the warning I left you isn't about content, but just the pure and simple fact that you can not find consensus, and without me taking a side or evaluating the content. As I said: use the articles talk-page, try to get more eyes on this and do not revert, only communicating by edit-summaries. See also his comments above, over yours. Regards. Lectonar (talk) 06:43, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

No one linked the Scythians to Iran, i linked them to the Iranians, the Iranians are not originally from Iran. And what do you keep ignoring what i write? it was made BY Dr. Oric Basirov, a renowned Anglo-Russian Archaeologist, Iranologist and historian. I don't see why it should not show what the scholars think about the Scythians, this is clearly neutral. And this is not the only source that states the Scythians were Iranians. --HistoryofIran (talk) 09:42, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Please use the talk-page of the article; I am not the arbitrator here. Lectonar (talk) 09:43, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

re: President of Egypt RFPP[edit]

No problem - I preview the page's history with popups before I take a hard look, and I didn't see your protection then, and there was no response to the query. I think I declined PC anyway, so it's all good. :-) KrakatoaKatie 09:54, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

As-salamu alaykum![edit]

Hello Pal! How do you do? My regrets for my edit-warring. But you know that History is history. I always try to learn from it, but I shall never give up in this journey of learning. Wikipedia is my first and the last love. Your message on my talk simply moved me much. Gracias for the trust! I shall try the best for keeping this trust on the spot. I will not try to explain again the behaviour of the other party on edit-warring. Frankly speaking, this has become the habit of some, even RfC's results are not accepted. Anyway, this is not going to stop. I give in and I shall try to stay away from them, and shift my focus again on Anti-Vandalism work. My regrets again. Don't take me wrong, I am learning, and I shall be counted as learned soon, In Sha Allah. Face-smile.svg Faizan 10:37, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Kazakhs[edit]

Please protect the page. Chris1636 (talk) 04:43, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I do not think that is ncecessary now; IP 217xx has been blocked in the meantime. Lectonar (talk) 06:50, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
What about 178.91.73.241 (same user with same edits)? Zyma (talk) 07:16, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
This IP should be warned if he edits in the same vein again, and subsequently reported to AIV. He only has one edit to the article, which makes protection for now unnecessary. Lectonar (talk) 07:18, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Okay, but he did same edits on several other articles like 217x. See his contributions. Zyma (talk) 07:21, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I saw....but he has not been warned shortly after the edits, and I for one usually do not block out of the blue; warning now for edits from yesterday will not be enough, btw. Lectonar (talk) 07:23, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Now can I warn him for his yesterday edits or I should wait for today if he come back? Zyma (talk) 07:31, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Please wait until he edits again...as I said above: This IP should be warned if he edits in the same vein again. Regards. Lectonar (talk) 07:36, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Okay. Thanks for the help. Regards. Zyma (talk) 07:39, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
I find him removing content again on the page and Golden Horde, Mongols,Kyrgyz people.......Chris1636 (talk) 04:45, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Discussions: Incivility and forum-like comments[edit]

Hi. How to deal with comments like this one? Zyma (talk) 18:03, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, tell me: what would you do? If I told you what I would do, it wouldn't be fair, in a way. But remember: you always have a choice....and: I do not see much incivility in this comment. The "pathetic" seems to used more in a general way here...Lectonar (talk) 18:11, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
It depends on comments. Sometimes I remove them, but usually I don't have any business with forum-like or unrelated/harassment comments on discussions. Because I'm not very familiar with discussion's policies. Zyma (talk) 18:31, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Would you be interested in dealing with them? Or why were you asking? Lectonar (talk) 18:45, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
The first. I'm interested in dealing with them, so I need your suggestions. Because I don't want to make problems instead of contributions. Zyma (talk) 18:52, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
In the case above: I would not do anything at all; I see the user making the comment has proclaimed on his user-page where he is from, so I can deduce something from that....but as I said, it is not over the top, we have seen worse. Wikipedia:What you won't learn in new admin school is a nice read even for non-admins. And keep in mind that I am very easygoing as admins go(and it is nigh impossible to bait me); some other admin might have blocked for the comment on the talk-page (ok, perhaps not blocked), that is why I think you should find your own approach. Lectonar (talk) 19:07, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. I agree. As a non-Admin user I like to learn new things from admins like you, Lectonar. It's very helpful for me. Regards. Zyma (talk) 19:28, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Additional Help[edit]

