User talk:NeilN

Saint Petersburg

Hi, I was surprised to see your closure here because the issue hasn't been resolved. Did you mean to just kick it to SPI, or did you not see my comment, or ...? This is an exceptional case of a crazy person edit-warring exceptionally crazy stuff into Wikipedia for at least six years. My favorite is "The redshiftedness of the Mongoloids and the blueshiftedness of the Jews imply that they are the broad Epimethean and narrow Promethean parts of the same funnel-shaped gravity well".[1] The range blocks have expired and need to be renewed. An SPI can linger for weeks until receives attention. If you'd rather not deal with the issue in the ANI thread, would you please reopen it? Manul ~ talk 21:52, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Manul, I thought I had dealt with it by blocking the current IP. It seems you are asking for a long term rangeblock of 91.122.0.0/22. You might want to approach HJ Mitchell directly and see if he thinks the collateral damage is acceptable. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:13, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Passing the issue to HJ is fine, but in that case the close should say something to the effect of, "Contacting HJ for renewing the two expired range blocks," and then he should be contacted. I spent some time gathering those links because I'm trying to help Wikipedia deal with this long-lasting problem. It doesn't help to close the thread and ignore it. Manul ~ talk 22:44, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

The IP ranges are now blocked again. It would have been easier to have an open ANI thread than to bounce around looking for an active admin. In an ideal world, you would acknowledge that you mishandled this and affirm to be careful not to close an ANI that you haven't read and resolved. Manul ~ talk 23:34, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Manul, if I thought I mishandled the case, I would have said something. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:43, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Per WP:ADMINACCT I would ask you to address the issues that I have raised. Manul ~ talk 00:01, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Manul, you asked for a long term wide rangeblock. I implicitly rejected it (attitudes like "Too bad for the people of Saint Petersberg using that Internet provider" don't sit well with me) but encouraged you to talk to HJ Mitchell, implying I would not see it as admin shopping. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:14, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

My reply is the same -- I haven't seen an answer to that. If you wish to question the judgment of HJ, Bishonen, or EdJohnston, all of whom have performed these blocks, then would you please do so directly rather than using me as a proxy for it? I think you're being critical without understanding the scope of the problem. The reason I spent time gathering those links for the ANI was to inform the patrolling admin about that scope. It appears that you didn't want to bother. Which is fine -- just leave it open for someone else. Manul ~ talk 01:22, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Manul, I was the patrolling admin and I did look at your diffs. Sometimes you're not going to get what you asked for from every admin. Some admins are quick to block/protect/delete and some will reject more requests than average. Neither type is wrong, they just view situations differently. As for scope, the case you brought up can be seen as minor compared to others. For example, this one could be handled by blocking "the people of Vancouver". And right now we have this. In both cases, wide long-term blocks have not been put in place by admins. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:41, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

You're still not understanding the issue and still not answering this. My concern is not that I didn't get what I asked for. My concern is the improper closing. If you dismiss a problem raised in an ANI then say so and why, something like, "I've examined the long-term disruption and I don't think the range blocks should be re-enacted." That's a perfect closing, and I would be fine with that. You might have won me over to your view, or if not then it might have opened a constructive and substantive dialogue; perhaps the three previous blocking admins would be involved. However the actual closing in which you silently ignore the issue is unhelpful -- even seemingly contemptuous, and your comments here add to that impression. If you had concerns about the range blocks then you should have explained them when you closed. If you have concerns about the range blocks now then you should take them up with EdJohnston -- don't shoot the messenger. Manul ~ talk 02:42, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Manul, I will endeavor to be more verbose in my closes if future situations warrant. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:09, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Good Articles, something odd going on

I found this morning that a new editor of about a month with 1,000 edits and no known GA contributions is trying to tackle 11 GA reviews simultaneously. I believe that they have only ever made a single GA nomination that quick-failed after being reviewed by Miyagawa here and which they hadn't actually contributed to. Of note the editor themselves acknowledges that they are new to Wikipedia. Rather importantly, they have completed a single GA review on the 2nd of August here (which they passed) which would have failed had I, for example, done the reviewing for lack of citations, just skim the article, Tycho Brahe and tell me it's GA worthy with at least four whole paragraphs that aren't attributed to any source. It's an article that could and should be GA, but, one that is far from it even with the 103 current citations. Not to mention, possible copyright violation here (I reckon its a false flag based on the source and wayback machine) but the editor didn't even comment on it when doing the review. I'm not sure how to proceed here, I want to assume good faith, but, the editor may need to attempt mentorship and be wary of taking on anything GA related until they have at a minimum one GA themselves. Mr rnddude (talk) 22:26, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Mr rnddude. Step 1: Talk to the editor, outline your concerns (which I share), and ask them to withdraw from reviewing GAs until they have more experience writing GAs (or at least limit themselves to reviewing one GA with a mentor). Step 2: If that fails, take your concerns to Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations to get community input and consensus. Step 3: Initiate a GA reassessment of Tycho Brahe. It's mostly well written but I could easily spot content that needed inline cites. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:40, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Cheers, I came to your first on account that two of the GA reviews that they have taken on-board to review are my own nominations. Hence, I consider myself an involved party. I'll start up a discussion on their page and request that they withdraw from the reviews. Which, I need to ask a second question, how precisely does one close a review without action that wouldn't automatically delist the nomination? or would they need to be resubmitted for review. Mr rnddude (talk) 22:45, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Mr rnddude, the second paragraph of Wikipedia:Good_article_nominations/Instructions#Step_4:_What_to_do_during_a_review has instructions on what to do if a new reviewer is needed. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:55, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Neil, I'd never needed it so hadn't even noticed it was there, I'm currently drafting up a comment for the Emir to look at on their talk page. Mr rnddude (talk) 22:58, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Mr rnddude, Neil, assuming that the reviewer withdraws (or is not capable of reviewing), it's actually cleaner, if the GA review page has been opened but the review hasn't been started, to put in a speedy delete request on that review page. We also do it when review pages have been opened but abandoned before the review was started. (Once the page is deleted, we then adjust the GA nominee template on the article talk page so its status is empty and remove the transclusion of the just-deleted review page.) This is not the first time a very new user has either nominated a huge number of articles at once (easier to explain to them and then to revert the nominations) or opened reviews on a huge number of articles. If it's a bunch opened without initial reviews, it's actually easier to deal with. Usually, however, you have a user who quickly fails or passes a handful before we realize what's been done, which is harder to unwind, but when the review clearly isn't competent, we just undo them and put the nominations back into the reviewing pool, since we discover it within the day. In the case of Tycho Brahe, since it's nearly four weeks ago, I'd like to suggest that an individual reassessment be done: there are already twenty-odd community reassessments mostly just sitting there, and an individual reassessment can be done in a far more timely manner. Let me know if you have any questions, or if I can help with this batch of review pages. Incidentally, if the review has been started in any significant way—if there are useful suggestions—then the page should probably not be deleted; rather, the changing of the page number and the rest is the way to go. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:37, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

