User talk:NeilN

Jon Hensley

That user returned immediately from their block to continue their pattern of behavior. Longer block, maybe? livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 22:16, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Please protect from persistent IP vandalism "Worth It" for 2 weeks.

Please protect from persistent IP vandalism "Worth It" for 2 weeks. They persist in vandalizing the RIAA certification and Sales amount in the Certification table with unsupported changes to sourced material. Attempts to call their attention to the instructional comments: WP:CHART#Certifications...Wait for it to actually appear at RIAA as they "provide a searchable database". & Do NOT change sourced material unless you can provide updated reliable sources. "Cite your sources: " & Talk:Worth It (Fifth Harmony song) are to no avail. Indeed IP 195.132.194.51 ONLY vandalizes and might be a sock of a registered user attempting to avoid a block. Perhaps the same with the other IPs acting in a similar nature. THANK YOU.—Iknow23 (talk) 21:45, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

@Iknow23: I have extended the semi-protection by a week. For future reference: try dropping IPs and new users welcome (and if needed, warning) messages on their user-talk page, like I did for Jaylon2233, since such users often don't know enough to even look at edit-summaries or article talk page. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 22:51, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

@Abecedare: Thank You. I too had thought that some were just putting content that they felt like into the article, without looking at edit-summaries or Talk page. They even failed to notice the 'hidden' instructional comments only viewable after they are on the edit screen. I'll have to admit that this is a bit of a learning experience for myself also as this is the first time that I have requested Page protection. Please tell me if there is a template to request Page protection that I should have used. Not knowing, I remembered previous Page protection and just posted this to the admin Talk page that had placed it. Some questions regarding your suggestions: Is the new users welcome a standard message? I mean may I copy & paste it, just removing your signature & adding my own? You have also mentioned warning messages. May I as a 'regular' user do that? I had thought (perhaps mistakenly) that only admins did that. Thanks again!—Iknow23 (talk) 01:20, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Will reply on your talk page. Abecedare (talk) 02:00, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Glad you caught the nonsense

Hi N. I am glad that you caught the vandalism on the article for Lee Corso. I have gotten in the habit of looking for stuff like that on the pages where the protection has expired but I slipped up tonight. I wonder what Lee (or Woody Paige for that matter) has done to bring about such stuff :-) The Tommy Smyth article used to get a lot of the same a couple years ago. Best regards. MarnetteD|Talk 03:47, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

MarnetteD, I was pretty lucky. Still on vacation but my phone caught onto the hotel's wifi and I got an alert. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:51, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello again N. I noticed that Gogo Dodo mentioned (at the SPI) that the Woody Paige article has been getting hit by socks of Jaredgk2008 (talk · contribs) - which explains a lot. With the prolific number of socks I wonder if the protection should be restored. This also makes me think that it was J socks that was messing around with the redirect pages. Enjoy the rest of your weekend. MarnetteD|Talk 19:20, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

MarnetteD, I'm inclined not to fully protect. You can temporarily activate your email if you want to know why. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:24, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

I had to turn it off when I received some absolutely vile attacks a year or so ago. I am curious though so I have turned it back on. Thanks for your time. MarnetteD|Talk 19:30, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

MarnetteD, emailed you. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:41, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Makes perfect sense. Thanks again for taking the time to fill me in. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 19:44, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

This edit seems to be in the same ballpark as others we've come across so I thought I'd let you check it just in case. MarnetteD|Talk 23:21, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Update. This one is now blocked. MarnetteD|Talk 02:35, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Canvassing at

Hi Neil, just a heads-up that I found some examples of canvassing and direct coaching of some of the discussion participants at Talk:List of highest-grossing Indian films. I've flagged them accordingly with diffs in this edit. One of the people involved left a comment that is explicitly POV, "We need help: They still say baahubali is tamil we need to find more Telugu who get it" I believe this to be an IP-hopper who has been whispering bad advice to Marchoctober, (detailed in green on his talk page), and who seems to be conspiring with several people, including Marchoctober, to achieve his POV goals. For instance, he's the one who posted the threat "There is a discussion on Ricky's abusive and racist conduct at the top Indian films article. You better be in support or you'll be ther Next." on your talk page. Anyhow, just asking that you keep this crap in the back of your mind as you do your adminly thing. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:57, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I will also point out that the IPs doing the whispering geolocate to California. Marchoctober admits to being from California here. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:29, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Cyphoidbomb, perhaps open an SPI case so we can do this formally? If the IP's are indeed Marchoctober then I'm willing to block indef. We have geolocation - any stylistic smoking guns? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:35, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I'd have to look. Most of the comments from the IPs I've seen are brief, so it may be difficult. CheckUser won't help for obvious reasons. I'd also have to see if any California IPs commented at the RfC as that might be Marchoctober logged out. Boy sometimes I wish we had rogue CheckUsers. :) Oh, and welcome back from your vacay! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:37, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Stylistic match: compare [1], [2] with [3]. Of course, by itself, it can possibly be a result of an IP imitating Marchoctober's approach. Note also that there are some California based IPs hounding User:Ricky81682 (see last couple of comments here), so this could be just them following Rigky to the movie list page. Will need to analyze timeline to see if the IP-hounding predates the dispute with Marchoctober or not... will leave all that to NeilN. :) Abecedare (talk) 16:45, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Most likely following. I seem to have pissed off a few people years ago and someone comes out every few months to demand my blocking and desysoping no matter the topic. It's probably a bad hand account for someone. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:37, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Ricky81682, Abecedare and NeilN I will point out that Marchoctober was already questioned about his use of other accounts. He claims that he forgot the passwords to these other accounts, which may be a legitimate explanation, but the whole of his POV edits, his prolonging of various discussions related to his 'Baahubali is Telugu only!' argument, the California IPs that follow him around whispering advice, the canvassing all raise questions. For the record, I just noticed that NeilN already found the canvassing a while back, so that's worth keeping in perspective. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:48, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Marchoctober admits that the prior account was User:RTPking which had a similar focus on topics (and refers to User:Kondakotaiah as a before-that account). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:52, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

