User talk:NeilN

Picture of the day Raspberry Photograph credit: Ivar Leidus Archive More featured pictures

Removing troll's edits to my user talk page.

Hello, I am curious to know if you could delete the diffs of two recent trolls to my talk page, going back at least five days. One is the ip address 2600:387:B:7:0:0:0:9F, and his sock IP is linked in his user page (the regular IP). I would appreciate removal of their edits from the public view and perhaps additional action with the IP. I have already requested page protection for my talk page. Thank you!! ḾỊḼʘɴίcả • Talk • _{I DX for fun!} 14:41, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

@Milonica: Revdeleted. If the IPs come back, please let me know. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:51, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Hussein saaed sonic

You blocked this user indefinitely and also blocked one of their IP socks 45.247.224.123 (talk · contribs). However, they are now continuing to make the same disruptive edits on a new IP address: 45.247.73.231 (talk · contribs). --The1337gamer (talk) 16:53, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

@The1337gamer: Blocked IP and closed the AFD. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:02, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Still continuing after block expiration: [1] --The1337gamer (talk) 08:18, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

@The1337gamer: Blocked again and page protected. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:18, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Input please

Hi NeilN and talk page stalkers!

I have a quandary... over at List of terrorist incidents in April 2017 a few editors repeatedly include entries that fail WP:V. The sources given do not call the incidents "terrorism". I've tried engaging with folks on their user talk pages, on the article talk page, and through edit summaries. But to no avail (and even got a "final warning" from a user over it). Is this something I should take to ANI? I don't want to get dragged to AN3, but these edits clearly violate the policy of WP:V and are WP:OR. I worry ANI would just say "content dispute" and dismiss it. I can't just go to AIV either as it's not clearly vandalism. Any advice would be appreciated. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:03, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Also see 2017 Aleppo suicide car bombing and List of terrorist incidents in 2017. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:20, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: I've protected List of terrorist incidents in April 2017 to slow down the ongoing shenanigans. While I try to notify any new editor I notice making major edits to pages related to the Syrian Civil War and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, you can help yourself by making and logging notifications to editors editing problematically (see WP:GS/ISIL). Draw attention to "This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies" and emphasize that verifiability is policy. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:25, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you NeilN. The 1RR that comes along with the GS/ISIL applies to me too, though, right? Reverting unverified material is not in WP:3RRNO. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:27, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: Yes, 1RR applies to you too. So you'll have to wait a bit for non-BLP issues, hope that someone else notices and agrees, or post a neutral note at an appropriate location (maybe the talk page of a "main" article) asking for more eyes. And for the record, I have zero issues sanctioning editors edit warring back in uncited/unverified material in this area. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:35, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

FYI, List of terrorist incidents in April 2017 is just as bad if not worse... EvergreenFir (talk) 22:28, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Mark612

Hi NeilN,

As you know, this editor has professed a professional interest in Solon, Ohio. Today, once again, he has reverted my deletion of his poorly sourced puffery and original research at that article. His edit summary: "The city of Solon Commerce Committee sees that this version is best, and most accurately represents the city's retail and dining scene."

Needless to say, the Solon City Council and its Commerce Committee don't have veto power at Wikipedia, and the encyclopedia's policies and guidelines apply to the article about Solon, even if they're not happy with the resulting article. (As you can see from the article's lead, reliable sources have very nice things to say about the city, but editors can't make up their own sources if none have written about the local stores and shopping plazas.)

I have tried to reason with this editor, but the result was the edit summary cited above. As somebody who hasn't been revert warring with him, maybe he'll see you as a neutral party (which you are). Any suggestions would be appreciated. Thank you. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:16, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

@MShabazz: Hopefully this will get their attention. You would think mentioning "conflict of interest" would give any elected official pause but I guess not. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:49, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry it came to that, but thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:56, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Christy Clark Page

Hello NeilN

I want to clarify that the "Controversies" section which is being warred now is the result of political interference. The copy and edits which are being deleted in entirety, with no negotiation, by questionable editors, and it is vandalism. I am only trying to restore the legitimate copy that resides under "Controversies" for this political subject.

jAnd fyi I just posted the following on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents:

Hello-- Christy Clark is currently engaged in an election campaign, seeking reelection as Premier of British Columbia on May 9, 2017 . Over the last week, since the election campaign began, my edits and copy under "Controversies" on Ms. Clark's page have been repeatedly vandalized. I can testify that my copy is well-cited and the references are sourced according to WIkipedia guidelines. I am happy to debate tone and neutrality, and I am also happy to comply with reasonable requests for edits and adjustments when warranted, and I do. In this case the section is "Controversies" and it so happens there are many. The sense or suggestion of non-neutrality called for in one dispute (perhaps the only legitimate editor?) is odd--sensing perhaps that a scandal should not be referred to as a scandal? Even when the news sources cited refers to it as such? When an Ombudsperson or an Attorney-General calls it such? I suggest that the sudden interest in disrupting my copy is not actually questions of neutrality, but may actually be a politically motivated attempt to eliminate from the public record this politician's long list of actual, verifiable, scandals. A clue as to the latest episode of vandalism, to note: The editors tracked from a time zone +7 hours from our Pacific Time Zone, which puts them just off the coast of Africa and Europe in the Atlantic Ocean. I think only a few remote islands lay claim to this time zone. Again, whole passages of copy just wiped out clean. I have referred to the WIkipedia Dispute Resolution for your protocol and I find this: "When you find a passage in an article that is biased or inaccurate, improve it if you can; don't delete salvageable text. For example, if an article appears biased, add balancing material or make the wording more neutral. Include citations for any material you add."Italic text

In all of the cases of vandalism--and there have been now several, from varied editors--there has been no attempt to improve or balance any of my copy. In all cases the editors have simply stripped the copy outright to eliminate the majority of the content under "Controversies", as far as the Wiki will allow, I suspect. I hope an impartial Wikipedia Administrator might review the recent week's history on this page. I am bringing this also to the attention of media because I am certain this amounts to political interference. I also wish to grow and maintain good standing as a WIkipedia editor, in the public service, and I hope we might favourably resolve this matter for the sake of integrity and the public record. Sincerely, Theadjuster (talk) 04:11, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I am hoping to settle this asap. But I can not let the vandalism undermine the purpose of this Wikipedia record.

Sincerely,

Theadjuster (talk) 04:24, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

@Theadjuster: See my reply at ANI and also please read WP:AGF. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:28, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

[User:NeilN| ANI? Also, I appreciate the AGF guideline but to clarify, again, my copy is being deleted completely. These are legitimate, substantiated records which I have put in their proper place, under "Controversies". Hard to maintain reasonable doubt and AGF given the repeated vandalism. Theadjuster (talk) 05:00, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

@Theadjuster: ANI = Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. And you've been told why other editors are objecting to your content. Persisting in calling their edits vandalism instead of participating on the article's talk page is going to end badly for you. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:11, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Rollback privileges of Beyond my Ken

So User:Beyond my Ken put me on the Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Cs_california for putting in maps on buildings which I am ok with since an admin can review the points made by both me and him and give guidance on proper edits that are best for wikipedia. But what I have a problem with is this guy is abusing his rollback privileges (see my Admin Noticeboard comments) and removing edits that have nothing to do with the subject at hand these include complete infoboxes boxes, updated to maps with better resolution, updated images, and inclusion of gis coordinate. Not sure if it counts as vandalism but he remove content reviewing it this seems like a good case to put his privileges on hold. --Cs california (talk) 05:42, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Forgot to add that he previously had been blocked for edit waring but I did not engage him. I think he is just trying to stir the pot because I accidentally added #USA to some maps he regularly patrols and he disagrees. --Cs california (talk) 09:21, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Cs california. The matter is already at WP:ANI so there's no need to open a second conversation here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:17, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Ok cool sorry to bother you on the issue -Cs california (talk) 12:20, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Urgent deletion

Hello. Could you please delete Talk:FA_Women's_Super_League because a page needs to be moved there, and since I do not yet have the page mover rights yet, I cannot complete it, so it will otherwise be a mess. I do not know why system allowed me to perform just the one deletion. Thank you ----Kostas20142 (talk) 13:05, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

@Kostas20142: I've moved the talk page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:14, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you!--Kostas20142 (talk) 13:15, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Possible drafts on user talk pages

Hi NeilN. You were helpful in sorting out WP:AN#User talk:Best of Luck Nikki, so I'm wondering if you wouldn't also mind taking a look at User talk:Mohammad Shahid, User talk:Benjamin Thonggh, User:Dj Futurustic and User:Dj Futuristic. The first two appear to be articles copied and pasted onto user talk pages. I'm not sure if they are intended to be drafts or if the editor simply mistook their talk page for their sandbox. The last two appear to be the same draft and were possibly being edited at the same time by the same user. It's possible the spelling of the name was incorrect in one of them so the editor just created a new account. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:12, 17 April 2017 (UTC) 　

@Marchjuly: All four have been deleted as copy-pastes of existing articles. One had an introductory paragraph for a new article which I saved to a sandbox. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:35, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for checking on these. I htink I may have found another one at User:DRONACHARYA partially taken from Dronacharya College of Engineering. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:13, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: Okay, I think that one was started as a draft and then was redone in article space. G6'd the user page and soft-blocked the user because of their name. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:27, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for checking. I thought about the name as well, but then I tried Dronacharya which redirects to Drona, so it might not be simply due to the school's name. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:39, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi again NeilN. I came across User talk:Kenricklenno2001 before, but couldn't remeber the username until it just popped up again on my watchlist. I have no idea what this editor is doing. Part of the page does include posts form other, but they also seem to be copying a pasting article content on to their user talk page. Any idea what might be going on here? -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:11, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Kaspersky Lab/draft is another strange one. It appears some made added a draft as a subpage to Talk:Kaspersky Lab. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:31, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: It turns out that neither of these needed admin tools. Kenricklenno2001 was hosting his fictional writings on his talk page. Removed that and told him about WP:NOTWEBHOST. Talk:Kaspersky Lab/draft was a draft discussed at Talk:Kaspersky_Lab#Draft. I blanked the content but the page needs to be kept for attribution purposes as its content replaced the live article. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:40, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look at these. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:19, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Arbitration restrictions

Thanks for this. Please ping me when you put in the request, as I'd like to follow the discussion. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:14, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

@DrFleischman: Assuming Arbcom members start replying to my request and assuming there's an opening for this related request (if not, I will open a new one) here's what I plan to say.

WP:ACDS has instructions for admins placing editing restrictions. To wit, "Any uninvolved administrator may impose on any page or set of pages relating to the area of conflict semi-protection, full protection, move protection, revert restrictions, and prohibitions on the addition or removal of certain content (except when consensus for the edit exists)." It has no instructions for admins wishing to modify restrictions placed by other admins. Being the cockeyed optimist that I am, I have to believe that not all restrictions will be needed in the future, especially ones custom tailored to address a current controversy. I'd like Arbcom to clarify the process of getting restrictions removed. I suggest copying the process laid out for modifying sanctions. Briefly, fresh disruption can be met with new restrictions placed by any admin. Restrictions may be lifted only with the agreement of the admin who placed the restrictions. If they are unavailable or disagreement occurs then a request for review may be made at WP:AN or WP:ARCA.

Does this address your question? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:08, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

It would, although I disagree somewhat with your proposed solution, specifically the part about restrictions only being lifted with the agreement of the admin who placed the restrictions. To cut to the chase, there have been some admins who have been placing restrictions on pages that have seen no disruption at all in order to preempt disruption that they predict will occur in the future. I think that approach is detrimental to the project and I think it merits discussion by the admin community, at least on an article-by-article basis. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:29, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

One more thing I was thinking about today: article restrictions and editor sanctions are really quite different. Sanctions affect one editor and are usually temporary. Article restrictions affect whole articles (many editors) and are usually permanent. A single admin should not be able to keep an article under restriction indefinitely without any opportunity for community oversight. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:15, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

DrFleischman, if you're talking about WP:ARBPIA3, throw your brickbats at Arbcom :-) They're the ones who mandated preemptive protection for that area. In other areas, discretionary sanctions give individual admins a great deal of power and there's nothing in WP:ACDS I can see that keeps that in check. I quite firmly dislike preemptive restrictions so you're not going to get an argument from me that admin actions need some boundaries. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:01, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Not ARBPIA3. I understand there's nothing in ACDS. It seems to me that the lack of anything about page restrictions in WP:ACDS#Appeals and modifications is probably just an oversight and wasn't intended to silently give admins completely unfettered discretion for page restrictions while creating avenues for review of sanctions. Something should be added there or there needs to some less formal avenue for review, such as just going to WP:AN. I will patiently wait while your clarification request is on hold. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:49, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

User violating topic ban

Sashko1999 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Editing Macedonians (ethnic group) (diff in clear violation of their topic ban (a one-year topic-ban imposed by you in July of last year), in addition to doing mass POV changes, including mass removal of content and replacing reliable sources with a non-RS source (joshuatree.net), on articles about virtually all Slavic nationalities/ethnicities (see their contributions) right after coming back from a two-week block for POV edit-warring. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 17:23, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I believe that the topic ban was placed on 1 April 2017, but may have included an erroneous time-tag. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:31, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

You are correct, David Biddulph. Fixed that. @Thomas.W: Blocked one year, TBAN is now indefinite. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:42, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Formerly productive editor

Hello,
I saw your post at User talk:Laurelpeter122. There's something amiss with this account. Seems to have suddenly become disruptive and filled up their user page with a 'raw' link to a Wiki article repeated over and over. Something odd happened when I tried to scroll down or otherwise navigate and I was crashed out of Wiki. I reverted it (perhaps I should not have?). Does the account need investigating? Thanks. Regards, Eagleash (talk) 19:02, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Oh! Blocked whilst I was typing! Eagleash (talk) 19:04, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Hey Widr, I'm wondering if this is a compromised account? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:20, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Seems so. I've extended the block to indef until they explain their recent edits. Widr (talk) 19:27, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

another User:GR.no sock

See [2] Meters (talk) 19:17, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

@Meters: Blocked. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:24, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

And another [3]. Persistent. Meters (talk) 20:41, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

@Meters: Ha! Already blocked. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:42, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

You're quick, sir. Meters (talk) 20:44, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Pahela Baishakh

may need a 48 hour extension to the pp-dispute. We are making progress, but it seems fair to give Akib.H some more time to draft something or suggest revisions to the two proposals on Talk:Pahela Baishakh. I would be okay, in case you decide otherwise. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:08, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch: I don't think there's any need to extend full protection. All of you can edit responsibly. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:52, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank You

Thank you very much for approving my unblock request. I will edit responsibly from now on! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seaniemaster (talk • contribs) 20:38, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Oxford redux

Hoggardhigh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)—another editor who insists on the serial comma (and has been known to both revert and rewrite to subtly reinclude them), has been warned before, and has never engaged anyone. TIA. —ATS 🖖 talk 21:35, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Now invoking WP:MYWAY. —ATS 🖖 talk 23:03, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Your warning didn't work, I'm afraid. —ATS 🖖 talk 01:37, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

You around? It's now belligerent. —ATS 🖖 talk 03:50, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Jimmy Fallon

Hi NeilN. The IP has again begun making major changes in the article without discussion or consensus. He/she is doing it with multiple IP addresses, so I'm sure how to proceed. But I thought I'd let you know. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 22:00, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

@Sundayclose: They've been reverted. Let's see what happens next. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:57, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Talk

Hi NeilN,

Thank you for your message. I am not in any way affiliated with the Yale School of Drama, simply a fan of the school and just trying to improve the page. thanks!TheKingLives (talk) 00:09, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi TheKingLives. Will you help clean up the copyright and WP:CLOSEPARAPHRASE violations? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:17, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I'd be happy to, I'm just not sure where exactly these violations are. If you can help out with that i'd like to do so and help get these violations removed.TheKingLives (talk) 00:19, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

@TheKingLives: The second paragraph of the History section is one I spotted. The entire article could use a check. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:22, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

FYI

I sent you an email. --David Tornheim (talk) 08:39, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

IP block

Hi NeilN. Could this IP please be given a timeout. They have ignored all warnings on their talk page, including a final warning. They are persisting on vandalizing McKenzie Moore. Cheers. DaHuzyBru (talk) 13:49, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Blocked. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:53, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia has slowed. Do you see it?