BlueMoonset, thank you for the pointers! --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:43, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

NeilN, you're most welcome. I noticed that Emir of Wikipedia withdrew from six of the ten new reviews earlier; I've just tagged them with speedy deletion templates. Since you're an admin, I believe you could delete them right now if you wanted to. The six are:

• Talk:Flag of Southern Rhodesia/GA1‎
• Talk:Sigismund Báthory/GA1‎
• Talk:Bohemond III of Antioch/GA1‎
• Talk:Przemysł II/GA1
• Talk:Caracalla/GA1
• Talk:Martin Gilliat/GA1

Thank you very much, if you see these before some other admin does. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:17, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks again for doing the deletions so quickly, NeilN. I've adjusted the six article talk pages so all the nominations are ready to proceed again using page=1. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:15, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Hey Neil, odd and off-topic question not worth making a new section for, so I was just looking at my edit counter and noticed something odd. I have a single admin action of protecting a page, out of curiosity, which page have I supposedly put under protection (can this be checked)? and what a strange thing for me to have done. I picked Lugnuts at random, who has 500k edits, and note that they have not performed a single admin action ever, so I find it odd that I, with 2.6k edits, somehow have. I also looked at yours, and geez have you made some admin actions, about 9,000 total with 4.5k blocks. Sorry for the random question, but, if it's not a false flag and I am actually being attributed as having protected a page, probably best to either revert me or re-attribute it to the appropriate party. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:23, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

(watching) You are one of the chosen ones! You can see the entry in the protection log here. When you move a page, the protection gets carried over and it gets recorded in the log against your name, that's what happened here. If it's any consolation, non admins are deleting pages as well, be glad you didn't do that! - NQ (talk) 01:49, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Bahaha, that is hilarious, well, at least it's not because I did something stupid and that actually needs reverting. Carry on, Mr rnddude (talk) 01:51, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, as always, NQ. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:46, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

In the 450 days you've been an admin, you've topped the charts with over 2500 page protections. MusikAnimal comes second with just half of that. I'm sure someone, somewhere, quite possibly, is thankful for your shoddy admin work as well. - NQ (talk) 03:05, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

NQ, that's... kind of crazy considering I was away from mid-December to the first week of June. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:15, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Presuming that you weren't here for 6 months * 30days = 180 days out of your total 450 days as an admin. Thus, leaving 270 active admin days. That you have 4500 total blocks as an admin. Just blocking alone you're blocking ~17 people a day. Do you do anything besides enact blocks, protect pages, and delete pages while you're active? Also presuming I've done all the math here right as well. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:13, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Mr rnddude, participate in noticeboard discussions and RFCs, look at recent changes in articles on my watchlist, help other editors, and actually read articles :-) --NeilN ^{talk to me} 08:46, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

"Read articles" - I guess that's one way to spend time on Wikipedia. - NQ (talk) 21:17, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

@NQ: Reading things like Ealdgyth's amazing work on the Middle Ages justifies all the time I spend on here dealing with miscreants and often idiotic disruption. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:32, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm blushing! Ealdgyth - Talk 21:43, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Electricbassguy IPsocks/blockevade

Pretty sure these two are socks considering their edits to the master's page. Special:Contributions/2600:1:8A7C:1FBB:4506:8D58:535C:6023 & Special:Contributions/2600:1:8A5D:B464:E591:73BB:9D0B:AB1E. Posting here because you appear to be online, recently (21 August) blocked some of his evading-IPs, and per "not feeding trolls"/RBI. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 22:42, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

AddWittyNameHere, I enacted a short rangeblock and indefinitely protected the user page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:51, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! Let's hope they'll get bored and waste their time elsewhere now. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 22:57, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Proposed RFC

Hi NeilN,

I note on your closing marks you mentioned "This is not the proper venue for an RFC that would affect hundreds of articles. It needs to be held on a central discussion page and widely advertised." I entirely agree with this, could you kindly assist me by providing a proper venue, which would be widely advertised to tap into the talent of the many intelligent editors on Wikipedia. I feel that some rules to govern articles of this type to conform with WP Policy NPOV would give articles of this nature a consistent, and globally accepted view from an encyclopedic POV. --Eng. M.Bandara-Talk 08:50, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Eng.M.Bandara before you proceed further, the last two RFCs you've opened have been closed quickly. The first had a spectacularly poor premise and resulted in this apt comment, "...question sincerity and purpose of this patently foolish RFC. If serious, submitter should be required to carefully read WP:RS and be warned that further use of poor quality sources will result in a block". The second was marred by your trolling-like posts and also had editors bring up WP:RS issues. What are you going to do to curb your disruptive editing? Your proposal would affect articles of the recently deceased which are under discretionary sanctions so a repeat of Talk:Murder_of_Anita_Cobby#Consistency_with_Homicide_articles is likely going to get you topic banned or blocked. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:40, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Well propose a simple primary question, should Wikipedia endorse judgments of all jurisdictions globally? If the answer to that question is no, is the use of the term "murder" an endorsement of that judgment. --Eng. M.Bandara-Talk 14:02, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Eng.M.Bandara, you should frame your proposal based on our titling policy, WP:COMMONNAME. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:25, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