Thanks but I need to edit a page for myself. I am at the end of my adoption program with Pol and its my assignment to edit and or create pages. So the link you sent me won't help me to actually edit the Tupac page. Maybe you could help me find where to present this problem I've had with my original account 'Selene Scott'. That account has all of my history and all the edits I've made over the last year and a half. I tried but none of the help pages seemed to fit my problem. Thanks "Selene Scott II (talk) 16:07, 9 July 2013 (UTC)"

Your old account had email enabled, so perhaps Help:Logging in might hold the answer. Anyway, as far as I know, adoption assignments do not prescribe a certain article to be edited, just any article will do. Regards. Lectonar (talk) 16:37, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Your right it can be any page. I have tried having my password mailed to me and it never shows up. Then I wait 24 hours and again no mail. So I gave up and created this new name. I hate having lost all the edits I made on the old account, plus access to all the work I did with Pol. Thanks again. "Selene Scott II (talk) 01:47, 12 July 2013 (UTC)"

You might want to read[edit]

WP:Words to watch Dougweller (talk) 20:46, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Ok, call me dumb, but I do not see....but I have read it. Lectonar (talk) 20:49, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Ah, I see now....Behemoth or the flooding? Lectonar (talk) 20:50, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Without going back to look, it was the word "claims". Dougweller (talk) 07:18, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, will take care in the future. Lectonar (talk) 07:20, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
No problem, I've done it myself. Dougweller (talk) 10:35, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Non-stop edit warring and reverting between two users (several articles)[edit]

Hi Lectonar. Please look at the article Qizilbash. There is a war between User1 (link to user's contributions) and User2 (link to user's contributions) on that article and several other articles.

User1 broke 3RR role on Qizilbash and uses bad English and insulting/harassment/sarcasm in his edit summaries. Examples: diff1, diff2, diff3. Or trollish type comments: diff4, diff5, diff6. Because of his poor English, it seems this user uses translator software (Google translator) and due to his contributions maybe he is an ethnocentric user. I don't know why he attacks Persians and Afghans.

User2 uses clear edit summaries and his edits looks constructive, but he is involved in edit warring too. Please review their edits (both articles and talk pages) and edit summaries. User1 needs a longer temporary block than User2. Zyma (talk) 09:38, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I am a little busy at the moment in RL, so if you do not want to warn the users yourself, use the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Cheers. Lectonar (talk) 09:48, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Then when you have enough time, please verify their actions. Because it's not just a simple edit war between them. Those incidents need admins' attention and I think those two users won't attend to my warnings, so your help is really necessary. Please notify me about the result. Thanks. Zyma (talk) 10:52, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

about protection......[edit]

Hello! Thank you for responding and for the complete understanding of my motivation. In the past, I was quite involved in patrolling for the el-wp. There we are accustomed to more frequent semi-protections, however we have the excuse of much much smaller number of active patrollers (therefore our articles are very prone to vandalism and confirmed users feel quite helpless sometimes). Indeed, patrolling was a very nerve-streching experience for me (sometimes pushing me to the point of reconsidering the views of ancient Socrates on the intrinsic goodness of the human soul...)

I have read the policy and I understand that you choose to follow its suggestion on not preventing useful anonymous edits. That said, I still feel a bit sad when, in the course of time, an article's history is so polluted by silly edit warring, also polluting my watchlist. But, when the final result is under control (as I admit it happens in the Commagene article), I should not complain. Best regards.--Dipa1965 (talk) 22:11, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Guide me about my article deletion[edit]

Hello. Recently I'd created a page named Farshid Haidari twice which had been deleted which due to that there were no evidence then I wanna know that would magazine or official video records be approve as evidence or not ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by IMTheAdrenaline (talkcontribs) 12:27, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Farshid Haidari. And what we need are reliable sources, not just a passing mention in a magazine. When in a magazine, it should be are very known one, and the article has to be about the subject, presenting it in a neutral manner. If you are not happy with the outcome of the deletion, you can always have it reviewed at deletion review, After looking at the deleted article, I would just say that Farshid Haidari is just (yet) not notable enough for an inclusion here in Wikipedia. Regards. Lectonar (talk) 12:37, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Shhh...[edit]

Shhh, maybe nobody will notice... Alright, I goofed. [This shows how much I rely on {{pp-protected}} and the like, which mysteriously wasn't added by a bot...] Theopolisme (talk)

Well ,you are forgiven ;)...and actually, I never have seen the pp-template added in userspace; but this might be because I use the templates only for full-protection/edit-warring. Cheers and happy editing. Lectonar (talk) 06:57, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Protecting archives[edit]