vacation warning

There is ongoing discussion to rescind your vacation notification, and I am considering even stronger measures if this disruption continues. You've been warned. Abecedare (talk) 18:59, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Hmm... That sounds like our HR department! - Kautilya3 (talk) 19:45, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I have half a mind to issue an ARBIPA warning/sanction for the disruption caused due to this vacation of yours. —SpacemanSpiff 19:58, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

@Abecedare and SpacemanSpiff: I'll drink to that! (any excuse....) --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:56, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I see that a Level 3 desysop is warranted for "conduct unbecoming of an admin". And I am not refering to 'drunk adminning', but 'drunk but not adminning', which is a sacrilege. Now only in NeilN were around to tell me how to open such proceedings... Abecedare (talk) 22:22, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

After reviewing the quality of your administrative work here I have decided that your vacations are disruptive to the project. Please plan your vacations around Wikipedia. Rather than visit Las Vegas, you can block some people vandalising the Las Vegas article. Rather than flying on a plane to an exciting new place you can investigate sock puppets! Surely with a bit of effort you can plan a vacation around working here. Chillum 22:30, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Yeeeahhh, if you could come in on Saturday, that would be great... §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:32, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Wow, I came here to say the same thing. All of a sudden the backlogs are empty, so I knew you must have returned :) Seriously though, don't do this to me again. Handling AIV all by myself during peak hours is not fun. You make plenty of money maintaining Wikipedia, you shouldn't need extended holidays. At least find some backup NeilN's, okay!? :) — MusikAnimal ^talk 19:41, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

@MusikAnimal: Gotta be honest with you - enjoying the scenery at some of the Caribbean's beaches sure beats vandal-watching at AIV. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:59, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Haha but only slightly, right? :) Hope you had a good time! — MusikAnimal ^talk 23:57, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Henrikh Mkhitaryan

Of course that's the wrong version, but I've been looking at this and it seems to be a BLP violation to say that he has some Albanian origin on the basis of[4]. That simply says he won an Albanian award. It's been suggested on the talk page that it could be a typo, or that he might have played in the "Superliga" in which foreigners are eligible for the award - see Albanian Footballer of the Year. I'm also wondering if the talk page should be placed under EE discrtionary sanctions, or at least the edit-warring editor given an alert. Doug Weller (talk) 14:06, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Doug Weller, I semied because of the recent vandalism but have placed some notes on the talk page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:24, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Doug Weller (talk) 15:39, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you

[5] Thank you! I was about to file an ANI report. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 19:29, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Callmemirela, you're welcome. Loriendrew actually reported him to AIV and the "Dragons 2025" was obviously the same old type of vandalism. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:43, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

User issues

I would like to bring it to your attention that user AdjectivesAreBad is potentially vandalising the Battle of Cowpens infobox. Despite the fact it has been consistently, until now, been regarded as "Decisive American victory", which is backed up by the article itself and references within the text, this user is consistently deleting edits to display simply; "American victory". This user has provided absolutely no reasons for their edits, the user has also been reverting edits I have made which have been referenced with sources to back up the fact without due reason. I did leave a message on this user's talk page requesting the user either provide a valid reason or raise the issue on the talk page and, in the meantime, desist from editing. The user subsequently deleted my message. (RockDrummerQ (talk) 20:26, 22 August 2015 (UTC))

RockDrummerQ, AdjectivesAreBad has posted on the talk page (albeit incorrectly identifying the edits as vandalism). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:36, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Aye, I have just seen. Thanks! (RockDrummerQ (talk) 20:41, 22 August 2015 (UTC))

Twitter as a reliable source

You edited Plymouth City Airport, removing a citation to Twitter with the comment that "Twitter and a blog are not WP:RS." In general, I'd agree with you, but if the fact being cited is that there was significant opposition to something expressed on Twitter, a link to Twitter that reflects that significant opposition could conceivably be considered a reliable source, don't you think? WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:40, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi WikiDan61. No, I don't. Any controversy, no matter how big or little, is going to generate tweets. Just pointing to a hashtag and saying, "look, there's your significant opposition" is interpretation of a primary source. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:45, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I see your point. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:47, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Blocked IP