May I comment? Eng.M.Bandara, it is not an issue of "endorsing" a judgment. It is merely reporting what is now common knowledge. Could you please explain why you are so troubled by the use of the word murder? I don't know where in the world you are from, but as far as I know all English-speaking countries have a crime defined as murder. I'm further sure that most non-English countries would have a crime that would translate into murder. The definition varies slightly by country (and by state within countries), but the basic premise is the same all over the world; murder is killing with the intention to kill. In the case of Cobby, there is absolutely no doubt that it was a murder; one offender even plead guilty to the crime. I understand you want to see the use of neutral terms and that is admirable. But calling a murder a murder is not a biased point of view. In Cobby's case, it was proven in a court of law on the basis of expert evidence and eyewitness testimony. You cannot get more certain and more neutral than that.

But to be clear, I do not want to continue the argument about the Cobby case. I want to understand why you are against the use of the word murder in articles where it has been proven that there was a murder. Neil, if you do not want this on your talk page I will move it to Eng.M.Bandara's page. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 02:30, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi AtHomeIn神戸. Discussion is fine here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:45, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your contribution NeilN and athomeinkobe, I have not forgotten about this discussion, I was very busy lately with my professional life. In my spare time, I do intend to review that policy, and make a proposal here, once the proposal has been properly formulated, I would appreciate if NeilN could assist me in placing it at the proper venue.
To answer your question athomeinkobe, it's not about legal proceedings in Australia, and their outcome. If you want to write that the "local court's claimed the homicide of cobby to be a murder, with the reference that is fine. But in say something in Wikipedia voice, there must be strict adherence to NPOV policy. Otherwise, we must also include other opinion evidence such as https://www.google.lk/search?q=murder%20as%20natural%20selections&rct=j And we can get into a big debate about the number of ways to classify cobby's homocide. --Eng. M.Bandara-Talk 11:38, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

(talk page watcher)No we don't. To ' also include other opinion evidence' would oft be to give WP:UNDUE. Unless they are backed by WP:RS, as the Court's judgements are, in which case they are also in wikivoice. _Muffled ^Pocketed 11:50, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Please read WP:SYNTHESIS which directly impacts your contention. "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." In essence, material not specifically about the article's subject cannot be used. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:16, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I tend to agree more with what NeilN has stated, what are your thoughts about the inclusion of a subheading in the Murder article with references to sources which claim that Murder is an example of a process of natural selection. With regards Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi I hardly consider comparing the claim from a single source, originating namely from a court localised in one jurisdiction and comparing that to the mountainous global evidence for evolution, or the evidence to say the earth is round. Theirs a big difference between claiming the earth to be flat as an opinion and to claim homicide to be a murder. I think it's just purely ridiculous to compare this to the flat earth theory and claim undue weight, they are on entirely two different levels 'mathematically'. --Eng. M.Bandara-Talk 12:55, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

You can do a bold edit to the Murder article or take it up on its talk page. I'd advise providing multiple high quality sources. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:22, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Did a bold edit on the page, and added a template for more information. As you seem like a competent individual, any further assistance in improving that section would be appreciated. section--Eng. M.Bandara-Talk 09:53, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

@Eng.M.Bandara: Your first source is hardly "high quality" and your first edit summary is misleading. If someone removes the section, you will have to justify your addition using the article's talk page. See WP:BRD. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 10:25, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

I connot dispute your assertion, however as you maybe aware I am quite busy with my personal life, I would grealy appreicate if you could help assit improve that section, as you are already familiar with the subject of dicussion. I will assit to improve in my spare time as much as posssible. --Eng. M.Bandara-Talk 14:45, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

If you think that fringe view of murder is important enough to be in the article, you're going to have to be the one defending it and finding proper sources. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:51, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Image Issues

Hi,

I have one question. Can i use the images from this http://www.rajyasabhatv.com/ website. Last time you have said me to ask someone before use of images from 3rd party websites. So i am asking. Can you please confirm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dawn richard1 (talk • contribs) 14:23, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Dawn richard1. Most of the images have credits like "Photo: AP/PTI" and so are copyrighted and cannot be used. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:03, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Refund

Could you (or any active admin who sees this) restore User:NQ/sandbox/temp please? - NQ (talk) 18:01, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @NQ: done. Doug Weller talk 18:10, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! - NQ (talk) 18:12, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Happy Wiki-Birthday!

Hey, NeilN. Just stopping by to wish you a Happy Wiki-Birthday from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Woodstop45 (talk) 18:04, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Cosby Black History

Hello NeilN This is a request for you to look, comment and possibly place an edit in the Bill Cosby biography about his contribution to the Black History anthology TV series from the 1960's (see talk page). Per your request more RS have been placed there and the TV series found significant coverage in the NEW York Times of the day. It was viewed by 22 million people and the producers credit Cosby's participation as what led to the Emmy for a history documentary. Sincerely 66.235.36.153 (talk) 18:43, 30 August 2016 (UTC) A Contributor

Um ... help

I dont do Twinkle, or warnings because I'm not competent!! I've spent thirty mins trying to warn a couple of users at Paul Fix (racing driver). Could you look, spend a minute perhaps. thx. Roxy the dog™ bark 19:06, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Of course, now a competent user has chipped in. -Roxy the dog™ bark 19:09, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

;) things are happening. -Roxy the dog™ bark 19:59, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Roxy the dog™, I'm hoping things are done. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:01, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Potential Vandal on the Sino-Vietnamese War Page.

Hello NielN

It seems someone is back vandalizing the page again. This user MaxPrem only made two edits and he removed reliable source. I reverted the article back to its original format where the result was agreed on the talk page.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:MaxPrem&action=edit&redlink=1
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sino-Vietnamese_War&action=history

--Jon Hydro Jets (talk) 16:25, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Not a mistake, buuuut...