I saw your comment at RFPP, apparently there was a change in policy one month ago, where protecting archives is acceptable. I didn't get the memo either...--kelapstick(bainuu) 09:27, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that too, but talk-pages are not exactly user-subpages; I think this still collides with what is written at the PP about user talk-pages. But if you want to fully protect, go ahead. And it still only says it "can" be protected.Lectonar (talk) 09:31, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
I don't really have any strong feelings one way or another, although it does say talk page archives. Personally I don't really see the need to, as I have all my archives watchlisted and can keep an eye on them. I'm not going to bother, just wasn't sure if you had seen it. --kelapstick(bainuu) 09:52, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Me not really either, but I am lawyering my way out here ;). And he is a rather new user. Anyway, thanks for the heads-up. Cheers and happy editing. Lectonar (talk) 09:56, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Please review this deletion[edit]

This is to request that you review the deletion of Kilroot Recreation F.C. - as notified here. Since Kilroot Rec have played in a national cup (see here, they meet the notability criteria in WP:FOOTYN. Many thanks. Mooretwin (talk) 20:13, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, the article I (re-)deleted did not mention it, and neither was the link you provided here in the article. I have restored the article, but you should add this info asap. Cheers. Lectonar (talk) 16:54, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. Mooretwin (talk) 22:11, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

‎THUNK a cappella[edit]

Despite your declined undelete here, user went and recreated anyway. Just thought you'd like to know. I've re-CSD'd it. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:51, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I think this has to go via AfD now....Lectonar (talk) 10:34, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Ok, redeleted and salted. Thx. Lectonar (talk) 13:01, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Re: Robinson Bradshaw & Hinson[edit]

Hi. I reviewed this again and I'd say go ahead and undelete, but the article needs substantial work to be neutral and non-adverty. SpencerT♦C 11:03, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks; I have undeleted and left a message for DGG. Lectonar (talk) 11:07, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of AEON Big[edit]

This supermarket is a well-known and widely-available supermarket chains in Malaysia, as such, this article is deemed fit and suitable to be recorded into Wikipedia page. If Giant supermarket page can be stored, I don't see a reason why AEON Big page be rejected by the administrator. --Desmondyap93 (talk) 09:37, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. This article has been deleted because it does not appear to meet our guidelines for inclusion of articles about companies. In general, Wikipedia considers a topic to be notable if there exist multiple reliable sources of information on the topic, external to the subject itself. Articles concerning companies will be deleted on sight if they are considered to be unambiguous advertising or promotion, or if they do not contain a credible assertion of the significance of the subject. You might also want to read WP:FAQ/business and quite probably you have a conflict of interest to boot. Regards. Lectonar (talk) 09:48, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

A note[edit]

I've reported the obvious railway article-related sock at SPI: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Waterspaces. Every edit they make shows even more clearly who they are... Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:39, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, I saw....he is a bit away from gaining autoconfirmed status, and is just venting his frustration at the moment, and so I watch.....at a pinch, I will block for quacking. Do not get impatient ;). Lectonar (talk) 17:20, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
  • The main reason I'm impatient is because Waterspaces is trying to make out I'm some kind of little troll that is of no benefit to Wikipedia, and they've posted such things in several places, which, I hope, any viewing of my contributions would show this not to be the case. Also telling is the lack of any denials from this user that they are Waterspaces... Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:35, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
  • You are obviously not a little troll, and demean yourself by allowing this to get to you.....is he in a postion to judge that, or is this just baiting you? Again: patience, young jedi. Do not let this get to you, and you will feel better, immediately. Lectonar (talk) 17:39, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm one of those weird people who can sometimes take everything on the chin, and other times, get annoyed very quickly. :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:44, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Third Perso-Turkic War[edit]

Can you give a little help over here: Talk:Third Perso-Turkic War --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:28, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Left a note...Lectonar (talk) 14:52, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

The guy don't want to resolve the problem, he thinks he can remove sources and put his own without discussion, i guess that makes me right to revert the edit back? --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:29, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

No, I do not think so.....the debacle at DRN just shows that both of you do not want to discuss anything in a civil manner (btw, did you see the remarks of the volunteer to reopen the case? The door is still not closed....). As I said: a third opinion should be the better way here; we need more eyes on this. Lectonar (talk) 07:38, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I know that it may can be reopened, but as i said, the guy don't want to discuss about it in there, take a look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Third_Perso-Turkic_War&diff=566029493&oldid=566018612