Is it just me or does it seem like Wikipedia has significantly slowed? You know how on Sundays it's like there is barely anyone on Wikipedia? Well, I'm feeling that to a small degree on weekdays too. Seems like significantly less people are editing. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:17, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Objectively speaking - because right :-) - for the number of edits, it's slower than it was ten years ago but busier than it was a few years ago: Wikipedia:Time Between Edits. For the number of editors, look at columns C and D on this chart. What would be interesting is if the WMF ran these stats based on major article categories to see if subject focus has changed. My guess is that we're getting more editing on BLPs and company/organization articles and less on general knowledge topics. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:25, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd already noticed that it's not nearly as active as it was back when I was a newbie. Back in 2007, for example, it was very, very active. But I mean that it seems slower lately; this is noticeable when I'm all caught up on my watchlist and it changes a little for the rest of the day; this usually happens on Sundays, but it's been happening a little on weekdays as well. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:41, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

@Flyer22 Reborn: Be careful what you wish for. Gender role --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:11, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Not what I wished for. I like Wikipedia not being as busy; it means less vandalism, less corrupt editing, less faulty editing with no bad intentions as a motive, and less time focused on those irritating aspects of this site. Sure, it can also mean less good work is getting done. But in my experience, the long-term editors are the main ones doing the good work. The drive-by and newbie editors? Not so much. This is obviously because they have much to learn. Anyway, I've weighed in on the Gender role matter. Thanks for keeping a lookout at that article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:44, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I figured as soon as you saw those edits your reaction would be something like, "well, that's no good" :-) I think it's some kind of school assignment. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:50, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Ping

Hello, NeilN. 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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

- BilCat (talk) 01:06, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Mario shabow edit

Hi, regarding user simone001 he keeps adding the youth caps on the page of the footballers senior caps in the info box... that should not be there but hes arrogant and does that on heaps of other footballers pages. i removed it yet he still keeps putting it back on .can you please advise him from doing that or get someone to look at the issue?

(user talk:Manunited20) 19 April 2017, 14.20 (UTC)

This issue has already been discussed on numerous occasions with the same result every time. Simione001 (talk) 22:25, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

@Simione001: Discussed where, please? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:33, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

There is a fair bit here: [4]. Simione001 (talk) 22:36, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Simione001. Manunited20, you can add your thoughts to that discussion or start a new one. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:40, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

FYI, you can find the ladder here [5]. Simione001 (talk) 22:45, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

The problem here is that doesn't know his football and the fact is Youth caps are not considered senior caps world wide. otherwise why would they have the word Youth?

the A-LEAGUe is the top division not the Youth league, therefore that's where the senior caps come in play. But this guy is just arrogant.

(user talk:Manunited20) 01 may 2017, 15.24 (UTC)

@ Simione001 --NeilN The National Premier Leagues NSW are semi-professional soccer competitions and in saying that proves that they are not a professional comp like the Hyundai A-League.. there fore the caps sould not even be considered as it is not a professional league. check the link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Premier_Leagues_NSW

(user talk:Manunited20) 01 may 2017, 19.24 (UTC)

Its clear that User:Manunited20 doesn't know what he's talking about. It is totally acceptable to display Semi-pro senior football in the infobox under Senior Career. Simione001 (talk) 01:06, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

@Simione001: I've opened a thread at the Footy project (you've seen it). When you are in a dispute with another editor, it's a good idea to neutrally solicit the opinions of other knowledgeable editors. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:13, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

You Deleted My Post?

Please i dont know where the advert is located, i have removed so many writeup you keep deleting my post, please tell me the points i will remove let me remove and rest — Preceding unsigned comment added by BirialaGday (talk • contribs) 14:48, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi BirialaGday. Promotional text is just one issue. The main problem is that you are writing an article about yourself. This isn't Facebook. We only have articles on people meeting our notability guidelines. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:55, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

its not the only thing that i have done i want to promote my culture it is not just bcuz of me, know my ethnic group far way behind civilization am trying to use this medium to let the world know that Ijaw is a language in Nigeria, expecially my town i hardly see anything about it online, so please just help me remove anything that is removeable and Post it for me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BirialaGday (talk • contribs) 15:08, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

@BirialaGday: No, sorry, Wikipedia is not here for you to promote things and people. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:12, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

So I Cant even write what i know?

one more finall question before make my decision, cant i write what i know? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BirialaGday (talk • contribs) 15:21, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

@BirialaGday: The answer is in our verifiability policy. "In Wikipedia, verifiability means that other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:39, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry I am new do not understand what I did wrong :(

Please explain what this is about (cream colored box on bottom half) due to my complete bewilderment: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sinsearach I don't understand. I just dont get it Ive been so very very very careful..... and it says I edited that Article, which i cant because it is protected, I just put a thought on the article's talk page. I made a proposal..... and I have then contacted 7 or 8 frequent editors of that article for their feedback regarding my proposal.......as due diligence on what I clearly could see what a supremely controversial articleSinsearach (talk) 21:19, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

PS ok sorry I just noticed this"It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date." so then that notice on my talk page is just a heads up?Sinsearach (talk) 21:20, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

@Sinsearach: Yes, it's just a heads up. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:47, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Edit

Vanamonde93 warned me to not edit without giving an edit summary, I gave an edit summary, what is the problem now Abhishek0831996 (talk) 18:21, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

@Abhishek0831996: Only partially correct. Vanamonde93 said, "You've received a number of warnings for a number of different disruptive tendencies: unsourced content, not leaving edit summaries, and disruptive editing. Please consider this a final warning for all of those issues..." What is the source for this change? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:27, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Please don't block me from editing Abhishek0831996 (talk) 18:27, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

@Abhishek0831996: I'm not going to block you but I would like an answer to my question. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:32, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

http://m.timesofindia.com/india/Narendra-Modi-gets-clean-chit-in-SIT-report-on-Gujarat-riots-Zakia-Jafri-vows-to-continue-her-fight/articleshow/12612345.cms Abhishek0831996 (talk) 18:37, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

@Abhishek0831996: First, that source was not provided. Second, please read sources more carefully. As stated, "The Ahmedabad Metropolitan Magistrate on Tuesday declared that the Supreme Court-appointed Special Investigation Team had not found any evidence..." The Supreme Court appointed a team to investigate. A lower court was presented with the findings and judged there was no evidence. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:45, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I am sorry, I will read the sources more carefully Abhishek0831996 (talk) 18:47, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

RevDel request

I accidentally edited my CSD log while logged out here. Can you revdel the IP on that edit? —MRD2014 📞 contribs 12:57, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

@MRD2014: Done. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:03, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Information needed

Hi, I'm new to Wikipedia and Just learning how it work

Well, you can share with what actually issue with page which is reported so next time I will not do such mistake

and also how new pages notified for review and where we can check all new pages which is created on Wikipedia ?

Hope I'll get your reply

Thank You — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rnsharma1993 (talk • contribs) 15:47, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

@Rnsharma1993: Please see WP:WEBCRIT for notability guidelines that determine if a website should have an article or not. To create a new article for review use WP:AFC. New page creations are listed here: Special:NewPagesFeed --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:56, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Typical abuse of non-PC users and its consequences.

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. 97.120.54.196 (talk) 17:51, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Removed before you even got here, amusingly. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:53, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Bengali calendar

Needs a watch. A new editor, already cautioned, warring with Kautilya3 and I, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 02:05, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Nsmutte back at it again

Another obvious sock. Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball!} 06:13, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

@Boomer Vial: Boom. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:15, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll let you know if i dig up any more. Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball!} 06:18, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

@Boomer Vial: Basically keep an eye on every noticeboard like this. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:21, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

I'll keep that in mind. Their three favorite editors to harass are Bonadea, Oshwah, and BethNaught right? Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball!} 06:26, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

@Boomer Vial: Yes. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:34, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Funny name, indeed!

:p but thanks for dealing with that- I admit I wasn't sure whether user pages could be 'salted,' or the equivalent. Cheers, — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 07:18, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Unblock of user: Maleidys Perez

Hello. please, nobody is using the account of user named Maleidys Perez. can you please unblock. I am not using the account, so the user can edit his/her own talk page, and re-enable account creation and email. I am sooooo sad about this, but Neither vandalism. Now that the block is indefinite, unblock the account or decrease the block time to a definite (minutes, hours, days, weeks, etc.) one because indefinite blocks look too permanent. Will not make disruptive editing and vandalism. Ask the one who blocked the account to unblock. and add the unblock request accept notification to the user's talk page . Thanks!!! 2600:387:9:3:0:0:0:AE (talk) 17:22, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

And sock blocked. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:26, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

RFC closure

FYI, I closed this RFC, and endorsed your warnings in the close. Revent^talk

IP hopping harasser

83.46.137.248 who you blocked for disruption is now IP hopping to harass both Mlpearc and I. So far they have used 213.143.51.33, 213.143.50.194, 213.143.50.198 and 190.39.118.224. Can anything be done to stop or at least slow them down? Justeditingtoday (talk) 22:35, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

@Justeditingtoday: Page protections and rangeblocks put in place by Barek and myself. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:40, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. I don't know why that person decided to go so militant all of the sudden but thanks for putting a stop to it. I imagine that protecting user talk pages is a last resort so I'm sorry everything escalated to that so quickly. Justeditingtoday (talk) 22:41, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

question

Can you please do something about this? It's beginning to feel like harrassment. I've disengaged from that thread as I have had my question there answered. I've had several pings to that page. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 13:47, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

@SW3 5DL: You can do that yourself by stating something like, "I have said all I want to say here". --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:04, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

It will continue if I do that. If he wants to start an issue on ANI he can open a thread. I've said all I have to say on that thread and my disengagement shows that. I've had my question answered. If nothing is done, he will continue there and on the article talk page. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 14:14, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

A different queestion

Hello N. Are these a candidate for rev/del? I know the attack on Acroterion is unfounded nonsense but the content is an insult to all those who lived and died in that event. I know that I am letting my personal feelings get in the way so I thought I would ask for your opinion. Best regards. MarnetteD|Talk 15:08, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Hey Writ Keeper, while you're here, what do you think about this? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:42, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Mmm, all in all, I'd probably say yes, but it wouldn't surprise or alarm me if someone else said no. Stronger case for revdel for the edit in mainspace, I think, though all of them are within the boundaries of admin discretion. What I'd do is probably revdel the edit in mainspace and then let Acroterion decide what they want to do with the ones in their userspace. What do you think? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:48, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

@Writ Keeper: I was on the fence. Good advice - thanks. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:53, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look N and @Writ Keeper:. That is one sturdy fence because I was on it as well and that is why I appreciate your input. Best regards. MarnetteD|Talk 18:08, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

RevDel plz?

The edit I just undid at Qamar Javed Bajwa contains what looks like a personal phone number and several other bits of information. It looks like this user is trying to dox either Bajwa or a member of his family. CityOfSilver 16:38, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) done. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:40, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

carl cowl

hello, not sure why i have been directed to this page or why my comments on Carl Cowls page were considered partisan. can you please explain

thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rickblackman1917 (talk • contribs) 00:51, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Rickblackman1917. C.Fred and another editor undid your changes but I'll explain why here. First, article content needs to be verifiable. You need to provide citations to published sources that back up the material you're adding. Second, text like Always an anti-war activist, I saw Carl speak in Chicago, just as the first Gulf war was coming to a close 1991. He received a standing ovation after he spoke to a massive audience, laying out his anti-war position, explaining he had been campaigning against imperialist wars since the age of fourteen, and he was "getting a little tired of it". A generous and extremely witty man, a great pianist and mischievous to the end. Much Missed has an unencyclopedic tone. You wouldn't expect to see that in the Encyclopedia Britannica, right? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:02, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Madhesi people

Hi, you protected Madhesi people on 21 April when I requested that the article be locked due to a content dispute. One disputant has provided what appear to be rock-solid sources on the talk page but the other (an anon whom I suspect has been hopping for months) has not responded. I doubt that they will respond because the article at present reflects their POV. The protection does not expire until 5 May, at which point I would be inclined to reinstate the earlier version per the sources provided on the talk page. Doubtless, some anon will then return to war. Is it worth delaying things in these circumstances? Somehow, we've got to get the anons into the discussion and that doesn't seem likely to happen while the article shows their preferred version. (Yes, I do know about WP:WRONGVERSION.) - Sitush (talk) 11:58, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

@Sitush: General sanctions gives me more leeway. What specific version would you recommend? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:17, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't realise that, sorry. I'd go for this version and then see if anyone of good standing objects. As I understand it, the IP was pushing a secessionist POV, to achieve which they needed the article to reflect a position that is not well sourced. I'd be happy to show both "sides" (NPOV) but only if the anons can come up with sources of an equal standing to the academic ones that have been given in the article and on the talk page, ie: not agenda-driven news sources etc. - Sitush (talk) 14:40, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

@Sitush: Sorry, that's a diff so it shows me two versions. This is what you recommend? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:52, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

The next one along, ie: as at 13:27 on 21 April. - Sitush (talk)

Thanks for doing that. - Sitush (talk) 15:07, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Administrator or not?

Hi - at the op of your talk page it says "NeilN is not an administrator or an account creator", yet elsewhere on the talk page you link through to claim the category of an administrator. Can you clarify your status please? Thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 12:41, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Template:Adminstats is generating that error message. The template appears to be broken at the moment. You can confirm that NeilN is an administrator here. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:45, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Since Contaldo80 has been here nearly twelve years, it is hard to imagine that they don't actually know that already?! — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 13:47, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I have little interest in how administrators organise their work (don't believe that all editors breathlessly keep track of internal house-keeping discussions), so no I didn't know. Perhaps worth taking a less patronising tone - thanks! Contaldo80 (talk) 10:16, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

I have the same problem. So does Ivanvector. So does every admin I checked except User:Drmies; his template still works! Did he bribe somebody? Or is he the only active admin left on the wiki? What's your secret, Doc? --MelanieN (talk) 14:03, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

@MelanieN: Look at the date. He's checked out a long time ago :) [6] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:08, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

So the bot works, but only for actions before October 23, 2015? But hey - I was an admin then! So were you! I checked a couple of admins who have been admins since the beginning of time!! I still think he did something nefarious to get HIS stats to work when ours don't. 0;-D --MelanieN (talk) 14:18, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

@MelanieN: The bot creates a new version of each admin's page every day for admins who actually use the template. It's been erroring out on the daily runs lately. [7] Drmies stopped using the template so the bot doesn't run for them. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:25, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Ha, what a funny history! So some days I have adminstats, and some days I'm a fraud pretending to be an admin. It all depends which day you look at. Timing is everything. --MelanieN (talk) 14:34, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I really have no idea what y'all are talking about, so perhaps I don't deserve to be an admin... Drmies (talk) 14:35, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

This is what we are talking about: Right now Template:Adminstats is giving results like this:

MelanieN is not an administrator or an account creator.

Therefore they have been disallowed the use of adminstats.