Hi Neil, thanks for your email. It was not a mistake, but now that you mention it, I didn't know it was a problem! So I'm grateful to you for bringing it to my attention, and as I think about it more, I can see why it would be undesirable. I'll research some more for my own edification. Thanks for keeping me on the train tracks--it shan't be an issue going forward. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:55, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Edit-War at Yom Kippur article.

Please review his stubborn reversals & lack of logic & reason. Also see the associated Talk page. Txs. Purrhaps (talk) 03:55, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Purrhaps, please wait for Debresser or other editors to respond to your points. Also, is there a reason why you are placing your signature above your posts? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:06, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Innocent mistake Purrhaps (talk) 12:33, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Balloons (2016)

Did you look at the history? Looks like a sock. Doug Weller talk 15:18, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Ah, it's more complicated, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gubbaare and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gubbaare the deleted article which is the same as Balloons 2016. Doug Weller talk 15:20, 1 Se[ptember 2016 (UTC)

And that was created by a definite sock![2] CU coming. Doug Weller talk 15:23, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi Doug. There's probably a couple socks on the article but that makes it a G5 (if you think it was created by a blocked editor), not a G4. The AFD was cut short. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:27, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Yep, I know. Waiting to see if there's a plausible explanation from Preetiahluwalia. Doug Weller talk 15:47, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

List of Croatian inventions and discoveries

Based on your recent protection of this article, can you please also block Still minded (talk · contribs); as a sock of User:Filipz123, which was the account that edited the article prior to your protection. Thanks. MeowMoon (talk) 01:02, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Hey Sro23, do you think this is Filipz123 or Europefan? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:34, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

It's definitely Filipz123 (the Croatian/Balkans thing is a giveaway, whereas Europefan is more focused on Germany). Sro23 (talk) 01:37, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Looking at the edit history on the article, previous socks that were recently blocked were of Filipz123. An example was a CU confirmed account blocked not too long ago. MeowMoon (talk) 01:39, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Blocked. Thanks. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:47, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

They are now back with this IP: 24.114.52.48 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). An example sock account of this user editing the similar article can be seen here. Possibly a protection on Hair clipper too? Thanks again. MeowMoon (talk) 02:50, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

MeowMoon, blocked and protected. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:56, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Sigh... Also based on the editing history, do you think Skirt should be protected as well? MeowMoon (talk) 03:13, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, one month. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 09:11, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

My talk page.

Firstly, thank you for reverting the sock IP. He seems to have developed an interest in me/my edits/my talk page. Secondly, would it be ok to have my talk page & user page semi protected, please? Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:06, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

I stalked here and protected the pages. Widr (talk) 08:30, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

You stalked well. Thank you. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 08:31, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

--- out for Harambe editor

Not sure if you are following them but you may want to remove their talk page access. 331dot (talk) 09:46, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Need Your help to resolve the issue

Please help to resolve claims, provided by Winkelvi and Smartse in the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilias_Psinakis. Once, a year ago you already helped to solve. I have given all the relevant sources.LS 20:17, 2 September 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LanaSimba (talk • contribs)

obsessed

Special:Contributions/2607:FB90:5C8B:856F:FDF6:3076:9476:CB36 is obsessed with something -Roxy the dog™ bark 10:54, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Reverted. — RainFall^Hey! 11:00, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

RFC Bio

Hi Neil, this ongoing RFC was not listed under BLP bio, but only under BLP pol. Please advise how I can get it listed under both, at this point. I'm not sure how to do it. Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:05, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Anythingyouwant, I've modified the RFC. Supposedly the bot will pick up the change. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:57, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll keep an eye out to see if the bot picks up the change; that seems important since my understanding is that the bot sends out lots of notifications via feedback request system. Unless I'm mistaken, the bot picked up neither "BLP:pol" nor "BLP:bio" for the subsequent RFC (which I started); do you know if anything can be done about that? I don't think dispute resolution would work for the dispute between me and the bot. :)Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:14, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Anythingyouwant, I've asked Legoktm for input. Pointer to second RFC: Talk:Donald_Trump#RFC:_Should_the_lead_say_.22have_been_controversial_or_hyperbolic.22.3F --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:23, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

(Coming here from User talk:Legoktm#RFC listings) I believe that one reason that Legobot hasn't been picking up recent RfCs is because the sort order of Category:Wikipedia requests for comment is screwy; see Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment#RfC bot not working correctly? and Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Sorting in categories unreliable for a few days. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:27, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi User:Redrose64, do you know if there's any way (perhaps circumventing this bot problem) to get feedback request service for BLP:bio regarding the two RFCs at talk:Donald Trump?Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:37, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Legoktm, Category:Wikipedia requests for comment is now sorting correctly, but Legobot (talk · contribs) is still not handling RfCs, so I think that it may need restarting. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:27, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

@Anythingyouwant: I've been watching Legobot, and for the last two days it seems to have been handling RfCs as normal again, see for example these edits to WP:RFC/BIO and WP:RFC/POL.

I notice that you've used the term "BLP:bio" (or something similar) several times in this thread - to me that means "biography of living person: biography" - is that the sense that you were using it? It seems to have a redundant word. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:01, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

My mistake, I meant RFC:Bio and RFC:Pol.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:11, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Come vote (again)

Hi. I am sorry to bother you, and I really hate having to stoop to this level. But since they did, so am I. They even told me to do it. So here I am (I don't know how to 'ping' someone).

I noticed that you took part in one of the numerous times that Side to Side was voted on or redirected. Well, a 3 day old voting decision isn't enough for them. They are back, and wanting a page and have a vote going on. They have Side to Side (song) running and a name change request was sent back to the talk page for a vote.

If you care to voice your opinion (again), feel free to click. Your previous decision does not count towards the current vote. This one is primarily about changing the name, but I feel that since it was currently voted to redirect, that the primary voting reason should be about whether to have a page or not. Either way, voices need to be heard (again).