This what he said: I changed my mind. I'll not argue this WITH you. if there anybody else want to discuss about perso-Turkic war, I'll be here for discussion. but I'm tired your lies, defamations, nationalistic -so-called- sources etc. TransporterMan, please check sources which I shared and check his sources too. and you decide which of us has the point. and HistoryofIran do not bother me again, do not post on my page, ok? I doubt if you understand me but I'm just saying, do not bother me again. --HistoryofIran (talk) 10:36, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

add protection to ICC Cricket World Cup 2015[edit]

add semi protection to ICC Cricket World Cup 2015 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICC_Cricket_World_Cup_2015

as world cup schedule has been recently announced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhruv vij (talkcontribs) 16:06, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, I do not see much vandalism, more to the contrary.....so no need to protect just now. Next time, please use requests for page protection. Regards. Lectonar (talk) 16:19, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Page on Telangana: 30 July 2013[edit]

The Indian government did not pass a resolution nor did it officially announce it, it is Congress (INC)/ UPA Allies that passed a resolution. It is a fairly misleading article and is protected. Kindly edit it. SimplyJITH 16:47, 30 July 2013 (UTC) Abhijith Jayanthi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhijithsince1986 (talkcontribs)

Please add one of the following templates (Editprotected, Editsemiprotected or Request edit) to the article's talk page if you would like to make a change rather than requesting it here; I am not here to judge article content, I just protected the article because it is obviously necessary. See your post here. Lectonar (talk) 16:51, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Jimmy Fallon[edit]

I'd like to ask you to reconsider the protection of this article. The only reason is because pending changes level 2, which is the option you chose, has been explicitly rejected by the community. Only pending changes level 1 is currently authorized by the community. See here for a curent discussion of this and several other PC2 protections. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:30, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Just to clarify Beeblebrox's statement, PC2 may be accepted by the community at some point but the consensus is that people don't want to consider giving it the go ahead until there is a draft policy outlining appropriate uses of the protection. Such a draft policy doesn't exist at the moment. I am hopeful that we can come up with a draft if we put our heads together now, although others may think it is too soon. Yaris678 (talk) 10:00, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Seems to have been sorted. Lectonar (talk) 17:46, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Iran[edit]

This article is frequently edited, and there is still vandalism. Care to raise protection level? --George Ho (talk) 15:32, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

your opinion?[edit]

Hello Lectonar. Could you please check this article's history and provide me a clue on what to do with the troll? He/she does not care to respond to anybody. I think that he does not care whether his edits will ultimately be reverted. Somehow I have concluded that he wants his edits to stay on-line for at least a few hours per day. Do you think that I should request temporary semi-protection? Other possible measures? Thank you.--Dipa1965 (talk) 22:10, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorted out...sorry for being quite late. Lectonar (talk) 17:52, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Glad to see your name on my watchlist... you have been missed! Mark Arsten (talk) 21:32, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Mark :). I am a bit busy in RL... Lectonar (talk) 17:29, 20 February 2014 (UTC)


John Brent[edit]

Hey there. I just made a few edits that I wasn't sure about, and the last time I had an issue you helped me out (as documented on my talk page. I haven't made any substantive edits in a while (and none while logged in), but I recently tried to fix a problem in which a few links intending to reach a page for John Brent (a Second City performer from the 1960s) were actually arriving at John Brent (and English author from the late 1800s). I made John Brent (disambiguation), but then read in the style guide that I probably shouldn't have done that. Is the proper scenario for this to put a hatnote at the top of John Brent explaining that he isn't the comedian? I changed a few links like the one in Let's Go Away for Awhile#Composition from John Brent to John Brent (comedian). Should I have done that? Sorry for all the missteps here, and thanks for the help! --MyNameIsJason (talk) 00:06, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

AN/I discussion regarding Providence (religious movement)[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive833#Large amount of properly sourced content is being continually deleted from Providence Religious Movement Article. ... Since you previously responded in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive785#Looking for uninvolved admins to watch Jung Myung Seok, I thought your consideration of the case would be of value. Sam Sailor Sing 11:21, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 March 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 26 March 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 02 April 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 09 April 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 23 April 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 30 April 2014[edit]

Michel Pastor[edit]

Hello. Did you delete Michel Pastor's page because it was just a one-liner, or was there another reason? I am thinking of creating his page again, but obviously a start with references. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 08:34, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 07 May 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 14 May 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 21 May 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 28 May 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 04 June 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 11 June 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 18 June 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 25 June 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 02 July 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 09 July 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 16 July 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 23 July 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 30 July 2014[edit]