Apparently your adminstats still work because you modestly stopped having them updated. Clever decision on your part. Sorry to ping you away from your day! --MelanieN (talk) 14:52, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

It was no problem, he wasn't busy; just whiling away the hours pretending to be an admin ;) — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 15:15, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Pretending? Whaddaya mean? According to Adminstats he's the only admin in the place; he must be busier than a whole hivefull of bees! --MelanieN (talk) 15:21, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

So, today I have adminstats. Tomorrow I'll probably be a fraud again. --MelanieN (talk) 23:24, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Highest-grossing Kannada films

Hi Neil, hope all is well with you. I'm curious if you think Highest-grossing Kannada films could be speedied under A10: Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic. There are a number of issues I'm mulling over in my head, but the most important one is that the content already exists at List of highest-grossing Indian films#Highest-grossing Kannada films and there has been no attempt to expand. (They didn't even include the references found in that parent article--so technically, it's a DE-expansion.)

Secondary considerations are:

• I've been dealing with a lot of financial vandalism surrounding Kannada-language films lately. There's been a push to inflate the gross values of the film Raajakumara.
• Article was created by an SPA.
• When article was created, it included fabricated data, for instance the ₹75 crore claim for Raajakumara is unsubstantiated, and it's not even consistent with the parent article, which shows a ₹40 crore gross.
• "Highest-grossing Kannada films" is not the proper article title. It should be "List of highest-grossing Kannada films" to be parallel with similar artilces. Buuuuut,
• List of highest-grossing Kannada films was already created by a user/sock operator that I have indeffed. He fabricated the entire thing as I've detailed quite thoroughly at Talk:List of highest-grossing Kannada films and I have since turned that into a redirect for being a den of lies.

So in my expert opinion, I suspect the recent creation of Highest-grossing Kannada films was an attempt to circumvent community scrutiny, and to continue the same campaign to fabricate data about Kannada-language films. A10 criterion seems like it could work, but I also think maybe G3 for vandalism could fly? What do you think? Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:35, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: There's actually a simpler solution. The article was obviously an unattributed copy-paste of the existing article. Revdeleted the offending versions and semied the redirect. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:48, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Ah, there you go. Thanks for the brain power! I'll keep this in mind for the future. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:54, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Re. discussion at ANI

Our discussion at ANI has now been closed. I added a note immediately following the closed discussion:

"In the discussion above, I said 'going to the talk page within ten minutes of the revert'. On both my iphone and laptop, this link goes where I intended, but then jumps forward for reasons I do not understand. Here is a diff in case anyone else encounters the same problem."

I really have no idea whether you ever tried to look at the article talk page to see what I was pointing you to, prior to closure of that section in which you said that you would have warned or blocked me for misconduct. Nor do I have any idea whether the link worked properly for you, nor whether any of this matters to you. I voluntarily pledged at ANI to stop editing that BLP. I have no idea whether you're aware of that either. See ya later! Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:50, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

@Anythingyouwant: The "link jumping" problem has existed on Wikipedia for years. No idea why the devs haven't put more effort into mitigating the behavior. But MastCell had a good close - why not just move on? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:59, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I still have no idea whether you looked at what I was pointing you to. That's apparently by design. Let's both move on now, me to continued honorable editing, and you to whatever it is you do. Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:02, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Madhesi people

Dear sir, Madhesi people are the indigenous Nepalis originated from Madhesh plains of Southern Nepal. Please correct the false statement sponsered by Bhagymani on that article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.34.48.253 (talk)

Hi 27.34.48.253. Please continue the discussion at the talk page of the article where Sitush has replied to your post. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:48, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

References

Thanks for blocking Catsarebad12397

Thanks for blocking Catsarebad12397, saved me from making an AIV report. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 04:34, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

@TheSandDoctor: You're welcome! --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:35, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Happy editing and thanks for helping take care of vandalous accounts. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 04:44, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Repetitive page blanking

Please take a look at this [8], they have ignored a 4im notice (forgot to include that in AIV report - oops) --TheSandDoctor (talk) 04:53, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

 Done By Materialscientist in the time it took me to type this - that was fast! --TheSandDoctor (talk) 04:53, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

@TheSandDoctor: That's a sockpuppet. Any time you see a new account causing disruption like that with regards to "zeitgeist" just report to AIV referring to ShantaePirate --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:00, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know as I did not know and I shall, is it the same (different user of course) for edits regarding changing anything saying Taiwan to the Republic of China? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 05:02, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

@TheSandDoctor: Probably not as that change is constantly done by many people. Kind of the constant changes from "England" to the "U.K." and vice versa. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:07, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I was asking as accounts that I have come across changing it have all been blocked for vandalism because of it (I think there was a sock investigation at some point regarding this that blocked like 20+ accounts doing it but not sure on specifics). --TheSandDoctor (talk) 05:09, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Self tests

I have come across this user [9] who is repeatedly doing editing tests in articles and then self reverting despite a warning for it. Any ideas? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 05:12, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

@TheSandDoctor: Basically warn and then report. I would do a test1, test2, disrupt3, disrupt4 and then report. If they have hundreds of edits like that no one has caught (like in a sandbox) then it's likely they're trying to game 30/500. In that case, grab a friendly neighborhood admin. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:19, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

self-revert is a single issue notice though? And what do you mean by gaming 30/500? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 05:21, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

@TheSandDoctor: If they keep doing it after a warning they need to be warned again (and so on). Gaming 30/500 means trying to get extended confirmed status illegitimately. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:25, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I did not see test2 in Twinkle so thanks for telling me about it (I have since found it) and giving the proper route to follow in dealing with cases like this :D --TheSandDoctor (talk) 05:26, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, NeilN. You have new messages at Cyfraw's talk page.
Message added 17:26, 27 April 2017 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

cyrfaw (talk) 17:26, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Theadjuster

Hi NeilN. I am wondering whether the link Theadjuster added to his last talk page post needs to be removed. It links to an external website where he basically makes the same claims he tried to include in the article. In fact, it seems to also include a downloadable file of his preferred version of the article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:44, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: The external page hosted a version of the article that had copyright violations (since revdeleted by another admin). We don't link to copyvios so, poof... --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:23, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for checking. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:36, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

A concern

I recently warned user:Shahrizal shahanshah for edit-warring on Qutb al-Din Aibak, which they have been edit warring since 11 March.[10] Now appears user:Malika Sultana making the exact same edits on Qutb al-Din Aibak and Nasir ad-Din Qabacha. Also, Malika Sultana created Shazia Begum which Shahrizal has edited four times. I suspect sockpuppetry. Your thoughts? --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:40, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

And Malika Sultana restored user:Shahrizal shahanshah's unsourced edit again. --Kansas Bear (talk) 07:24, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

@Kansas Bear: I've asked for an explanation here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:05, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Judging from this edit(where Shahrizal links to a newly created article), it would appear Shahrizal shahanshah has another sock puppet account:Majunu Mamat

Both of Shahrizal's socks have created articles along the same lines.

Mention of the Razia Sultan TV series,(Qutub Begum,Shazia Begum), both articles were created with little or no unreliable sources, and both articles are quickly linked or referenced by Shahrizal[11]. --Kansas Bear (talk) 15:37, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

@Kansas Bear: Indef blocked the socks and blocked the master for one week. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:50, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Of Pandas and People

I submitted what I thought were legitimate edits to the Of Pandas and People Page

I felt that using to term pseudoscience to describe Intelligent Design was a little too inflammatory to be included in the first sentence of the first paragraph of the introduction. It seems reasonable to move that particular description to the main body of the article where it could be presented in a better context.

I suppose that if you want your post on Of Pandas and People to appear liked a biased hack-job then by all means keep that phrase in the introduction.

But I think it is rich that I am being accused of starting an edit war when all I am trying to do is make the article appear a little more balanced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mathezar (talk • contribs) 19:04, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

@Mathezar: Obviously more than one editor disagrees with your assessment. That's why you need to use the article's talk page to discuss your concerns. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:32, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

I just read his talk page. He either doesn't understand or strongly disagrees with our policies and I doubt he'll ever be happy here. Doug Weller talk 07:47, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

New names

We went from being clowns to morons... Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 19:21, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

@Corkythehornetfan: I'm just happy they haven't found the span or font tags to give their posts that extra multi-colored oomph. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:37, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

haha, I know! Give them time, I'm sure they'll figure it out eventually... especially if you keep posting on their talk page! Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 20:36, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Validity of proposed deletion in question

The account that nominated the article for deletion has blanked it numerous times. I do not believe this nomination to be valid and am tempted to remove it myself but thought I better double check, is this valid? [12] --TheSandDoctor (talk) 04:59, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

@TheSandDoctor: That reason is not a valid reason for deletion. If it cannot be speedied then it needs to be taken to WP:AFD. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:31, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the confirmation, I reverted the edit with the reason/edit summary of that it is not a valid delete reason. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 06:51, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

IP 77.101.6.102

Hello, you blocked the IP address 77.101.6.102 some time ago for persistently making the same (wrong) edits to Scottish independence opinion poll articles. It came off block a few days ago and has immediately started doing the same edit again. It hasn't broken WP:3RR, but clearly has no intention of discussing the issue and just wants to impose its point of view. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 05:35, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

@Jmorrison230582: Blocked for a month again. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:36, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Please apply ARBAP2 DS on new article

Greetings, NeilN. Pertaining to a talk page discussion, I have created a new article Timeline of the Trump presidency, 2017 Q2 split from Timeline of the presidency of Donald Trump. Could you kindly place the new article under the same standard DS/1RR restrictions as the original one? I have already added the relevant messages on the talk page and the edit notice but I suppose this needs to be logged by an admin somewhere. Also, the source article will be moved to Timeline of the Trump presidency, 2017 Q1 shortly, so you may need to add this title to the list of sanctioned articles as well. Thanks! — JFG ^talk 09:19, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi JFG. I don't see a lot of disruptive editing on the article or heated discussion on the talk page. Do you know why the editing restrictions were put in place? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:33, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't remember when or why DS/1RR was applied here; I took the restrictions as standard practice in this topic area. It's hard to know whether the refreshing lack of drama is natural or thanks to the preventive notice. — JFG ^talk 15:37, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

@JFG: Seems like a knee-jerk application of restrictions. I've been wanting to ask Arbcom to clarify the process of lifting restrictions placed by another admin. Guess this is a good push to do that. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:42, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes. For my own part, I'd be fine with a lower level of protection, in line with WP philosophy. — JFG ^talk 15:47, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Dan Barker

The editor who made the libelous edits to Dan Barker has also made such edits to the Freedom from Religion article. Can you help with a revdel? 32.218.33.26 (talk) 04:42, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Done and blocked. Thanks for reporting. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:52, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

What is the deal

...erasing a request for clarification for an action taken, by another editor? "Not here" (your edit summary) hardly moves the matter along. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 04:47, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Look at where you're posting. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:49, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Then address any issue with the where, via a Talk reply. I began an edit, and was informed of a block to an IP address. That block had the attendant name "Ivanvector", an editor and an accountant (?!). I see no issue with asking him where the discussion is to be found, that led to his action. What policy have I violated? And are you violating any in your involvement and actions here? Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 04:55, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

@Leprof 7272: Oh my god. How about opening your eyes and looking at where you posted (twice). Hint: It's not the talk page. I even said I moved it from the user page! --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:00, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

I am not your "god", and am unclear what any deity has to do with this. Stop playing games. Your hint is just as time-wasting as all previous posts. I have no idea what you are on about. Please reply at Ivanvector's Talk page, to put all of this in one place. There, I have already explained myself fully. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 05:03, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

@Leprof 7272: Do you know the difference between a user page and a user talk page? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:06, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Not discussing further here, and not replying to condescension that does not clarify matters. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 05:09, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

[bangs head against wall] At least talk page watchers will get a chuckle out of this and Ivanvector's user page and talk page history. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:14, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Not discussing further here, and not replying to condescension that does not clarify matters. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 05:09, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Given your continued inability to see you posted to Ivanvector's user page instead of his talk page and your inability to understand that "Moved from your user page" was not a reply to you despite your subsequent refactoring I thought it was a fair question. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:22, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

• It is worth noting that Ivanvector, in his administrator's note on your talkpage [13], linked directly to the specific discussion in question, as well as stating very clearly that "If you have questions about these actions you may ask here [meaning your talk page] and/or appeal at the administrators' noticeboard". -- Softlavender (talk) 05:22, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Neil, you're right, I did get a good chuckle out of this. :D ^{(talk page stalker)} CrashUnderride 05:27, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Even the newest editors understand "moved from user page". And yes, posting to a user page is an understandable mistake but you would think they would have checked their contrib history before wasting time on two talk pages. This is the second time in a month on this talk page that they would have been much better off looking at the situation with more than a cursory glance. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:39, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Well we did learn something in this conversation: Ivanvector is an accountant, which is apparently cause for incredulity and alarm "(?!)". Apparently however the fact that he is an admin does not merit mentioning. Softlavender (talk) 06:04, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

@Softlavender: And rightly so. NeilN can only block; Ivanvector will block and start a SEC investigation ;) — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 07:19, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Most of accounting is just showing up places unexpectedly and demanding to see the records. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:09, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

• I am responding to the various places this issue has spilled over by attempting to consolidate them all on the user's talk page. Please see User talk:Leprof 7272#Tagging acknowledged, tag-bombing and other misrepresentations belatedly denied; reply to the foregoing, on learning of it. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:09, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

172.58.171.175 == 172.56.5.179

Just a note, in case it's of interest. —░]PaleoNeonate█ ⏎ ?ERROR░ 06:24, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

@PaleoNeonate: They're hopping around. Hopefully the semi will stop the disruption. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:44, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

F0rmation122

Can you explain your blocking of F0rmation122? nihlus kryik (talk) 08:10, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

@Nihlus Kryik: Trivial edits to get autoconfirmed and then straight to making edits that helped caused the articles to be semi-protected in the first place. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 08:45, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

So you indef them without any warning? Not all of his edits were meaningless or trivial, so this is an egregious abuse of admin privileges and a piss-poor way of assuming good faith. nihlus kryik (talk) 12:09, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

@Nihlus Kryik: I do not think they're a "new" editor. And to be honest, your editing history seems pretty odd too. If you edited as an IP before, welcome aboard as a registered editor. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:20, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

N I H I L I S T I C soap-boxing

Just FYI, I posted this to his talk page. At some point in the near future, we'll probably have to pull the plug on his talk page access. Favonian (talk) 19:17, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

@Favonian: Thanks. It doesn't help that we have an editor, already under community-mandated mentorship, encouraging this. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:23, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

I've removed the G5 section and revoked Talk page access.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:09, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Neil, what is this community-mandated mentorship about (I assume you mean Endercase)? Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:26, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

@Bbb23: See the mess at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive949#Endercase --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:29, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Mess is an understatement. I vaguely recall looking at that thread a bit at the time, getting dizzy, and then not looking again. Even now, I couldn't really read it completely. I lost interest at some point in the endless (pun intended) back-and-forth. Is David Tornheim his mentor (the closure wasn't clear)?--Bbb23 (talk) 15:36, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

@Bbb23: Yes he is. As far as I'm concerned, this editor is a giant time suck who should be restricted to editing content. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:40, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

That seems clear, but unless he is blocked as NOTHERE, I don't think that's going to happen. He has about 1,200 edits, of which only about 160 are to main space. Is David doing much?--Bbb23 (talk) 15:45, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

@Bbb23: I think he's trying but every situation results in wikilawyering. See the block I just put on. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:00, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks(?) for the ping, but, I'm fresh out of ... umm... never mind. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 21:20, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

The Pentecostal Mission

The page on itself is not official but managed by believers. But those who have left the Church are trying to intentionally defame impersonating as the page looks official. this is very insulting to see untrue and false things about a Church organisation. Previously it had many other sections:

"MAGAZINE MINISTRY Magazines in several languages are printed and distributed to subscribers. The English magazine published from India is called The Voice of Pentecost. Pilgrim's Journal is published and printed in USA. Other English magazines are: "Pentecostal Messenger" from Malaysia, "The Youth Herald" from Singapore, "Power Divine" from Sri Lanka and "Trumpet of the Lord" from the UK. Malayalam magazine PENTECOST is one of the oldest Pentecostal magazines from Kerala. Hindi edition PENTECOST KI WANI published from New Delhi, "PENTECOSTI-CHI VAANI" from Mumbai and "PENTECOST DA SNEHA" from Dhariwal (Punjab) are also other landmark in the history of Church to spread the Gospel to northern part of India. Church Magazines are Being published in more than 40 Indian languages and many other foreign languages. NEW TESTAMENT CHRISTIAN ACADEMY In 2002 the church opened its New Testament Christian Academy in Sierra Leone. The children from the Congo Cross ( a place in Freetown where the first branch was opened in Africa ) and Wilberforce assemblies of this church attend the school. MISSIONS EDUCATION FUND (MEF) Missions Education Fund (MEF) was found in May 2007. MEF is 100% Christian charitable organisation that helps children from economic, social and physical poverty to receive education and enable then to become responsible, mature Christian adults. This is to Give a child hope for the future — and help break the cycle of poverty. This education sponsorship program is created, fully administered and managed by volunteers of the Grace New Covenant Pentecostal Church, Canada incorporate with New Testament church, USA. Today, Missions Education Fund has helped over 1000 students in 19 countries including Sierra Leone, Togo, Congo, Ivory Coast, Ghana, Nigeria, Malawi, Uganda, Kenya, Tanzania, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Honduras, Colombia, Mexico, Jamaica, Dominican Republic, Haiti and Papua New Guinea. Contribution towards this helps for the basic education needs of a child who otherwise wouldn’t have the opportunity to attend school. These needs include but not limited to: Tuition, uniform, transportation and school supplies costs but most importantly, sponsored child will be encouraged to develop a lifelong relationship with God. TRACT MINISTRY Tracts of different kinds and various life issues (topics such as peace, salvation; questions about life and healings) are also published in different languages. PUBLICATIONS Many books are published in many languages by the church. The doctrines told on the books are of depth and helps believers to prepare for the second coming of Jesus Christ. The books tells in detail about Salvation, Water Baptism, Divine healing, Life of Separation etc.,- Voice of Pentecost."