Kellymoat (talk) 20:40, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Kellymoat, I didn't vote on anything. I protected a couple of redirects per request. The participants interested in the subject can decide if the song is now notable and what title should be used. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:46, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Donald Trump again

Hi, Neil! Could you take a look at the Donald Trump article? There seems to be some revert warring going on, about what image to use in the infobox. That subject is currently under discussion at the talk page, but I find the following actions at the talk page today: new image introduced [3], reverted [4], new image restored [5], reverted [6]. I'm not pointing any fingers at any particular person, I'd just like some uninvolved eyes on the situation. I posted a generic warning on the talk page. --MelanieN (talk) 22:04, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:EEng

I was just about to add my reasoning to the discussion that you closed. This is what I was going to say:

While there is not particular blatant violation, I do believe that the content that is on the userpage does go against what is in the nutshell of the policy page: "They should be used to better participate in the community, and not used to excess for unrelated purposes nor to bring the project into disrepute."

If you think that this is a good argument then please go ahead and reopen the discussion (if that can be done). --MorbidEntree - _{(Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)}(please reply using {{ping}}) 07:40, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

@MorbidEntree: That may be a case for modification (and you'll have to discuss with the editor what you find objectionable), not deletion. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 07:45, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

ANEW

Yo NeilN, how bout an hour or two's smi? Yon IP is back. Cheers! _Muffled ^Pocketed 08:56, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

He's editing anew, you might say. EEng 09:09, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

@EEng: Facepalm. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 09:12, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

And with that, I'm out of here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 09:12, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

I do the best I can with the material available. EEng 14:48, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Target

As you recall there was an issue with an IP at the Universal Championship which caused me to look like the bad guy, anyways targeted by another IP tonight who removed content replaced content several times so I put the page back as it was written as there were no issues or anything unsourced as the IP claimed then I was reverted here with a snotty comment then a comment was left on my talk page conveniently the IP knew about last issue, geo locate shows both originated from Europe. Not getting suckered again like last time. New IP location,IP from before. I would like my talk and user page Semi please as clearly this isn't going to end. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 10:16, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi Chris "WarMachineWildThing". I've semi-protected your user page. We only semi-protect talk pages for short periods of time and the protection has to be triggered by recent sustained disruption. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:51, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Good enough thank you Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 21:24, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Debresser & MShabazz on Purrhaps' mental state

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Debresser#Some_advice_needed

What is your response?Purrhaps (talk) 12:30, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Purrhaps, posted here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:43, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Please repost ALL my deleted comments. Thank you. --Purrhaps (talk) 06:33, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Purrhaps, I have no idea what you're talking about. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 07:12, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

"Someone" removed your response. My subsequent comments. Your don't push it, & my response to you. --Purrhaps (talk) 17:29, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Purrhaps, I still have no idea what you're talking about. Please provide a diff or page name. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:38, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

I can't find the deleted messages. But just go back to my 1st post above & find your response. --Purrhaps (talk) 02:22, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Purrhaps, no. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:26, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Where is your response? --Purrhaps (talk) 02:49, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Admin's Barnstar
		For various and sundry, but most recently for protecting vandalized articles. Thank you. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:08, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Strong suggestion on re-opening the case against MShabazz

I have just read NOTHERE rule and I haven't noticed what could coincide with my behaviour. I am a honest reader who sometimes intervenes when I see a POV push. I call for reversal of speedy close. Have you even read that MShabazz verbally offended me for no reason? I DON'T believe this kind of incivility is tolerated in Wikipedia, so the case should be re-opened. Or I will call for arbitration. Wikipedia is not closed for users-only, anonymous users exist for a reason. -- 37.44.65.39 (talk) 23:40, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Your complaint was spurious and, to quote one of the closes, "[t]he odds of anyone believing that you are not an editor is slim to none". You've had your little fun but watch out for the WP:BOOMERANG if you continue to play this game of yours. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:08, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

You have to admit, though, his English is very impressive for someone from Belarus. Quite an accomplishment; it must have taken years of study. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:13, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

And another post...boomerang duck. -- Dane2007 ^talk 01:30, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

You've got mail

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.

Dschslava ^Δx parlez moi 05:30, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

You may have drunk too much of the Wikipedia kool-aid if...

You see the headline Is Germany's AFD racist? pop up in your feed reader and wonder which nut nominated Germany for deletion. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:49, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

LOL. I totally clicked that expecting to see the AfD for Germany. The kool-aid just tastes so good. -- Dane2007 ^talk 18:57, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Damn it Neil!!! lol. ^{(talk page stalker)} CrashUnderride 19:22, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Should I?

Should I remove my minor warning from that IP page? Looks like you were posting your more severe one as I was composing mine. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 09:43, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi Chris "WarMachineWildThing". If it was me, I would have not used that warning as it's clear the IP is not removing info but changing it in a way that violates BLP (and breaks the infobox). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 09:48, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I shall remove then looks like they were doing it again as I was getting the warning together that you reverted anyways. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 09:52, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Chris "WarMachineWildThing", hey are you giving warnings manually? You can use Twinkle to do that. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 09:57, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes I am doing warnings manually, Having trouble with twinkle. I think it's just me I can't figure the stupid thing out, think I'm doing it wrong so I only use it for reverts until I get it figured out. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 10:03, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Chris "WarMachineWildThing", okay, I assume you've read Wikipedia:Twinkle/doc#Warn_.28user_talk_warnings.29. If you need further help, just let me know what you're having problems with. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 10:06, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

So yeah I'm an idiot, I was hitting the wrong thing I think I got it now, just issued a warning to an IP on Harry's Place for continuing to add Unsourced material. So yeah I wasn't doing it right. Thanks for offering help, if I screw up up you'll be the first to know lol Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 10:11, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Looks like I'm going to need assistance at Harry's Place IP provides no source for content, then gets mad and starts blanking sections because they can't add their Unsourced material. 2 warnings issued Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 10:20, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Chris "WarMachineWildThing", they do have a point. Much of the article is poorly sourced/unsourced. And not trivial things either. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 10:26, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Oh I'm not saying they don't have a point but this is what happened last time and it turned into a war of users and IPs. Two wrongs don't make a right. Personally I think the page should be deleted all together. It was up for deletion I believe once before. I'll gladly nominate it for deletion, tell me how. If I'm wrong then tell me I'm wrong I'm just trying to do what's right and follow the line. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 10:31, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Ok I give up, they blanked it again. Not getting into a war with another rude IP on an article that I frankly don't care about in the first place. I don't even remember why I added it to my watch list or how I found it, probably pending review. So let them fight and destroy it clearly no one can be neutral on that article the history alone shows that. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 10:54, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Question about Arbcom template on politics

Hi NeilN, does that warning apply to ALL political bios and articles post 1932 or just certain ones? I guess I need to be more carefull about reading all the headers and warnings. Thank you. --Malerooster (talk) 16:37, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Malerooster, per WP:ARBAPDS: "standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people." However in practice, you'll see the big scary "WARNING: ACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDIES" note on the talk page of articles where WP:1RR is strictly enforced (highly visible articles, as the text states). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:00, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for this, Neil. I had also posted an explanation on Malerooster's talk page, before I saw this. I wanted to let you know that in the course of that little revert war, there were also two potential violations involving the restoration of contentious material. The course of action was this: Material about a Saudi purchase from Trump was added to the article by Vesuvius Dogg; so far so good. It was deleted by Malerooster, so far so good; that removal identifies the material as contentious. However, it was re-added to the article by Jeppiz [7] (restoration of contentious material), removed again by Malerooster, restored again by Vesivius Dogg [8] (restoration of contentious material AND violation of 1RR), removed a third time by Malerooster, restored again by Volunteer Marek [9] (removal of contentious material), and removed by Anythingyouwant. You have warned Malerooster; you might want to see if anything needs to be done about the other violations. Thanks so much for your attention to this article! --MelanieN (talk) 18:08, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Request Block Extension and Talk Page Revocation

Hey,

I think a block extension and talk page access revocation for 85.74.31.101 are in order per the continuing WP:NOTHERE behavior reported at this AN/I. Could you take a look at this?

Thanks -- Dane2007 ^talk 01:43, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Replied here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:50, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Barnet FC pp

Please have another look, I only requested because I feel I will just end up Warring with the guy that is constantly saying the club is in Barnet even know they have moved out of the area. He even deletes the citation. Govvy (talk) 11:41, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Govvy, this is a content dispute (see also Chipping_Barnet#Sport_and_recreation) - you need to use the article's talk page to make your case please. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 11:44, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

It clearly states the club is in the London Borough of Harrow and not London Borough of Barnet. :/ I only wanted page protect for a week or two... Govvy (talk) 11:49, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Govvy, "Barnet FC[11] is the local football team..." I agree with what you're saying but by policy, I cannot shut out IPs from a content dispute. If you use the talk page to state what you have above, and they ignore your post, then that's a different story... --NeilN ^{talk to me} 11:57, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

You have mail

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.

Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 18:57, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Thoughts

User weweremarshall continues to edit war across several WWE Articles which currently have talk page discussions pending. User has been reverted by several editors, User has now reverted edits calling them Vandalism, which they are not and filed false reports against another user all while edit warring. Thoughts? Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 00:06, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Replied here (and spent the last five minutes looking for a boomerang emoji). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:55, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Sorry you had to look for boomerang, I have another user vandalizing another admins page here removing another users question and replacing it with a car picture, they were reverted by other users and myself and warned twice which they keep deleting Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 01:03, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Already blocked by one of our two newest admins, Oshwah. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:05, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Edit conflict, I was just striking that part lol, I have no idea what boomerang is but I'm still sorry you had to look for it. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 01:09, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Chris "WarMachineWildThing", see WP:BOOMERANG. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:15, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Ugh I thought you were talking about something else,duh. I'm going back to the rafters. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 01:18, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

"Softlavender's standard close"

Facepalm LOL. Done. Softlavender (talk) 02:04, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Softlavender, it's true, right?! Thank you. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:06, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

haha "at least x times in the past 9 years." should make it x+1 for every subsequent close. - NQ (talk) 02:18, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, I'm referring to the actual WP:RMs, not the myriad additional ad-hoc threads. Softlavender (talk) 03:34, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Ah, the standard Softlavender clause close it is then. - NQ (talk) 04:10, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you...

...for protecting that article! I've just submitted another one to WP:RPP for the exact same reason! A User (contribs) 02:43, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

WWE 2k17

I restored it back to a more stable version for now using twinkle. After various content removals, Vandalism, and Unsourced material seen here can we get a semi protect on it. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 03:55, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I appreciated

your advice to my mentoree Monochrome Monitor with regard to her talk page and, by implication helping with editor retention. Its a long story, but MM and I have a long relationship on WP. You have helped to keep her on board with your timely questions about the wisdom of blanking material, which gives a better overview to outside observers in terms of her great efforts to change her editing patterns. The good, the bad and the ugly is there, which I think is for the best. I will be renogotiating a different mentoring model for MM, and I really appreciate your subtle advice to her as to the wisdom of blanking. It persuaded her I think to restore it, and in effect to keep her engaged. Thanks Neil. Simon. Irondome (talk) 02:34, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

@Irondome: You're welcome. Hopefully she can find less controversial areas to edit where she can be happy and productive. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:09, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

User:87.220.186.82

Hey, just a heads up, but the IP that you blocked a day ago straight out of the block has been edit warring again on the same page and shows no intentions of stopping. I really shouldn't be the one to do any further blocks as I'm involved but just wanted to drop you a line. Connormah (talk) 13:02, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Connormah, dropped a note on their talk page about what is not vandalism but they did post to the article's talk page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:16, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, I did notice that they did post to the talk page, but that was around 3 reverts ago and I really don't see them stopping (I fully expect to see another revert sometime in the next few hours). Could you keep a watch of the page as well? Connormah (talk) 13:19, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Already done. Talk page watchers, please weigh in. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:21, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Longhorns ≠ Fighting Irish