But it was removed by the impersonator, you had no problem with that. The use of this website is to provide true and accurate information, not false. I hope that the page be removed completely or encrypt after restoration of the page as it was before (before the deletion of true and good deeds and addition of the false assumption that us very inappropriate on a page about a Divine Church). Else this will be cause affecting the trust on this website. Else pleas consider getting official documents from the organisation before allowing anybody to publish such things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nathaniel7sg (talk • contribs) 19:58, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Nathaniel7sg. We are an encyclopedia, not an extension of the organization's website. We summarize what all reliable sources have to say on the subject, not just Church-approved ones. If you think a source isn't reliable please bring that up at Talk:The Pentecostal Mission but be aware that "this source isn't reliable because it is against the Church" isn't going to get very far. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:08, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

RFPP and the IP sock

Neil, I noticed that IP being a bit rude towards you, and good on you for blocking the right old pain. But you might want to do the same for Special:Contributions/115.132.162.117 as they undid your revert pretty swiftly. I think there is IP-ping-pong going on here. Wes Wolf ^Talk 01:36, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

• And now Special:Contributions/103.46.200.233 is at it. Is it even possible to protect the RFPP page? Wes Wolf ^Talk 01:38, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

That IP is starting to be a pain in the arse now. Does this qualify for RevDel? Wes Wolf ^Talk 01:41, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

• Hi Wesley Wolf. Thanks for looking out for the page. It's Nate Speed. I've protected RFPP and revdeleted the edits. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:45, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

You're very welcome, Neil. This Nate Speed is starting to become Speedy Gonzalez with the number of IP jumps he has made; and a wide variety of them too. Someone needs to strap a rocket to him and ignite the blighter haha. Wes Wolf ^Talk 01:47, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind, Neil, I semi'ed your page. Feel free to unprotect if you prefer. --MelanieN (talk) 02:10, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks MelanieN. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:12, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Any chance of doing my talk page, @MelanieN:? I have a sneaky suspicion these IP's will target my talk page next out of frustration. Wes Wolf ^Talk 02:12, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Better yet, I'm going to go see if I can get someone to do a rangeblock. Holler if your page gets attacked next, Neil or I can take care of it. --MelanieN (talk) 02:15, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

@Wesley Wolf: I'm going to step away in a few minutes but I do have your talk page on my watchlist. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:17, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Presumably I'm next. --MelanieN (talk) 02:26, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

@MelanieN: is a range block even possible with this rogue one? The diversity of IP addresses is very wide. 89's, 103's, 115's, 2202's, and how many more there are. He must have some IP generator that is plucking these at random. @NeilN: thank you for the extra set of eyes on my page. Wes Wolf ^Talk 02:18, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

All the recent ones have been 82.s, that would be a place to start. I asked Bbb23, if he's not around we could ask someone else. --MelanieN (talk) 02:26, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

@MelanieN: It was a 185.s that attacked me, but with their style of writing it was clearly a Nate Quack-Fast (sorry I couldn't resist on that pun). Wes Wolf ^Talk 02:34, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Almost nobody seems to be online right now. I asked a second person, we'll see. This may be too great a flight of ducks to shoot down. --MelanieN (talk) 02:42, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

I just picked of two flocks as a commercial proxy/anon-webbrowsing service. DMacks (talk) 02:56, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedian with catch.

Bravo, good hunting! --MelanieN (talk) 02:57, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

@MelanieN and DMacks: I have tears streaming down my eyes and my cheeks are aching with laughing so much at the duck puns. Who would have thought one vile IP would provide so much laughter out of all of this. Seeing as we are shooting ducks down, shall I prepare the veg to go with the duck meal? Wes Wolf ^Talk 03:02, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

And maybe a little rice? And a nice rosé? Actually I'm going to waddle off to bed now. Hope I don't miss any more excitement. --MelanieN (talk) 03:06, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

You mis-spelled "excrement". Better for you to have stepped out than stepping in it. DMacks (talk) 04:03, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

@DMacks: Wow - a sharp shooter AND the best pun of the evening! Very well done! --MelanieN (talk) 14:10, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Wesley Wolf MelanieN This discussion and all the duck puns are fairly funny, well done people! As for the IP hopping sock vandal, I hope they don't try and steal any of mine - might explain where they have been disappearing to! lol In all seriousness though, good job in shooting down some of the flocks and best of luck in the future with them! I hope you don't mind me butting in here momentarily, just had to congratulate you on the puns, make a couple of my own, and congratulate you on a job well done/good work. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 05:47, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Possible username policy violation

Could a username like Kocfans be construed/interpreted as a possible attempt to get around the username policies in regards to point one (first bullet) under the "Disruptive or offensive usernames" section (here)? It does read a lot like the "containing profanities" bit, especially when read aloud. Thanks as always for your input. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 05:41, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

@TheSandDoctor: I would wait and see how they edit. See, for example, this. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:50, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Ah, fair enough. That was the other possibility. Just saw the username and thought I better double check, hope you didn't mind. I will watch their edits for a bit and see. If they edit vandalously, would that then be grounds for an AIV report based on username or? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 05:53, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

TheSandDoctor Probably. That (for rapid vandalism) or WP:UAA otherwise. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:55, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

UAA is what I had intended to put instead of AIV (oops). Thanks for the confirmation. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 05:57, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

looking for an online admin

I'm getting tired of reverting the N word from User:Aaaaassiajsij. Meters (talk) 05:46, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

 Done NeilN blocked them just now Meters. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 05:50, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

My bad

My apologies, [14] not sure how that happened.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:18, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

I think I accidentally edited an older version of the page.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:19, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: No worries. Was trying to figure out what you were trying to do but GB fan was faster. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:21, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Recurrent (active) vandal

Could you please review my report of Doubtfulcarriage? They have vandalized multiple articles and are clearly a vandalism only account adding content to articles insulting me as well for reverting their vandalism. Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism#User-reported, Special:Contributions/Doubtfulcarriage --TheSandDoctor (talk) 02:24, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

 Done by Materialscientist --TheSandDoctor (talk) 02:28, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Male opinion on male body type at the Adolescence article?

What is your opinion on what I stated here? For a comparison of the images, see here and here. I was in high school before and I have brothers; so, yes, I know that some boys (especially the ones on the football or basketball team) can be buff, but I feel that the second image displays a type that is less common than the type displayed in the previous image, and could leave some readers (including teenage males visiting the article) with a less realistic impression. I know that Grayfell is watching that article too; so maybe he also has an opinion on the matter. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:56, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

The editor also added an image here, but I didn't revert that. Looking at both images, it appears to me that it's not just flexing that makes the boy look buff; he actually is buff. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:06, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree with everything you said. I've reverted at the other article as it's a pretty poor photo for what the article is about. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:24, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Oh, okay. I was beginning to wonder if maybe my posting this here was inappropriate somehow. I know that commenting on people's bodies can have an awkwardness to it, and, in this case, the editor might not even be a legal adult (like 18 or 19). I didn't mind the image at the other article, but I understand your reason for reverting it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:20, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Plasma lamp article

Hello NeilN, thank you to draw attention on the Wikipedia rules. I don't understand the reason of your action. I have only introduce the list of all manufacturers that produce this technology, this is neutral point of view. I'm not in conflict with the rules because all manufacturer are listed. If you analysis the history of this page, I have contributed to this page in 2014. But, in 2016, another contoributor has modified the page to place the companies Ceravision and Luxim that are the only manufacturer. This is not right that the rest of manufacturer are not listed, or you need suppress all names of manufacturers. Moreover, the article was completely modified to place Ceravision and Luxim the only company that made innovation on this technology, this is completely wrong. I works with light every days and I follow this technology since 2004. This is not right that these companies present a wrong reality. This is advertising without possibility for the other manufacturers to exist. Thank you in advance for your reply. Have a nice end of day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lumieresuisse (talk • contribs) 15:51, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

@Lumieresuisse: You de-emphasized two companies and prominently added Lumatrix with an external link and ad-copy similar in tone to what was in your deleted Lumartix article. What is your connection to this company? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:08, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

@NeilN: This is not true, I have added all companies manufacturer with no special preference. I have no link with any companies, I'm only a scientist that works with new lamps generation for our internal test bench. And you, what is your background and link with Ceravision company ?

@Lumieresuisse: Here's the diff of your edit. And I have no connection with the industry. I came across the article because I was looking at the edits of this IP. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:09, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

AAH

Dear NeilN,
Hesitant and flabbergasted though I am to say this - please return to the AAH page if you could! The new guys don't even adhere to their own rules or logic, but at least with you there was a coherent discussion and reason! Aquapess (talk) 17:48, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2017).

Administrator changes

Karanacs • Berean Hunter • GoldenRing • Dlohcierekim

Gdr • Tyrenius • JYolkowski • Longhair • Master Thief Garrett • Aaron Brenneman • Laser brain • JzG • Dragons flight

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC has clarified that user categories should be emptied upon deletion, but redlinked user categories should not be removed if re-added by the user.
• Discussions are ongoing regarding proposed changes to the COI policy. Changes so far have included clarification that adding a link on a Wikipedia forum to a job posting is not a violation of the harassment policy.

Technical news

• You can now see a list of all autoblocks at Special:AutoblockList.
• There is a new tool for adding archives to dead links. Administrators are able to restrict other user's ability to use the tool, and have additional permissions when changing URL and domain data.
• Administrators, bureaucrats and stewards can now set an expiry date when granting user rights. (discuss, permalink)

Miscellaneous

• Following an RfC, the editing restrictions page is now split into a list of active restrictions and an archive of those that are old or on inactive accounts. Make sure to check both pages if searching for a restriction.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:20, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Administration

I saw the administrator's newsletter on your talk page and I was wondering, how do administrators get removed? Does it need to be voted on or? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 20:35, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

@TheSandDoctor: That is a question with a lot of history in the answer. Short answer: WP:DESYSOP. You can see a rare involuntary desysop (probably) unfold here: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Request_to_de-sysop_Jondel --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:49, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the link to explain as well as for the link to that rare involuntary desysop discussion, I shall watch that as it does appear interesting. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 20:56, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

(tps) TheSandDoctor, if you're referring to the administrators in the newsletter above, they were either desysopped because they were no longer active on the project (per WP:INACTIVITY) or because they specifically requested it at WP:BN. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 21:17, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

DoRD Thanks, that is partially what I meant but also meant in general (which NeilN answered) :D --TheSandDoctor (talk) 22:56, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Endercase

I just wanted to extend my apologies for the frustration Endercase is giving. I've been attempting to help mentor him for a month or two now, specifically on issues dealing with the administration of WP. I can't help but think I've done a poor job. I know he purports to have Asperger's syndrome, and that as a high-functioning Aspie myself, I can recognize the signs in him. I thought I could help get through to him that he needs to leave administrative matters alone, especially to do with sockpuppets. Obviously, I haven't done a very good job of that. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:18, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

@MjolnirPants: I know you think my revocation of TP access was a bit "harsh", but I think you are being way too hard on yourself. You can't help someone who refuses to be helped, no matter how hard you try.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:21, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

(ec) I don't think that you're doing a poor job at all - Endercase just isn't accepting your advice, unfortunately. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 21:24, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

@MjolnirPants: I was unaware of the Asperger's syndrome. That last comment of his just drove me over the edge. It's like comparing sock masters to African American slaves because they're both chained up or some other nonsensical comparison. He just needs to edit articles as many of us including you have said. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:32, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, thanks for the votes of confidence. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:36, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

He takes AGF to extremes. It's difficult to see, because he can get really sarcastic. But he assumes that sockmasters are here to help the project, and if you or I assumed that, we'd likely agree with him. It's just that, well, we both know better. Socking fundamentally harms the project by putting false weight behind the views of those willing to sock, and allowing editors to avoid scrutiny when they want to make a POV edit. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:45, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

@MjolnirPants: I have no doubt that some sockmasters are here to help the project. But they want to help strictly on their own terms which is fundamentally incompatible with the collaborative nature of this project. I've (three times now) blocked an editor who insists on going around adding an Oxford comma to existing content despite being told by numerous editors to stop. Now using the Oxford comma is usually a totally arbitrary choice and I like the Oxford comma myself and I totally get she thinks she's improving the project but respecting existing stylistic choices of other editors is a must here or else we'd have edit wars breaking out all over the place. If she resorts to socking then the socks will be blocked as well, despite her genuine desire to help the encyclopedia. And it's not like sockmasters don't have paths back to editing. They can do it legitimately by making an unblock appeal after an appropriate time has passed or they can do it illegitimately by quietly editing under a new account. We don't have proactive checkuser or teams of editors looking for ephemeral links to blocked editors. Every so often I come across a "new" editor which I recognize as a sock because of stylistic oddities. But they're editing quietly and uncontentiously, far away from what got them into trouble in the first place so I shrug and let them improve the encyclopedia, but ready to block if they show any signs of returning to their old ways. And, really, that's why the community has little patience with non-vandal sockmasters - complete failure to WP:DROPTHESTICK. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:30, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

That's what I meant when I said socking fundamentally hurts. I should have said that he assumes that all sockmasters are here only to help the project, because that's where the disconnect is. Like you said, if a banned user makes a new account and stays out of trouble, then I agree that there's nothing more to do than keep an eye on them. Sanctions are supposed to be preventative, after all. Letting someone keep their pride by refusing to admit fault when it's nonetheless clear they've either internalized responsibility or at least learned what will fly and what won't is just kind of an obvious way of helping keep the drama level down. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:54, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

@MjolnirPants: remember that you're not the first to have tried hard to help him, too. At least two other experienced editors tried, with limited success. —░]PaleoNeonate█ ⏎ ?ERROR░ 03:33, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Vandalising Saffron terror page

Please refrain from vandalising the contents. Gujarat burning of train culminated in to riots in 2002. People have been convicted in court for burning the train. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ASimpleHumanBeing (talk • contribs) 11:29, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

The source is also cited in the content. Refrain from vandalising the content.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-south-asia-12605659 — Preceding unsigned comment added by ASimpleHumanBeing (talk • contribs) 11:34, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

@ASimpleHumanBeing: Accusing experienced editors of vandalism is not a particularly wise thing to do. Please read WP:NOTVAND. When your block for edit warring expires please join the discussion I started at Talk:Saffron_terror#Edit_to_2002_Gujarat_riots after reverting. You should have started this discussion yourself after your addition was reverted for the first time. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:32, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

UTRS appeal #18181

A user you have blocked has opened UTRS appeal #18181 on the Unblock Ticket Request System. The reviewing administrator, Just Chilling (talk · contribs), has requested your input:

Endercase (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Time: May 03, 2017 17:56:29

Message: Any thoughts please?