They're at it again. Longer protection, possibly indef? Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 01:15, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

@Corkythehornetfan: The types of things usually die down after a short period of time. I've semi-protected for two more weeks. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:57, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Donald Trump, edit warring, and DS (again)

Neil, if you would, please take a look at the talk page discussion I'm currently involved in at the Donald Trump article. Then please look at the latest reversion at the article, done by the photographer who has been pushing for his photos to be in as many political articles as possible. I think it's COI, but realize there is no policy on images and COI that can be quoted or enforced. The edit warring there has been slow, but definite. There are those pushing for specific photos who keep claiming consensus when there isn't one. Plenty of editors were fine with the photo that's been longstanding at the article, and stated as much at the article talk page several times over the last several months. The latest round of this ended up with no clear consensus, just a couple of !votes over those who wanted to keep the longstanding image. My point here is not in the way of the photo as much as it is the blatant disregard for the DS rule at the article and ignoring your previous warning about same. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:10, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Also pinging MelanieN since she commented there re: edit warring and DS as well. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:18, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

WV, I see no need to step in right now. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:20, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

That's fine. As long as you're aware that it started up again. It seems to have taken the right turn since I left this message, hopefully it will stay that way. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 14:09, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

I was

I was gonna come to you about that issue earlier today as it has gotten insane but Crash had already went to another admin so I just responded there. Thanks for the 4 days of some peace Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 03:18, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

AfD closures

I noticed that a user closed two AfDs where I recently commented [10] and [11]. He/she is not an admin and made the closures without any justification per arguments made during these AfDs. I also noticed this discussion on their talk page indicating that they should not do any closures on controversial subjects. Was it all right on the part of user who made these closures? I do not really care that much about these pages, but would like someone uninvolved (like you) to quickly look at this. If you think the closings were appropriate, then OK, I do not mind. Let's keep them. Thank you, My very best wishes (talk) 02:42, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

I just wanted to comment since these concerns are about my closures. I typically leave comments only if it seems like there is unclear consensus. I always welcome feedback and reviews of the closures I make though....NeilN has reviewed a few of mine in the past, as you've seen on my talk page. Thank you for bringing your concern My very best wishes, I think it's helpful to question motive or intent if something is unclear. -- Dane2007 ^talk 03:11, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

The closing should be done not per head count, but according to the arguments made on the AfD. You did not tell anything about this in your closing remarks. Hence my concern. But I am not telling that you are wrong. Maybe not. This is just asking for a 3rd opinion. My very best wishes (talk) 03:23, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

I understand the concern. I did not close per a head count (as it is about consensus, not voting), I read the arguments and weighed them against each other in determining to keep a page. Thank you again for bringing the concern, I am always looking to improve. -- Dane2007 ^talk 03:29, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

@My very best wishes and Dane2007: Ideally, the close should have noted that editors felt the article sourcing was improved during the AFD, enabling the subject to meet notability guidelines. My very best wishes, for future reference, it is assumed that your nomination serves as your delete !vote. If you wish to change your thinking, you would note that below your nom statement. I do thank you for raising your concerns in a drama-free manner. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:26, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Sure, let's keep them if you think that closings were reasonable. Thank you for advice. My very best wishes (talk) 15:44, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Snow caution

Special:diff/738546185 you cited WPSNOW as reason to delete a redirect.

I will quote Wikipedia:Snowball_clause#A_cautionary_note:

The snowball clause may not always be appropriate if a particular outcome is merely "likely" or "quite likely", and there is a genuine and reasoned basis for disagreement. This is because discussions are not votes; it is important to be reasonably sure that there is little or no chance of accidentally excluding significant input or perspectives, or changing the weight of different views, if closed early. Especially, closers should beware of interpreting "early pile on" as necessarily showing how a discussion will end up. This can sometimes happen when a topic attracts high levels of attention from those engaged (or having a specific view) but slower attention from other less involved editors, perhaps with other points of view.

I expressed a genuine and reasoned basis for disagreement which you ignored. You treated this like a vote and by closing it after a mere two days you did not give adequate time for uninvolved parties to express their views about this. This is exactly the type of thing this note was out there for. Please re-open the discussion and let it persist a couple weeks. Ranze (talk) 08:58, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

You do realize it came from an insult right? Not quite BLP standards. Racist bigot doesn't re-direct to any one specific person, but it's an insult that countless people have been called. See my point? ^{(talk page stalker)} CrashUnderride 10:19, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Agree w. Crash. In any case, User:Ranze failed to make any policy-based objections, merely conjectural. _Muffled ^Pocketed 10:33, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Like I just posted on the ANI, if Wiki and Ranze had been around during the Attitude Era, everyone would have like 20+ re-directs and "nicknames" because The Rock insulted so many people all the time. Mind you, this is all based on Ranze's "standard" or lack there of for nicknames. ^{(talk page stalker)} CrashUnderride 10:36, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

NeilN: @Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: made a claim above that I did not make policy-based objections. I attempted to contact FIM privately asking them to elaborate and got special:diff/738807839 as a reply. I believe that candor indicates a lack of good faith by Mundi and that they have fabricated this claim. I can see NeilN that you have posted on Mundi's talk page previously, in what seems to be an amicable manner. I must then ask: do you also make the assertion that none of my objections to deletion proposals at RFD were policy-based? Or do you disagree with Mundi's claim and affirm that I did make policy-based objections? Ranze (talk) 05:21, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi Ranze  :) _Muffled ^Pocketed 05:29, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

@Ranze: I cannot see where you quoted policy in that discussion. A policy is not an essay or a guideline. WP:R is a guideline. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:49, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Ranze, no. We don't keep poorly sourced derogatory redirects around. Experienced editors know this (like the admin who deleted your Man That Mother Nature Forgot To Make Good-Looking as an attack page), thus WP:SNOW. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 11:40, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Neil, it won't matter. Ranze will still get upity and mad about it and cry foul. It's their typical routine. ^{(talk page stalker)} CrashUnderride 12:08, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Neil I'm not sure what you mean by "poorly sourced", the quote is from Tyler Breeze, it is dialogue from the ongoing series WWE NXT. There isn't any better support for a nickname's existence than for it to be spoken by the cast of the show during the show. I'm in the process of appealing that deletion by elaborating on details they may not have been made aware of, due to resistance of including the nickname on the article itself.

If Crash can reliably source Rock's nicknames and if those names exclusively refer to a single wrestler I would support his redirecting those unique names to the wrestlers too. I think the WWE website was still around during the AE but I don't know if they quoted him. Given the PG era it might be hard to find WWE-approved clips of his worse insults now. Ranze (talk) 02:25, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

My comment was not to say every insult that The Rock uttered should be used as a nickname, it was to point out that every one-off insult can't be used as a nickname or re-direct. I'm sorry if you missed my intent with that one. ^{(talk page stalker)} CrashUnderride 15:00, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

@Crash Underride: we are in agreement that every one-off insult can't be used that way: some are common phrases which have been used to insult multiple people. "Jabroni" for example, wouldn't be appropriate to anyone in particular. I'm only arguing that insults uniquely crafted for an individual wrestler with clear reference to established nicknames (Man Gravity Forgot > Man Mother Nature Forgot) should be. Ranze (talk) 12:43, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Neil re special:diff/738813763 it's clear that Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines are a collective concept. We're told:

Policies are standards that all users should normally follow, while guidelines are meant to be best practices for following those standards in specific contexts.

Under the "Derivation" section:

Its policies and guidelines are intended to reflect the consensus of the community.

Thus guidelines are our instructions on how to apply policy and just as if not more important.

The (not a policy or guideline, but a supplement) essay Wikipedia:The difference between policies, guidelines and essays elaborates about this under Misconception 7:

A broadly worded policy page, intended to provide only the most general outline of the goals, is not necessarily a better source of advice than a guideline that directly and explicitly addresses the specific issue at hand.

This seems to be hair-splitting. WP:R may be "a guideline" rather than "a policy" but I posit to you that both of these fall under the umbrella term "Wikipedia policy" because guidelines are inherently part of the subject of policy (how we apply it) and so it is acceptable for me to consider WP:R to be a policy guideline. Ranze (talk) 12:43, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Ranze, no, it's not hair splitting. We make this distinction on purpose. For example, BLP policy trumps the WP:R guideline. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:15, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

I get the sense you mean 'guideline' to sound soft, kind of like how some people do with the word 'theory' even though "Theory" has a hard sense in Science and "Guideline" has a hard sense in policying.

Which portion of BLP applies here where the issue is a character calling another character something. A nickname applied to a character portrayed for an actor does not appear to be something that would fall under the BLP protections for that actor. For example "Worf is ugly" would not violate BLP concerns about Michael Dorn as an attack page, because there is a distinction between things expressed about a character and things expressed about an actor portraying the character.

Breeze insulted the appearance of Adrian Neville the fictional wrestling character not the living person portraying him, Ben Satterly. These guys do scripted arguments, Satterly consented to let the Breeze character call his Neville character whatever he called him, he's paid to do it, so it's not a BLP concern. Ranze (talk) 16:09, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

The redirect was to a BLP, not a fictional character so BLP applies. That supposed nickname doesn't appear anywhere in the BLP. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:18, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Block evasion?

Pretty positive after their edits and geolocate [this] is the same IP/person you blocked. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 08:07, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

@WarMachineWildThing: Blocked. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:27, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Ok, they jumped to [this] one after you blocked them, so apparently they really want on here lol Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 19:25, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

That's the older IP. Blocked the new one. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:28, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm losing track. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 19:32, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Mentorship

How and what is Mentorship? Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 21:12, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Mentorship. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:48, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 23:44, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Sam Harris Podcast on Effective Altruism

Hi there I'm relatively new and inexperienced at editing on Wikipedia but I am well-educated (BSc & MSc). Could you please inform me of the reasons for the deletions of my contributions to the Sam Harris page? Is it because his own blog is not a reliable source? I have only reported facts on what he has done and promised to do

I will appreciate your feedback

Cheers Matt Wegs (talk) 09:48, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi Matt Wegs. Did you go to the link I posted on your talk page? Talk:Sam_Harris#Repeated_addition --NeilN ^{talk to me} 09:50, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

I did thanks (after posting the last queries). I understand why one may class it as 'trivial' and 'spamish' but I believe the contribution helps to elaborate on his character, interests and philosophies. Additionally, the positive message, raising of awareness, and tangible effects on people's behaviour of Effective Altruism and Sam's pledges, seem relevant and important. Also, by linking in Effective altruism, GiveWell etc. it can help inform people of their existence in trying to improve the world, like in my opinion, Wikipedia does (e.g. I started to donate to Wikipedia once I knew it needed it to exist). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt Wegs (talk • contribs) 10:27, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

A bit o' bleach for you

	Drown it in bleach
	Some bleach for your mind brain for having to view that preview. I hope it can scrub some of the filth and shame off. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:21, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Don't we have filters stopping that sort of language...?! _Muffled ^Pocketed 17:41, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks!

Just wanted to say thanks for removing meat/sock puppet account I reported. I saw your message about it not being hoax or vandalism, but it all happened so quick I didn't get a chance to respond. Thanks about that!--Mr.hmm (talk) 17:39, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Mr.hmm, no problem. Thanks for reporting the issue. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:40, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

RFC closure at Trump BLP

Hi Neil. The RFC has been closed at the Trump article, regarding whether the lead will say in Wikipedia's voice that many of his statements are "false". The closer said there was a "rough consensus" to include, as compared to the "firm consensus" that would be needed per DS if the material is challenged and then reinserted. Following the RFC close, the material was inserted, then challenged, then reinserted. Would you please check whether the reinsertion was consistent with DS? Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:27, 12 September 2016 (UTC)