Notes:

• If you do not have an account on UTRS, you may create one at the administrator registration interface.
• Alternatively, you can respond here and indicate whether you are supportive or opposed to an unblock for this user and your rationale, if applicable.

--UTRSBot (talk) 17:56, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

@Just Chilling: Have you seen User_talk:NeilN#Endercase and User_talk:Bbb23#Endercase.27s_talk_page_access? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:07, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up! Just Chilling (talk) 23:58, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the help there

though I rather like Sayerslle's always colorful (now redacted) edit summaries. -Darouet (talk) 19:57, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

@Darouet: What's the article they're raging on about (so I can keep an eye on it)? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:02, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

@NeilN: it's Ghouta chemical attack, and specifically Ghouta chemical attack#Allegations of false flag attack. I'm not sure if it was their behavior there or elsewhere that got them banned. -Darouet (talk) 20:08, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, already on my watchlist. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:09, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

FYI

WP:GS/SCW is general sanctions, not discretionary sanctions. Actions under it are best described as "general sanctions actions" not "AE actions", as we're enforcing a community decision, not arbitration remedies. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 05:02, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

And as a secondary FYI, the log entries at Chemical weapon conjecture in the aftermath of the 2017 Shayrat missile strike may look like I was reverting your action without context, but I was just history-merging a sandbox into the article. It was started originally as a copy-paste move from sandbox. It's back to being deleted. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 05:05, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: Absolutely right. Will remember next time. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:06, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Just noticed also that the action still needs logging at WP:GS/SCW. I'll leave that to you. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 05:41, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: I've added it but is there a reason why, in four years, you (and me, following your lead) are the only one logging these actions? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:53, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, enforcement has been genuinely that shoddy in this topic area. Discretionary sanctions are well-documented and people generally tend to know where to find them. General sanctions, not so much. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 11:27, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Clear & Present Danger accuracy disputes

In what way were my reports considered "false?" What I have been seeing in the past twelve hours is that edits were constantly reverted with little to no explanation. It seems that no matter what explanation I give in the edit summary for my respective edits,said explanations are outright ignored by OldJacobite and other editors that don't seem to be fully aware of the full context of the movies. As a result of those reverts, I am left with the impression that their reverts in question have been done in [[Bad faith. I own a DVD copy of the film in question, and made my edits accordingly based on the film's information to ensure accuracy. How am I supposed to get into "dispute resolution" if I'm outright ignored, if not dismissed? OldJacobite has been very evasive whenever I give out edits that are correct for the sake of accuracy. This isn't the first time I've had a problem with him. Dibol (talk) 13:19, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

@Dibol: I strongly suggest you read WP:NOTVAND. Disagreeing with your changes ("He never identifies Ramirez") is not vandalism. As I said on your talk page, use the article's talk page to discuss your change. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:27, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

AE Question

Hello NeilN. I posted on a user's page to show him what I believe is a simple violation of 1RR at the Russian interference article. Link here: [15]. His response appears to deny that this is a violation. Could you please have a look and advise me as to your view? Thank you. SPECIFICO talk 16:23, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Replied here --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:45, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. I have restored the talk thread from the archive and repeated and elaborated a little on the edit summary I gave when I undid the reinsertion of the disputed wording. SPECIFICO talk 17:03, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello NeilN. A similar incident occurred today on JFG's talk page. However in the current case I was not even going there to mention his DS violation, but merely asking him to reconsider an "edit without consensus" on the Russian Intervention page. I feel that his response is hostile and inappropriate. In light of what Admin Sandstein called his lengthy personal attacks against me [16] at his appeal of his block for the previous violation and his subsequent complaints against me at AE that were swiftly dismissed, I am disinclined to go to AE for another round of drama. FYI, his two reverts at that article are [17] [18]. His behavior is getting to be problematic because some of it has the affect of casting aspersions at me, e.g. listing my notices of 1RR violations on users' talk pages as if they were threats rather than attempts to resolve DS issues without going to an AE complaint or Admin. These notifications are widespread practice on 1RR articles and I believe that most editors view them as analogous to an edit-warring template that in most cases calms 3RR issues without undue drama. I have never filed an AE complaint against another user, but most of the users whose notifications JFG claims are "unfounded" were in fact subsequently sanctioned for DS violations. Sorry for the lengthy visit here, but I think part of the problem is that JFG does not understand the WP policy with respect to "revert", despite Admins having tried to explain to him that his various denials of reverts are incorrect. He frequently misreads talk page discussions as if there were consensus for his views and preemptively inserts them in various articles. SPECIFICO talk 14:44, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: I did not agree with Sandstein's comment in the appeal and this is a completely satisfactory explanation for the edit. As someone who is heavily involved in editing that article, you should be able to spot factual corrections readily. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:24, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, that's fine but I would hope in the future he would simply explain his rationale rather than repeat his accusations only to make that statement after an Admin comes to visit. In my opinion we'd all be better off without the extra effort. For your information, this explanation does not address the concern @Bullrangifer: raised, namely that with a fast-moving story the date of opinions must be related to a timeline of what was known at the time of the comments. Because JFG says "in another report..." without specifying the date, the reader does not know that facts reported after January 2017 were not a factor in that opinion. Anyone may disagree with Bullrangifer's concern, but I do not agree with you that JFG's after-the-fact explanation is fully responsive to this issue. I also note Bullrangifer's concern, stated on talk, that this is at least the second time JFG has edited around Bullrangifer's concern. Anyway, thanks for your response. SPECIFICO talk 15:38, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

I have responded on JFG's talk page and thanked him for the explanation. A better edit summary could have spared us for drama. He needs to do that in the future. He and Thucydides411 are some of the "truthers" editing those pages, and they are constantly seeking to undermine what RS say. They express views which must come from RT, Breitbart, Infowars, Drudge Report, Trump, etc., IOW very unreliable sources. Their editing tends in that direction all the time.

Editors who consume and believe unreliable sources in real life cause problems here. The ability to vet sources is fundamental to being a good editor, as is the ability to change one's mind and bring one's opinions into line with what is found in RS. A lack of that ability is the mark of a tendentious and disruptive editor. Their efforts successfully create huge amounts of wasted time on the talk pages. While I have no evidence they are directly working for Trump or Putin, they are certainly doing what Putin and Trump want to be done here, which is to obstruct and disrupt the documentation of these events. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:01, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

I haven't cited any of the outlets you list (RT, Breitbart, Infowars, or Drudge Report; "Trump" isn't a media outlet). As far as I can see, neither has JFG. I've been citing sources like BBC, Reuters, Associated Press, Süddeutsche Zeitung, Le Monde and Ars Technica. I consider it a pretty massive personal attack for you to call me a "truther," to falsely claim I rely on Breitbart, Infowars, etc., and to imply I'm a paid agent of the Kremlin or Trump (this is the second time you've made that accusation now). -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:24, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

What the fuck are these personal attacks, BullRangifer? "Truther", "working for Putin", "undermine what RS say", "views from very unreliable sources". Show me ONE time that I cited any of the sources you quote. ONE. I'll spare you the search: there is none. You should calm down and retract all this. Yes, we do waste an awful amount of time on this article, because some editors keep bludgeoning the talk page and never admit their contradictions. I'm a very patient kind of person, striving to build consensus; been conducting an RfC on the lead section for example, taking EVERYBODY's opinion into account, because my only goal is to IMPROVE Wikipedia for READERS. I'm not pushing a political agenda, I laugh at Russian propaganda as much as I laugh at American propaganda, Turkish propaganda or Chinese propaganda. If the article was biased towards Trump, I'd work to correct it the other way. It's been so biased towards the "Russians are taking over the USA" narrative that is sounds utterly ridiculous to any sensible non-American reader, no matter what media they read. And for my own part, I can assure you that I read a lot of media with diverse points of view. You have quite some nerve to come blurting out aspersions on fellow editors on an admin's talk page. And the trivial stuff you guys criticize, like asking me to provide a better edit summary than "copyedit" for an edit which is an obvious copyedit. Take a look at my contribs: I ALWAYS provide clear edit summaries. Naturally, when the shoe is on the other foot, SPECIFICO can go ahead and change that stuff back with no edit summary at all,[19] and I don't see other editors demanding an explanation or making false accusations. Oh well, enough ranting for tonight. NeilN, sorry to pollute your talk page with that. — JFG ^talk 23:45, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

You pinged me about making clear the date (i.e. correcting the POV omission of the date that @Bullrangifer: asked not to reinsert here [20].) On first pass, NeilN accepted your rationale that your edit was "not a revert" and just an innocuous copy edit. But seeing your anger at the simple clarification as to the date kind of belies that excuse. The purpose of my edit was so clear from the context and the talk page and my note to you on your talk that I overlooked an edit summary. As you know, I have not found that your edit summaries are always accurate, but I am going to say no more because I don't have diffs at hand and anyway that evidence would not belong on this page. SPECIFICO talk 00:04, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Your edit is fine; I just noted you didn't care to provide an edit summary, while making pointy requests to me and assuming bad faith. And here you continue. Yes I'm angry; I bet you would be if somebody went whining to an admin that you're such a tendentious editor and a stooge of the Putin Trump Grand Alliance. — JFG ^talk 01:07, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Do you still maintain that your removal of the contextualizing date of the Daily Beast cite was a "copy edit" and not a revert? And do you stand by your insistence that your edit did not change the meaning, [21] despite the concern of Bullrangifer and others on the talk page? SPECIFICO talk 01:15, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes. Didn't even read the talk page at the time, just corrected a wrong date and streamlined the wording. — JFG ^talk 02:08, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

I said do you still maintain that? I can accept that you state it was not a revert given that you had not read the talk page objection. But after I linked to that objection and asked you to undo, that excuse no longer applied. Instead of correcting your oversight based on information you had overlooked, you replied with angry denial. And frankly as long as both you and Thucydides411 are here, you have both used the article talk page for personal disparagement of many editors who are trying to conform the article to WP policy and sourcing standards. SPECIFICO talk 17:52, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Enough. Nobody is obliged to WP:SATISFY your zillion requests for clarification. — JFG ^talk 18:34, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

JFG and Thucydides411, you both need to improve your reading comprehension and parsing abilities. Stick to my EXACT wording (keeping contextual modifying words), don't assume anything not EXACTLY said, and don't respond with straw man attacks. You're both pretty thin-skinned for editors who have such strong opinions:

1. You are CHOOSING to consider "truther" a personal attack, but it's the closest word which applies. You both subscribe to the view that Russia has done nothing wrong. If you ever show evidence that such is not your view, please alert me to the diff of your retraction of such views and I may stop using that description. Since you don't like it, what would be a better or more accurate description?
2. I did NOT say that either of you have cited those unreliable sources: "They express views which must come from RT, Breitbart, Infowars, Drudge Report, Trump, etc., IOW very unreliable sources." Whether you actually read them or only parrot them, it's an undeniable fact that those are the main sources of such views. Those views are NOT found in RS.
3. "Trump" isn't a media outlet." Of course not. Trump is not considered a "media outlet", and I never claimed he was, but he is an extremely unreliable source. That was my point: "They express views which must come from RT, Breitbart, Infowars, Drudge Report, Trump, etc., IOW very unreliable sources."
4. I clearly do NOT imply either of you are "paid agent[s] of the Kremlin or Trump", only that your editing here makes them happy. Any interpretation beyond that is on you.

I look forward to the day when your editing does not tend to "undermine what RS say". So far I haven't seen evidence that you are changing your minds and bringing your "opinions into line with what is found in RS". When that happens, you won't get so much flack for your tendentious editing patterns. Right now, methinks thou dost protest too much. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:24, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I note that you did not care to express the slightest apology. And you are doubling down criticizing my "reading comprehension"… Splendid! With that, I have nothing left to discuss with you except article contents. Back at the talk page please, where a bunch of content-related questions have been awaiting your reply for the better part of a month now. NeilN, sorry again to pollute your talk page. — JFG ^talk 18:34, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: You're pretty brave to repeat all these smears again on an admin's talk page. You think you're being clever enough that you can call JFG and me "truthers," say we parrot RT, Breitbart, Infowars, Drudge Report and Trump, and imply that we're paid agents of the Kremlin and Trump, and then say you didn't do anything of the sort. What you're doing is not that clever. It's obvious.

@NeilN: I'm requesting a block against BullRangifer, preferably long enough to make it clear that these sorts of massive personal attacks are not acceptable on Wikipedia. I've asked BullRangifer to quit these sorts of attacks before, but BullRangifer insists on continuing them. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:24, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't mean to single out BullRangifer but comments like this – veiled attacks, snide remarks, questioning editor motives and competence – are constant on the talk page and poison the environment. For example this is the most recent talk page comment:

• I think it's ironic that one of the extraordinarily small number of editors still beating this dead horse months later has the gal to accuse others of wasting their time. Pot, kettle. Kettle, pot.

It's not helpful and too frequent. The article needs an admin or admins to step in with a zero tolerance policy for PAs and off-topic comments. Unaddressed they will drive away every editor who prefers editing to arguing. James J. Lambden 🇺🇸 (talk) 18:26, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

That was me who made that comment, and it was made after several editors (including myself) had explained that this argument has been going on for months with no indication of any change in the nature of the sources or the consensus of this community, and to which the editor I was referring to (Thucydides411) responded by claiming that the editors disagreeing with him are wasting his time. Also, I fully stand by it as a statement of fact. An editor waging a campaign against a longstanding consensus has absolutely no ethical or logical ground to stand on when complaining about a waste of other editor's time. Also, NeilN, should you decide to take Thucydides' request for a block against BullRangifer seriously, I strongly suggest you look through Thucydides comments in that thread. Virtually every comment of his which I've read contains a mild personal attack of one form or another. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:27, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

I would be perfectly fine with NeilN reading through the talk page at the "Russian interference" article. The environment there is certainly contentious, but most editors have refrained from calling each other shills or stooges for Putin and Trump, swearing at one another, etc. I've only asked for a block against BullRangifer for the very specific reason that they have now repeatedly called me and JFG agents of the Kremlin and Trump, Infowars peddlers, and "truthers." I find a lot of other behavior on the talk page objectionable (e.g., general nastiness, the complete dismissal by many editors of evidence of reliable sources treating "Russian interference" as an unproven allegation), but it doesn't rise to the level of sanction-worthy behavior, in my opinion. BullRangifer previously implied I was a Trump/Putin shill (diff), but at least had the decency to strike those comments last time around. Now, they've repeated the insinuation against both me and JFG, and I think enough is enough. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:51, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Thucydides: At least we don't see other editors slamming Admins on the Admins' talk pages like you did at @Neutrality:'s [22] [23]. And that doesn't even get into your conduct on the article talk page. SPECIFICO talk 20:35, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

I should have anticipated that asking for a block would lead to a general slugfest, with multiple editors piling on and requesting retaliatory sanctions, but I'm really asking for a very specific block in reaction to what I consider especially egregious behavior: the repeated insinuation that certain editors are agents of Putin and Trump. After a couple months of contentious editing at the "Russian interference" article, we all have our catalogs of grievances against one another, but I'm not raising any of those here. I'm asking for a sanction against BullRangifer because of the repeated insinuation that JFG and I are agents of Putin/Trump, "truthers," and Infowars peddlers. That really goes beyond anything I've seen surrounding the "Russian interference" article, and I think a point has to be made that such behavior is unacceptable. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:58, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Thuc, It's not appropriate to make these accusations without diffs -- that's not going to cure anything. Also, you say above that you've only asked for a block vs. Bullrangifer, but I recall you seeking blocks for many other editors on various occasions, for example in the course of your appeal of one of your own blocks. I'd ask you to let things lie. SPECIFICO talk 22:16, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Two of the times that BullRangifer made these insinuations are directly above, and I linked to a diff of the previous insinuation in another comment above. Here is it again: diff. In my AE appeal, I raised the question of blocking other editors only because I was blocked for an interpretation of editing policy that many editors on the page had followed, including editors who were leading the charge that I be blocked (yourself, for example). It was purely a question of consistency in applying sanctions, and the obvious unfairness of applying an interpretation of policy (at odds with the interpretation that had been elaborated by admins on the talk page) to one particular editor, but not to other editors. I'm not given to bringing cases against other editors (I may be blanking, but I can't remember ever bringing a case at AE or ANI), but this is particularly egregious behavior, which has now been repeated. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:34, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Thucydides, you've been blocked for DS violations at least two times that I remember without checking. In your epic appeal of one of them you falsely cited this "interpretation" of policy by misrepresenting the words of an Admin out of context. Your statement that I followed your "interpretaion" is false. ASPERSIONS without diffs are irrelevant and counterproductive. It's also counterproductive to rely on your "elaboration" because your appeal fell flat. It was not credible at the time, so let's not exhume the dead. Bullrangifer seems pretty widely-read in the topic area and pretty well-informed as to WP policy. I think he does make a valid point that, even if you're upset, it is helpful to focus on his exact words and not assume there's any malice or further insinuation behind them. WP does have policies as to UNDUE and FRINGE in articles and it's not inappropriate for editors to reject such content when it is being advocated for article text. SPECIFICO talk 00:34, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

You're giving a very inaccurate description of the "epic appeal." First of all, I didn't misrepresent the words of an admin (NeilN was actually one of the admins in question, and I cited their words faithfully, with context). The idea that I misrepresented NeilN's policy interpretation was simply an accusation you made at the time. Second of all, that appeal didn't fall flat at all. A majority of the admins who commented at the appeal supported overturning the sanction, and the only reason the appeal was closed was because the sanction ran out. Third of all, the second discretionary sanction was rescinded, and you can check my talk page to see that it's been struck.

However, I don't know why you raise this, since it's completely off topic. The issue I'm raising is the repeated insinuation by BullRangifer that JFG and I are agents of Trump/Putin, that we parrot Infowars, and that we're "truthers." I don't think I'm reaching very far to assume malice and insinuation behind BullRangifer's words, as much as they now protest that they meant nothing of the sort (while, of course, repeating the insinuations in their denials). -Thucydides411 (talk) 00:46, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Thucydides411, ignoring what I have written above is not a good strategy and shows extremely bad faith on your part. I have repeatedly denied that I have insinuated that you and JFG are "agents of Trump/Putin". I have also explained the matter in detail. Now I've denied it again. Your repetitions of that false charge are blatant false charges and personal attacks. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:11, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

"While I have no evidence they are directly working for Trump or Putin, they are certainly doing what Putin and Trump want to be done here, which is to obstruct and disrupt the documentation of these events." I'm sorry, but you can't write that and then claim you didn't mean to insinuate anything. This is a massive personal attack, and rather than apologizing and retracting it, you doubled down. I already objected last time you made such an insinuation (which led you to strike it), so repeating it here appears to me like a calculated insult. You're being just a bit too clever here by repeating the obvious insinuation over and over again, while protesting that I'm misreading you. -Thucydides411 (talk) 05:59, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

OK, out of respect for your concern I reviewed that AE appeal thread of yours. Without commenting on your intentions or motives, I acknowledge that you find this topic area very stressful and upsetting. Many editors pointed out your misappropriation of snippets of Admin comment unrelated to your specific violation and detailed the equivocations and misrepresentations in your denials. This is a difficult area to edit, and sometimes it's a good idea to take a break and try to come back refreshed rather than to rush on in anger after things have turned sour in a particular situation. I hope you'll find this helpful. I won't be commenting to you again in this thread. SPECIFICO talk 03:09, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

"Many editors pointed out your misappropriation of snippets of Admin comment unrelated to your specific violation." I'm sorry, but the claim that I misappropriated snippets of admin comments is simply false. MelanieN and NeilN wrote about exactly the policy that applied in my case, and I accurately restated the editing advice that MelanieN gave us on the talk page. One of the people you're saying I misquoted, MelanieN, called my sanction a miscarriage of justice, and the other, NeilN, favored lifting the sanction. You keep repeating the idea that I misquoted their statements on policy, but you're simply wrong there. -Thucydides411 (talk) 03:41, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, I've suggested that we pursue some kind of dispute resolution, since in posts over the last few days, communication has really broken down. -Darouet (talk) 22:00, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

@Darouet: We should certainly engage into a wide-ranging dispute resolution process about article contents, but this particular thread is about conduct: personal attacks + aspersions + AGF breakdown should no longer be tolerated. We may also discuss obstructionism and stonewalling, but that's a mix of content and conduct, better addressed in a content forum. — JFG ^talk 22:17, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

@NeilN: Should conduct issues be reported to AE, AN, ANI? Or is the present discussion on an admin page sufficient? — JFG ^talk 22:17, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

@Darouet: I would also support some sort of dispute resolution or mediation for content questions, but I agree with JFG that here is an issue here of personal conduct. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:36, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Thucydides411 and JFG, I mentioned that your reading comprehension and parsing skills needed to improve, and your following remarks above prove me right. Since you have obviously failed to reread and properly parse my EXACT words, you keep on repeating the false charges against me.

Where on earth have I done the following? Please provide my EXACT words. Otherwise withdraw the false accusations and straw man attacks. Here are examples from above:

• "imply that we're paid agents of the Kremlin and Trump"
• "the repeated insinuation that certain editors are agents of Putin and Trump"

That you agree with Putin and Trump and push their POV is an undeniable fact. If you don't like that being pointed out, then stop doing it. Only unreliable sources push those POV, and neither of you need be a "paid agent" to push such POV. If you can't see the difference, I'm afraid I can't help you. I don't know your mother tongues. Maybe that's the problem, but in English, even average parsing skills should make it clear that your agreeing with Putin and Trump doesn't mean you are their paid agents, and I have NEVER implied you are.

Sharing a POV is not a crime, but it's pretty easy to see that both of you share the same POV as Trump and Putin. Such people are called "truthers". All of your editing and discussions tend in that direction, and your endless repetitions of the same rejected arguments just wastes our time. -- BullRangifer (talk) 22:52, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

I think the above comment speaks for itself. I really can't accept this sort of abuse. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:16, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: Although I did not think it would be worthwhile to continue this exchange, you are making an interesting point, so I will indulge.

First, you do not know whether I "agree with Putin and Trump"; I don't even pretend to know what Trump or Putin think, and I bet they have different views on many issues. Trump is notorious for contradicting himself every few minutes, so I don't see how anyone could be said to agree with his POV. Pretending that you know the personal views of editors based on your perception of their editing is at best naive, at worst an unwarranted aspersion. Astute Wikipedians are able to juggle five different POVs and evaluate them in light of facts, sources and logic. Discussing a POV or even calling a POV realistic doesn't make you married to that POV. In particular on subject matters such as this, where propaganda plays a central role, editors must strive to detach from any POV present in sources. Dissenters with you are simply pointing out that all sources have a POV and many of them have an agenda for pushing a POV or another. Yes, that includes the US intelligence agencies as well as the Russian ones.

Second, a "truther" is specifically a person advocating exotic explanations about the 9/11 attacks, or more generally a believer in conspiracy theories. Our article on conspiracy theories says:

A conspiracy theory is an explanation of an event or situation that invokes a conspiracy without warrant, generally one involving an illegal or harmful act carried out by government or other powerful actors. Conspiracy theories often produce hypotheses that contradict the prevailing understanding of history or simple facts. The term is a derogatory one.

Therefore, calling your fellow editors "truthers" is unambiguously a personal attack with a deliberately-chosen derogatory term. You could have called us POV-pushers if that's the meaning you wanted to convey; "truther" goes well beyond that, because it attacks the person, not just the message.

Third, if we accept the Wikipedia definition that a conspiracy theory generally involves an illegal or harmful act carried out by government or other powerful actors, then we can say that Russian interference in the U.S. elections is itself a conspiracy theory. Oh the irony. — JFG ^talk 23:32, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

That's an interesting glimpse into your own thinking, and exclusively your own, since I don't seek to stretch things in that way. Again, stick to my exact words and don't add any of your own meanings and straw men. You changed your mind and decided "it would be worthwhile to continue this exchange", but it wasn't worth it; lots of heat but no light. I think Objective3000's suggestion below is wise and will just stop here. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:02, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

I am only addressing your own statements about me, I'm not "stretching" your words. You wrote: That you agree with Putin and Trump and push their POV is an undeniable fact. and it's pretty easy to see that both of you share the same POV as Trump and Putin. – my first paragraph addresses this. You repeatedly called Thucydides, myself and unnamed other editors "truthers", (He and Thucydides411 are some of the "truthers" editing those pages) and you wrote about "people who agree with Trump and Putin" that Such people are called "truthers." – my second paragraph addresses that. My third paragraph is more of a sarcastic remark, showing that by sticking to the accepted definition of a conspiracy theory, people who believe the whole "Russians are killing our democracy" narrative without a grain a salt could well be called "truthers" as well. But I don't call anyone names, you do. — JFG ^talk 08:20, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Before editors in this thread cheer the idea of escalating this discussion to one of the drama boards; I suggest they spend a bit of time at examination of their own houses for glass construction. Particularly given recent visits by some editors. Just a suggestion. Let’s just calm down and go back to discussion. And, realize that discussions must come to conclusions at some point. Objective3000 (talk) 23:57, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Will review the above later. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:16, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

NeilN, it might be worth considering whether you might reinstate the "no reinsertion without consensus" provision which is still in effect on most of the other American Politics DS pages and which would curtail the edit-warring that's recently occurred on this article with claims of "per talk" and the like. SPECIFICO talk 15:09, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Reversion of User talk:Gv270311

Sorry about reverting the blanking of User talk:Gv270311, I took it to be an attempt to conceal the fact that they have been warned up to a level 4. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 19:21, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

My hunch appears to possibly have been correct - they have resumed their promotional editing (adding back content you reverted). I have issued a 4im warning. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 19:25, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

@TheSandDoctor: I think every editor has to be pointed to WP:BLANKING by another editor at least once. Blocked the account for 48 hours. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:31, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough. I realized that users can blank their own talk pages should they choose, however, thought this to be a slightly different case (which it may have been). Thanks for taking care of them. I am currently monitoring around 12 accounts whose contributions are questionable as well as sifting through the User creation log - blocking them freed up a tab haha. I have made note of that account though and will watch it after the unblock just to be sure it doesn't resume. If it does, should I just report it or talk to you or? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 19:35, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

@TheSandDoctor: Sure. I (or a talk page watcher) will pick it up. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:38, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! --TheSandDoctor (talk) 19:39, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Talk page vandalism/disruptive editing

The talk page vandalism/disruptive editing something that an account can still be reported for at AIV? Special:Contributions/Dgffg sparked the question. Thanks for your help. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 21:03, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

FWIW, I do it all the time. Just make sure that you give the offender the usual warnings. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:05, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

7&6 is correct. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:07, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Don't be precipitate. WP:Rope. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:11, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Quick question

If I find offsite evidence of canvassing and can show that it was done by an editor, should I file an ANI thread, just notify an admin or don't worry about it? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 04:27, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

@MjolnirPants: Kick it to arbcom (my first choice, as they stuck their fingers in WP:OUTING) via email or email an admin. Do not post anything publicly or you're risking a block depending on what you link to. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:43, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Would you mind terribly if I emailed it to you? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:19, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

@MjolnirPants: No, go ahead. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:21, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Okay, sent. I appreciate the time and answer. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:52, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

3RR

Hello again. I wonder if it's still safe for me to revert again 121.220.73.216's last edit on the Genesis creation narrative article. I have reverted twice already, and every revert caused more edits. I have reported to AIV but the queue seems long to process, and the last edit still removed useful information and stands there. If I understand, I could revert one last time (I can't really check easily if I reverted other vandalism on it in the last 24hrs), but then my limit would be reached anyway. Thanks, — PaleoNeonate — 06:16, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Oh I see that it just was reverted. Will wait and see for now. — PaleoNeonate — 06:19, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

So I guess my question now becomes: was it blatant enough vandalism for the exception to be valid? And if so, could I just keep on reverting as necessary, or would an automated system warn/report me if I did? Thanks. — PaleoNeonate — 06:23, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

@PaleoNeonate: This is somewhat difficult to answer because the result depends on what kind of admin processes the report at AIV. If the IP only stuck to messing about with the see also links then most admins would see that as disruption and exempt you from 3RR (especially if you posted a custom message on the IP's talk page asking what they were up to and they didn't answer). However a few might see it as a content dispute and act accordingly. The third revert would be seen as reverting vandalism by (hopefully) any admin per "Blanking, illegitimate" in WP:VANDTYPES. And there's no automated system that warns/reports for reverts. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:32, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much. The first few edits were removal of the same information from the see also, although the last was removal of a referenced paragraph of the text. I let it stand there considering that my revert would likely trigger yet another delete-reaction, fortunately another editor reverted that later. I'm about to read vandtypes. The address was eventually blocked for two weeks (hours later), so it seems that the admin who processed the request also agreed that it was vandalism.
By the way, I started to find my old signature annoying (too bold despite attempts to reduce its contrast); noone ever complained to me yet, but if it was annoying to me, it may have been for some others as well... I had an AfD to fill and disabled the signature when realizing how pervasive it would be attached to every delsort-notice line. Have a good day, — PaleoNeonate — 23:03, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Helping out a new editor

Greetings NeilN. I hope this message finds you well. Please could you assist in deleting this revision of @Gbengaoshaks: userpage that contains his full names? He told me outside Wikipedia that he is uncomfortable that through "view history", his names was still accessible on WP. He doesn't want his full identity online through WP. He is quite passionate about the project and will become very active very soon. Also, he discovered that his WP username is too close to his real name, a Google search of his WP username shows his profile at his workplace on the first page. He wants it changed to another pseudonym, please what is the process of doing that? Thanks. Darreg (talk) 11:28, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Darreg. I've done the revdel. Please see WP:CHU for directions on how to change a username. He can also simply register a new account and start editing using that. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:12, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. He would leave a note soon to acknowledge this message. He deeply appreciates it. Darreg (talk) 00:07, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you @NeilN: for the revdel, and thank you @Darreg: for the intervention. I now feel more protected in the community. I will go through the information on WP:CHU as suggested. Thank you once again. Gbengaoshaks (talk) 20:09, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome Gbengaoshaks. Hope you'll enjoy editing here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:13, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

You are welcome sir. You know why I'm very enthusiastic about your zeal to become active on Wikipedia, you learn things very fast on your own, which is expected considering your educational background. The only thing I explained to you was how to add references, but I see that you've already learnt how to ping on wiki, ordering of replies hierarchically and signing your posts with the four tides. 70% of new editors usaully need someone to tell them that before they start doing it. If it makes you feel any better, I'm one of the 70.Darreg (talk) 21:13, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Question about account creation requests

Hi there Niel, I know that I do not (most likely) qualify for the account creator right as I do not have experience in that area, however, I was wondering if there was any way that I could help out with the requests since, as a regular user, I do have access to create a limited number of accounts (every 24 hours) with Special:CreateAccount. I have been looking around Wikipedia however I have not been able to find a list of open requests, is that page only open to account creators or? If it is not open for non-account creator users, I understand. I want to help out the project where I can in my spare time (as I am doing at AfC, New Page Reviewer, and reverting vandalism). Thank you for your time and assistance. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 22:12, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @TheSandDoctor: Account creation requests are not handled on Wikipedia. They are handled by the Account Creations Team using the ACC interface since requests contain personally identifying information. See Wikipedia:Request an account for the instructions for users requesting an account and Wikipedia:Request an account/Guide for details on how requests are handled. The requirements for access to the interface are also listed at WP:ACC/G. — JJMC89 (T·C) 22:57, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Need a REV-ALTER (instead of REV-DEL)

Hello NeilN,

I have a question about requesting administrator assistance to *alter* (not delete) revision history information. (I found your name at CAT:REVDEL and you have helped me with other matters in the past.) I have heard of WP:REVDEL, but I have a case where I believe the proper remedy is alteration, not deletion, of Revision History information: the requested alteration would be to change the /* Section title name */ that appears in the beginning of the edit summary line for certain edits in the History, because the section title includes a username, in contravention to the guideline at WP:TALKNEW.

If this is the wrong venue for this sort of request, I apologize in advance, and can you point me to where I should go to request it?

This case involves Template talk:Expand language, and its Revision History.

I just recently learned of WP:TALKNEW, in particular the point that "...using headings to attack other users by naming them in the heading is especially egregious, as it places their names prominently in the Table of Contents, and can thus enter that heading in the edit summary of the page's edit history."

Template talk:Expand language is a case like this, because that is exactly what has happened. Until minutes ago this talk page had a section like this, which I have just altered to appear more neutral. But I now see that the Revision History of the page contains numerous references to the old section title, including the username, and this seems an unfair reflection on this user, per the policy. So, I am requesting the following remedy:

• Please find all locations of the old section title in the Revision History of Template talk:Expand language
• For each Rev history item containing this section title, do: (if done manually, this involves five occurrences)
  • Alter the Rev history to remove the old section title, and insert the new section title in its place.

Is there a way to accomplish this change without deleting the revision history, but merely altering it to conform with the current section title, sans username? If so, and you are able and willing to do it, once the history modification is complete, please {{ping}} me here, and I will remove the {{Anchor}} I added to the page to preserve links to the old section title.

Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 22:54, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Notes

(talk page watcher) @Mathglot: Edit summaries cannot be modified, only (un)hidden via WP:REVDEL (or WP:OS). — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:03, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

@JJMC89: Thanks for your comment. Leaving the history as is seems unfair to the User, but removing all trace of the edits in the history doesn't seem ideal, either. The content on the Talk page is okay (or at least, not egregiously contrary to policy as the section title is); is it possible to hide the entries from the History, without removing the corresponding content from the Talk page itself? I mean, just the text content of the page that corresponds to the to-be-hidden revision entries; the section title itself on the talk page is not at issue, as it's already been changed. We want to keep the content of the Talk section that had the bad title, and not lose those edits.

What's the best way forward here? Mathglot (talk) 23:22, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

@Mathglot: This does not come close to meeting the criteria for a revdel, sorry. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:51, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

I understand, which is why I wasn't asking for it originally. I'm not aware of all possible tools and solutions admins have at their disposal, and I was hoping to find something short of revdel, to avoid leaving the current, "especially egregious" (per WP:TALKNEW) situation in place. Do I understand you to imply there is nothing that can be done here? That's unfortunate, if true. Mathglot (talk) 00:08, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

@Mathglot: That's correct. There's no such thing revedit and it is not an "especially egregious" situation. If it was, I would revdel all the prior versions and edit summaries that contained the offensive text and left your version in place so no content would be "lost". --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:18, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I see you were quoting from TPG. To clarify, it is not egregious enough to merit admin action. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:23, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

I hope to be corrected if I'm mistaken, but my impression is that this crossed slightly into uncivil behavior, but is really not close to the gravity of outing or oversight. I think that the editor(s) involved should be warned to avoid personal attacks and casting public aspersions (WP:ASPERSIONS). — PaleoNeonate — 00:24, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

@PaleoNeonate: At most, the editor should be pointed towards WP:TALKNEW. But they stopped editing in September 2016. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:29, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. — PaleoNeonate — 00:43, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for all the opinions and advice all around. I have no prior knowledge of revdel/outing/oversight (other than the names themselves) so I'm learning from these comments. It appears that the initial situation that sparked my query is very minor, compared to other things you apparently all have to deal with (and that, thankfully, I have not encountered). Really what got me here, was that policy comment about "especially egregious", and imagining myself in the place of that user, with such comments surviving in the history. Luckily, that page has pretty low visibility, so I guess the risk of damage to their rep is pretty small, and we'll have to just let it go at that. I don't regret coming here to ask, because I thought the question was worthwhile, and I've learned something in the bargain. So I appreciate your time, and thanks again, all. Mathglot (talk) 01:03, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Alliance University

Please look into the section Family feud. the section is written without any proper citations and using the words like criminal and fraud its look like paid to write intentionally please neutralise the section. Bullus 01:42, 6 May 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bullus (talk • contribs) 01:42, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

@Bullus: You will need to join the discussion at Talk:Alliance_University#Website_.26_postholders. And please fix your signature per WP:SIGLINK. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:38, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Commons vs English Wikipedia

I was just wondering, by having an English Wiki Wikipedia account, you have a commons account as well, does the administrator/bureaucrat right 'transfer' to commons? Are any administrators on a Wikipedia project/language site admins on both? (to be clear, not asking for examples). I just thought of that a few minutes ago and thought I would ask. Thanks for your time. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 23:02, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @TheSandDoctor: Nope, you have to submit and pass an RfA on each sister project individually. There are a handful of global sysops and stewards with admin rights on all or most projects, and some English Wikipedia admins do happen to also be admins on Commons, but the majority of admins here are not admins on any other Wikimedia wikis. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:53, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

@Juliancolton: Thanks for answering my (admittedly out of the blue) question, was simply curious. Thanks for your time. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 23:59, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Assistance in closing a Categories for discussion entry

Hi there NeilN, I was just wondering if you could please close Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_May_3#Category:The_Rolling_Stones_documentary_films since it has been moved boldly by another user? I have seen the instructions at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Administrator_instructions but I am unsure if I could/should close it myself (as a non-admin closure). Thank you for your time and help. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 01:38, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

@TheSandDoctor: Done. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 07:55, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! --TheSandDoctor (talk) 17:06, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Staples88

Hi NeilN, you may be interested in this edit.--TM 15:27, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

@Namiba: I've asked for an explanation. If you're watching the article, please let me know if the editor continues their disruption. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 07:59, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Would appreciate if you'd take a look

I'd appreciate if you'd take a look at this sanction, and this discussion. The admin who issued the block references the previous DS I was given (which you might recall led to a lengthy discussion at AE), which I feel is incorrect, since that DS seemed to be on the verge of repeal before it ran out (rendering the appeal moot and leading to its closure). The idea that this DS is now being used as justification for a second, much lengthier sanction is precisely what I feared when the sanction appeal was closed without result.

I also think that the admin who issued this new sanction did not carefully read through the edit history or the talk page before issuing a sanction. When I asked them for diffs showing how I had restored contentious material, they mistakenly labeled an edit that added new material as a "revert," and pointed to an RfC about an entirely different topic (as evidence that I was pre-empting discussion). The only real grounds for the 3-month sanction seem to be that I objected to the removal of an IP's comment from the talk page - something I gave up on after it became clear that a number of editors were insistent on removing it.

In any case, I'd appreciate if you could give the issue a look. Thanks, -Thucydides411 (talk) 00:33, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

@Thucydides411: I'm not thrilled the talk page post was summarily removed but you should have stopped at two reverts. That being said, I cannot see the justification for a three month ban. If you're not satisfied with Lord Roem's replies to your subsequent inquiries then you'll need to file a formal appeal to get the ban lifted. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 08:32, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. Lord Roem has lifted the ban in favor of a warning, so a formal appeal won't be necessary. Regards, -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:19, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Now That's What I Call Music! 61 (U.S. series)

Can you semi-protect the page to persistent long-term abuse? And Now That's What I Call Music! discography too. 115.164.81.159 (talk) 14:51, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

What block is 109 evading? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:00, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Trends in RfA submissions

I was just looking at Wikipedia:Successful requests for adminship for the fun of it (plus I was bored and looking at old RfA submissions simply for something to do while taking a break from vandalism patrolling) and I noticed something and was wondering if it is a usual trend. I noticed that all the successful RfAs that I viewed (2016/2017) seemed to have very few opposing (with some exceptions), is that a normal trend or are they mixed (some closer than others)? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 20:44, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

@TheSandDoctor: Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship_by_year gives you a really good overview of the numbers. The majority of successful RFAs clock in at 90%+. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:07, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the link - I have things to do but shall read through that later (next time I'm bored with nothing to do probably haha). --TheSandDoctor (talk) 21:10, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Class review of article

I was wondering if you could possibly take a look at Rats! and determine if it qualifies for any ratings higher than start class? I think it potentially qualifies for C class based on its size/length being comparable to 6615th Ranger Force (example C class article). Thanks for your time. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 22:42, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

@TheSandDoctor: C-class it is. You might want to expand the reception section with specifics and add sales figures if you can find them. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:38, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I have looked for that information and took another look, however, was not able to find sales figures unfortunately I shall see what I can find to add to it. I know that Video game walkthrough is currently awaiting assessment for GA, but I was wondering if it qualifies for C or B class. In my opinion, it is too long and detailed to be a start class. Additionally, size wise it is right smack in the middle practically between the C (6615th Ranger Force) and B (The Papers of James Madison) class examples. Style wise it shares more with The Papers of James Madison (B class) than it does the C class one. If you have any suggestions on how to improve Video game walkthrough I am open to them. I would add an image to it however they are difficult to find (I have yet to find any) and would require the copyright holder to release the screenshot (I have not received any responses) User_talk:TheSandDoctor#Things_to_improve_at_Video_game_walkthrough. Thanks as always for your time and help. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 14:06, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

@TheSandDoctor: Size is not so relevant as the following two things: whether the content you are presenting in an article is comprehensive of the known aspects of that article's topic, and whether your writing is of high quality. Specifically: On the Rats! article, you should take a look at WP:VG/GL if you haven't already. As for its assessment (and video game walkthrough's), try WP:VG/A. I might suggest that Rats! is probably still start-class but could reasonably be C-class. Video game walkthrough should probably be removed from the GAN queue, as it does not meet many of the requirements for GA--it is, at-best, a start class article at present. --Izno (talk) 14:47, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Izno regarding Video game walkthrough and will post some suggestions later. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:51, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I have commented out the GAN and welcome any suggestions to improve the article. (cc Izno) --TheSandDoctor (talk) 15:15, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

@TheSandDoctor: Not to get too much into 'improvement' type stuff on this page, but a considered merge of strategy guide and video game walkthrough is probably called for. --Izno (talk) 15:55, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

@Izno: While I understand what you are saying, I disagree and think that merging them would clutter strategy guide as video game walkthrough is larger in size. I created video game walkthrough as a purposeful extension of strategy guide to cover what I felt to be somewhat outside the scope of that article (currently). I think that they would be better off as two separate, related/interlinked articles - sort of like how Grand Theft Auto V and Grand Theft Auto Online are two separate articles that both mention and link the other (they are, in fact, on the same 'disc' and are basically the same game, Grand Theft Auto Online is the multiplayer mode of Grand Theft Auto V). I am currently working on improving video game walkthrough and am doing copy editing on it at the moment. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 16:13, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I am open to any suggestions on how to improve the article. It has been improved with the help of Mz7 and reassessed as C-class (after improvements). What improvements do you think should be made to reach B class? Thanks again for your time. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 15:38, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

hezdor

hi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hezdor (talk • contribs) 03:41, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

@Hezdor: Hi. Why aren't you answering concerns raised on your talk page? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:46, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I had problems finding this section, I'm just getting it, my english isnt the finest — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hezdor (talk • contribs) 03:52, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Do you understand the concern EvergreenFir raised? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:57, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

@Hezdor: What's your native language? Maybe I can get an editor to explain the concern in your own language. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:41, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

My native languague its spanish, i have studied English lately (sorry for the delay, i had not had chance to write you) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hezdor (talk • contribs) 20:04, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Pinged you on RFPP board

Hi,
a look at the activities of the user would be appriciated a lot (the user who requested his own userpage to be protected). I have pinged you on his second request, first one was declined by you. —usernamekiran(talk) 16:28, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

@Usernamekiran: I saw the ping. Probably a language barrier. They seem to be doing a lot of accurate anti-vandalism work judging by the subsequent blocks. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:36, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Yes, he seems to be doing it nicely. But I still dont understand about the "IP block exemption". —usernamekiran(talk) 16:46, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

@Usernamekiran: Look at the second entry in the user rights log --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:50, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

thanks. But i couldnt understand "(User could get caught in CheckUser block targeted at another user)" —usernamekiran(talk) 17:00, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

@Usernamekiran: The user is on the same IP range as another user we want to hard block. We don't want Prinsipe Ybarro to be blocked just because they're on the same IP range. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:07, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

thanks, now i understand. Sometimes, wikipedia terminology seems too vague/concise instead of being precise. I was even involved in an edit war with AIV bot for the same reason lol. I thought he was saying "blocked by Widr 2 years ago", when he was actually trying to say "blocked by Widr for 2 years".
Thanks again for the info —usernamekiran(talk) 17:14, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Problem editor

Hi Neil, we have a bull in a China shop, emptying articles of all their "unsourced" content, plus a nonsensical talk page message to go with it. Probably he is trying to do a WP:POINT. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:09, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: I've pointed them towards WP:PRESERVE but I don't know if that will help. Let's hope so. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:12, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Gosh, that is the worst case of WP:IDHT I have seen. He came back and repeated himself at Talk:N. C. Kelkar. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:43, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

ANI archive

Good gawd, I just realized that I responded to a ping from an archived ANI page. Please feel free to delete. Coretheapple (talk) 20:13, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

@Coretheapple: Someone less patient than me did :-) --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:17, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Yeah I just got bawled out. Sheesh. Had no idea I was posting to an archived page. Coretheapple (talk) 20:20, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

@Coretheapple: Moved back to WP:AN if you didn't notice. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:01, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, as now have that archive page watchlisted (which I will soon remedy) I did notice it. However, as you can see from my comment re that user I really have nothing much further to say. Thanks for your comment on Toddst's page. Honestly, if I'm going to be unfairlly templated, I should unfairly templated for something I do deliberately, not unintentionally. Coretheapple (talk) 21:05, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

AE Sanction

It's my first time imposing a sanction at AE; would you mind checking that I've done the necessary things with regard to Ihardlythinkso? I've closed the section at AE, added a notice to the central log and added a notice to the user's talk page; have I missed anything? GoldenRing (talk) 01:19, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi GoldenRing. I don't think you can set an appeal restriction if they haven't appealed yet. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:27, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

I deliberately didn't phrase it as an appeal; of course he can appeal against the sanction itself on its merits at any time. I'll add a note to his talk page to that effect. GoldenRing (talk) 02:38, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

@GoldenRing: Everything else looks okay. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:55, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. GoldenRing (talk) 03:39, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

123.231.107.255

Hello again. I have noticed that 123.231.107.255 has reached a critical number of warnings, but having verified, it does not seem to be blantant vandalism, more YEC POV pushing. Interestingly, cluebot also detected some of that as vandalism. In a case like this, should AIV still be used? I guess that there's a WP:NOTHERE issue, but it seems to be another problem-category. Thanks for your advice, — PaleoNeonate — 13:30, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi PaleoNeonate. AIV is not a good fit for this as their edits are not vandalism (as you've said). Inform them they should use the article talk page to discuss if they are reverted and if they persist in edit warring without discussing then ANI is an option. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:38, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Now that you mentioned warring, I do see some attempt to restore edits, which may be why cluebot warned afterall. I'll give a last warning about this that is more specific about warring, then if I see more warnings then it'll be my first ANI report. Thanks again, — PaleoNeonate — 13:43, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Sandboxes

Neil sorry if you are sighing. But we have new users who are creating work in their sand boxes and the work is fine. They are new users. I have put notes on their users pages to say that I'm willing to give help. I really don't understand how new users are meant to learn how to use wikipedia if draft articles are thought to be advertising products. I am obviously misunderstanding procedures but surely I can recrreate a page so it avoids the accusation. What an I meant to do? We have very confused new users who suddenly see their pages disappear as they work on them. Victuallers (talk) 14:16, 10 May 2017 (UTC) Can you intercede to correct this and explain to me how we are meant to avoid messing about with new users as they try and learn. Victuallers (talk) 14:18, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

@Victuallers: Given the last interaction between us involved the dubious use of your admin tools to restore blatant spam and a copyright violation I would really like an answer about your digital marketing activities. [24] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:21, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Neil. I have no digital marketing activities - I am supporting students who are on a master course in digital marketing at Loughborough University. I am feeling frustrated as they are being asked to learn just using their sandboxes. A page that describes Facebook in a sandbox is not advertising or promotion. There is no benefit to Facebook. They are students however and they are likely to use words like "best" and "comprehensive" without testing these against the facts or the reference. These are academic masters students and the references they are generally using are reliable and sound. Anything else? Victuallers (talk) 14:30, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

@Victuallers: Yes. Tell your students Wikipedia is not a digital marketing platform. This applies to sandboxes as well. Your activities are not helping to create good content for Wikipedia. Instead, they are encouraging people to think of Wikipedia as an outlet for their future marketing activities. If you want to support Wikipedia then there are plenty of academic topics students could tackle. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:37, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

@NeilN: You are misunderstanding I think. These students are not marketing, either digitally or otherwise. They are studying digital marketing. Its an academic subject. It has textbooks etc. The topics covered are academic. Victuallers (talk) 14:42, 10 May 2017 (UTC) The users sandbox starts out with "Meituan is a Chinese O2O (online-to-offline) local life service platform, connecting 240 million consumers and five million local merchants via an array of e-commerce services and products" ... this is an article that should benefit Wikipedia. As it is the new user has not spotted Meituan.com, but they may create a better article as that article says "Meituan.com (Chinese: 美团网; pinyin: Mĕituánwǎng) is a Chinese group buying website for locally found consumer products and retail services." and appears to date from 2014. However the general point is that this user is not advertising or marketing or promoting but learning. Victuallers (talk) 14:50, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

@Victuallers: Thank you for clearing that up. However I had a look at another sandbox you edited. [25] It was full of copyright violations which I've revdeleted. It's kind of hard to understand why you did not see this. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:00, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

My focus was not on spotting copyvios but if I had then I would have reverted (as I did recently even though it was in someone's sandbox.) But I do want to avoid you sighing. If another user reverts a sandbox for advertising/promotion then what is the correct procedure if I disagree? If the page can be repaired to avoid this then how do we get the new user moving again without making Neil sigh or the user wandering away confused? Victuallers (talk) 15:11, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

@Victuallers: It has been my observation that drafts created through WP:AFC are less prone to be speedy deleted. You may want to move the sandbox to draftspace and add the appropriate AFC template. Drafts not edited in six months can be speedy deleted so there's a process for getting rid of old cruft. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:20, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Thx for advice. Two difficulties. First is that we told them about sandboxes (so they would be confused it we tell them there are two methods), the other is that I have a new user who had a draft article reverted. In that case it was because another user though that a draft article like Meituan and a real article like Meituan.com were a "blatant fork". However my real point is how do I avoid you sighing again. If someone has deleted a users sandbox then what is the most efficient way of reverting it? Victuallers (talk) 15:40, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

@Victuallers: I was sighing at your (repeated) assertion that these types of editors can help solve our shortage of editors. As Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi said, we may be short of editors but we are not short of spammers. However I realize you have a different viewpoint and will endeavor to keep my sighs to myself. But realize that if you restore content seen to be advertising then you're probably going to get blowback sometimes. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:54, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I think we can agree to differ and at least we know you're sighing for a good cause. I understand that spam is a big issue and annoyance - thanks to those who keep it under control. But not sure Masters students are "these types of editors". These are not the spammers you looking for. Surely, If spammers are trying to add links to wiki:sandboxes to gain market share then they are crazy? Cheers Victuallers (talk) 16:12, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

@Victuallers: It's the intent to use Wikipedia for advertising. Many spammers have no idea how NOINDEX work on here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:16, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Good point - They are getting no benefit. Will defending spamboxes vigorously help as the cost in increasing understanding from trained users might be counter productive. Moot point I guess. Victuallers (talk) 16:40, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

I am following this spat with incredulity, and would like to ask @NeilN: how you propose we train up, highly educated, time short users with specialist skills to become productive editors.

• The first problem is access- they have limited access to us and we only have a sparse number of opportunities to talk with them- are we wrong to accept an offer to participate in an existing Masters level course?
• In many other courses we deliver- the participants attend because they have been sent by their line manager- rather out of enthusiasm. In many courses, the students online skills are limited even if their academic skills are excellent. When dealing with time-short students, they leave posting their work to within minutes of the deadline- which makes many of our formal procedures too lengthy to be considered. How do we streamline? Explaining draft space to a newbie is an unnecessary complication - how do we simplify?
• When talking about training, the sound bite, buzzword-- is getting the student to write an article, but that is a constraint imposed on the trainer by our partners/hosts. I am sure you started, as I did by correcting a howler in the sort of cringe-making articles we had in 2004. A far better way- but paradoxically harder to teach. But that is the starting point-if we follow the links from Mainpage they are directed to their sandbox

My sandbox is a feature which gives you a place to practice editing, either to build a draft for later publication in the main encyclopedia, or just to practice formatting with wiki markup syntax. If you have an account, you will see a link in the upper right corner of the screen that says "Sandbox"; this will take you to your sandbox. [[Help:My sandbox}}

On the way they are warned : "Please do not place copyrighted, offensive or libelous content in sandboxes." Further research leads them to this bloated page: Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia which at #How to edit displays this nice side box.

.

The circular linking and the blurring between sandboxes in the description really is not acceptable at top level- but how do we change that?

• Some of our students use English as their first and only language- others English is their second, fourth or fifth- none of our students are fluent in Wiki-ese which is being used above. How do we explain that our use of the word 'lead' different from what they learnt in the journalism course? In the field of Business- important wiki articles are start class- so don't provide model practice. Look at Business model oldid=779514488 for an example.
• We tell them that the sandbox is a safe place to practise. So how can you as an admin ensure that it is? We as trainers can verbally explain that the text they are producing will make experiences Wikipedians twitchy. What tag do suggest we ask them to place on their sandbox- to alert you to the fact, that they are under instruction, and prove to them the WP:BITE applies to that page- but more so.

As a teacher and trainer I can tell you that you win hearts and minds by encouragement, so I am asking for constructive suggestions on how we can encourage these students to avoid the later pitfalls when the article is copied across to main space. I have spent some time producing paper based teaching materials designed for hands on sessions-User:ClemRutter/training, and particularly Women in Red creating an article - The Digital Marketing students seem to think it is helpful to them all be it in a different learning context. There is nothing there on notability, or on any of the concerns you raise. Before I attempt to add them, could you perhaps knock up a draft on what you think I should say. It is dormant at the moment but I am building up a collection of pages that can be given as teaching notes for newbie trainers- Individual resource sheets again I am open to suggestions. No- desperate for suggestions and feedback.

Should trainers have a toolchest of helpful and encouraging templates we can drop into students sandbox, or better still on their talk pages. What would the top ten most useful ones say? Exodus 7- 12 seems a little over the top. Would it be helpful to non-training admins to have access to a toolbox with these templates and other ideas for dealing with time-short students?ClemRutter (talk) 16:36, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Why isn't this being used? — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 16:27, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi:Can we continue that discussion on your (or my talkpage) in a few days time. Cheers. --ClemRutter (talk) 13:11, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

@ClemRutter: The most critical thing is to drum the notion of copyrights and close paraphrasing into their heads. It's the first thing they should hear when they sit down, raised constantly during the session, and the last thing they hear when they leave. This preceding may sound harsh, but for many students, this is just an assignment for a mark, to be done as quickly as possible (as you've alluded to above). Copy-paste from a few sites (especially if you're not completely fluent in English) and you're done. The second thing (and unfortunately this might not be as effective with younger generations) is to get them to ask themselves if the style of what they're writing would be acceptable for the Encyclopedia Britannica. Not the topic, but the style. This is a good informal self-check to see if you're writing an inappropriate essay, a personal reflection, a how-to guide, or using peacock terms. If they're unfamiliar with Britannica then point them towards a few good online articles (or Wikipedia good articles) so they get a sense of the appropriate writing style. Third, warn them away from using primary sources (and primary sources in disguise like press releases). Primary sources are sometimes acceptable but you need to be an experienced editor to use them properly. Strongly discouraging their use will cut down on articles which are little better than spam and will go a long way to showing the all-important notability. These are a few ideas. Happy to discuss further. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:14, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

I am looking at what you have said- and agree that it needs to be said- but timing is important here. Lets see what I can come up with over the weekend- I have a long drive to do and that will give me some thinking time. --ClemRutter (talk) 13:11, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

2601:183:8202:3D81:498A:6554:5A3F:CF9B

I don't see you much around political stuff, so I think you're about as uninvolved as it gets. Could you do something about this IP? I think 1-2 day semi-protection of Talk:Mark Dice might be enough, but maybe the IP needs a quick block, too. (they're edit warring at the talk page, using it as a forum, and spamming editor talk pages with edit warring templates). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:33, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

@MjolnirPants: I've collapsed the discussion and posted on the IP's talk page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:53, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. :) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:49, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Time

Is this Vote X again? Mojoworker (talk) 06:39, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

@Mojoworker: I can't tell. Jc3s5h? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:23, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

The edits seem to take the position that today GMT is the same as UT1. when in fact the scientific community no longer offers a predice definition of GMT. I m inclined to think it is Vote...Jc3s5h (talk)

Given that the IP matches with the British Telecom known IP ranges used by Vote, I'm inclined to agree with you, so I'll go ahead and revert their changes. Mojoworker (talk) 19:42, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

User:75.166.196.224

Neil, an IP you blocked for vandalism, User:75.166.196.224, is at it again. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 14:42, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

You just closed a complaint because the user didn't violate WP:3RR. I am well aware that the user didn't, but I didn't report him for WP:3RR, but for general edit warring. Your closure is faulty. Either revert it or tell me why you didn't do anything about a user who willfully ignored policy and who will continue to remove the other still unopposed addition for the only reason that there was no discussion.Burning Pillar (talk) 14:39, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

@Burning Pillar: You're edit warring as much as they are. And other editors are opposing your other changes on the talk page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:46, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

No, I am not. I have only made ONE reversion; and I hoped it would not be reverted because I educated the user about WP:PGCHANGE; and that his reverts were forbidden by policy. Needless to say, I was reverted. I could have, of course, reverted again, but WP:EDITWAR was exactly what I had in mind then. Burning Pillar (talk) 14:55, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

@Burning Pillar: Have any of your changes been met with clear support? Also, "his reverts were forbidden by policy" is quite a dramatic (and incorrect) statement. You'll find that little is "forbidden by policy" here. Nigej's comment here is worth considering carefully. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:27, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Whatever, I'll just wait some time, and when my proposal is still unopposed, I'll simply revert again. That's probably the best method at that point.Burning Pillar (talk) 15:36, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello User:Burning Pillar. Your idea to revert again in the future might be viewed as gaming the system. It would be a better use of your time to try to persuade others. Admins are fully capable of counting up supports and opposes on talk pages, if that's what it comes to. EdJohnston (talk) 15:49, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

• FYI: User talk:Burning Pillar#De facto topic ban. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:55, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Your Move

As much as I appreciate your ninja editing skills, was the removal of my reference to Yessongs really necessary?

Seriously, that was gone in, like, a minute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TarkusELP (talk • contribs)

Sorry to look like I'm stalking your talk page, Neil, but I've blocked this account as a VOA. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:07, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam: Stalk away. One of the great things about Wikipedia is editors helping each other out without being asked. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:10, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

John Francis Templeson

Please see here. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:36, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, speedy!

Appreciate your dealing with the edit warring Chinese IP. He'll be back, since he's an ace IP hopper. I'd just left a message for Krakatoa Katie, and didn't want to fuck up 10 minutes after you gave me pending changed reversal rights! Glad you got there in a hurry. Those personal insults are unacceptable! --Drmargi (talk) 17:56, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

@Drmargi: No problem. Pending changes doesn't factor into the situation. You revert as usual, following the regular policies and guidelines. Pending changes just allows you to approve pending edits that you think shouldn't be reverted. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:11, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

I tried it once, then decided I was too involved (I know you guys are under tremendous scrutiny for that.) That's when I left the message for Katie. All I need is to abuse the first user right I've asked for 10 minutes after I get it. Glad to see the article is semi'd. It's a shame to frustrate other IPs, but this guy won't stop. Enjoy your weekend! --Drmargi (talk) 18:14, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Well our favorite IP has hopped back to: User:223.71.245.147, one of his favorites, to evade his block. --Drmargi (talk) 06:08, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

@Drmargi: Blocked. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:15, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

And again, with insults: User:58.117.94.61. I can take being called a toe rag off my bucket list. --Drmargi (talk) 07:24, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Sent you an email

Hello, NeilN. 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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

– 𝕘wendy | ☎  03:11, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

@NeilN: thanks so much! – 𝕘wendy | ☎  11:31, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Did you call me?

Hi.

I've noticed that you pinged me once in revision 780457366 and had mentioned me once before there. However, I hope you'd forgive me if I refrain from reading a wall of text which is most probably a repetition, repetition, and repetition of what is already said before. So:

• If you want to tell me something, please tell me here. I'll do my best to keep the conversation short and refrain from posting unnecessary replies.
• If you want me to participate in that discussion, I am sorry, I don't beat the dead horse. You told me "it was not a vandalism", I complied. If you want to villainize me for not complying sooner or not having the same opinion as you in the first place, go ahead. Maybe I deserve it. I don't know.
• If you want me to defend you, I have already tried. I had a chat with FC and asked why he disobeyed a direct admin's order. He says you never gave him one, he was not aware that you had given me one, and your chat in his talk page didn't have sufficient conviction. It's worse. He claims you are utterly incompetent, and among his reasons, there was one that I couldn't shake: He says a situation was escalated to you, you took charge, but it was ultimately necessary to be escalated to your fellow colleague. By definition, a person whose job needs to be done by his peer is not competent. If you want to conclude the discussion, reach a compromise.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 07:59, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Codename Lisa. No need to respond to the discussion. Part of my post was discussing your actions so I thought it was only fair to ping you. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:04, 15 May 2017 (UTC)