Hello again N. You blocked 38.66.210.172 (talk · contribs) for disruptive editing. I wanted to let you know that they have returned as 38.66.209.186 (talk · contribs) making several of the same edits. Have a nice week. MarnetteD|Talk 15:02, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I see that Stevietheman reported this to AIV and that you blocked them. Thanks to you both. MarnetteD|Talk 15:09, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @MarnetteD: Thanks. Blocked and protected a few of their targets. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:10, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks kindly! Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 15:30, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

New day means new IP 72.29.32.91 (talk · contribs). The obsession with trying to turn Capt Picard into Capt Kirk is odd :-) MarnetteD|Talk 14:20, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

MarnetteD, phasered (set to stun, of course). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:24, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for "making it so" N. MarnetteD|Talk 14:25, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Here is the newest IP N 72.29.32.177 (talk · contribs) MarnetteD|Talk 00:44, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

I think my post here last night got lost in the shuffle of the other messages on your page N. OTOH they stopped editing from that IP so it didn't matter. They have started up a few minutes ago using this IP 74.127.86.127 (talk · contribs). Looks like the IPs are too varied for a range block. Oh well. MarnetteD|Talk 19:47, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

MarnetteD, blocked. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:39, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

IP block

Hey. This IP really needs to be blocked. Beyond disruptive and needs to be stopped. DaHuzyBru (talk) 18:09, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

DaHuzyBru, blocked 1 month. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:14, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Much appreciated! Cheers. DaHuzyBru (talk) 18:17, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

my link on AI page

my link on AI page is as relevant as the AItopics link and others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndyPardoe (talk • contribs) 19:54, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

@AndyPardoe: Not quite. AItopics is run by Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence. Your link is to a blog that just started up. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:03, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

While the homeAI.info website is new, it is more up to date than AItopics. It is also much more than a blog, as an example it has a resource directory. It is also independent of any association or company which means it doesn't have any bias to particular section of the community, i.e.: researchers, so is more targeted to the general public and those wanting to learn more about AI which to me makes it more relevant for a link on wikipedia than some others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndyPardoe (talk • contribs) 20:14, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Please read WP:ELNO: "Blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority. (This exception for blogs, etc., controlled by recognized authorities is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities who are individuals always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for people.)" The website will need to be recognized by a published authority in the field. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:23, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't see this as a blog or a fansite. I am not a fan of AI, I am a published researcher in AI. This site has been recognised by other published authorities in the field too and has a lot of support from the AI community already. I believe it fits the criteria of an official link "The linked content primarily covers the area for which the subject of the article is notable" — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndyPardoe (talk • contribs) 20:59, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

AndyPardoe, actually this is your site. Please see our conflict of interest guidelines. Please link to where the site has been recognized. I'm also wondering how you're handling copyright issues as some stories seem to be straight copies of newspaper articles. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:07, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Admin help: BCE in North American history pages

All of the "Nth millennium BC in North American History" pages (e.g. 6th millennium BCE in North American history) seem to have been moved (e.g. this move) to the current BCE name. Isn't this against policy? Do you have time to look at this? --A D Monroe III (talk) 21:38, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

A D Monroe III, there's WP:ERA but seeing as the moves happened more than four years ago, I would think that BCE is now the default. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:46, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm aware of WP:ERAS, but I thought there was a guideline on article names that required AD/BC for all. But I can't find it at the moment. Am I mistaken? --A D Monroe III (talk) 21:51, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

A D Monroe III, WP:NCNUM. Pinging Uyvsdi as they did the moves. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:59, 24 August 2015 (UTC) Fix ping to A D Monroe III --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:00, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

thank you

Thanks for letting me know.

Versus is removing a huge section. At first, it was done in a sneaky fashion by hiding it with grammatical corrections and having a misleading edit summary. Then he kept removing the big section.

I will comply with your request immediately but please restore it. Within a day or two, I predict that section will be written in a nicer way to meet Versus' standards. But Versus removing an entire section is no good. Sandra opposed to terrorism (talk) 00:39, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Sandra opposed to terrorism, both of you continued to revert after being warned so both of you are blocked. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:43, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

wikipedia customs

In the time I was blocked, I saw your edits and to that ANI. ANI has some administrators who seem very aggressive. In contrast, you seem to be fair and kind.

I will not make you look like you had bad judgement by me editing poorly. Instead, I will contemplate every edit extremely carefully for the next 24 hours and not even touch that train article. Sandra opposed to terrorism (talk) 00:55, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

New promise. Your actions reduced my tension level so much that I won't even edit. I'll just read other articles, take notes, and maybe make a few good changes in a couple hours (but nothing related to that article)Sandra opposed to terrorism (talk) 00:58, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you ...

Thank you Neil ... I have been writing for many years, I am amazed at the complexity of Wikipedia... and the terms and controls contained therein (sorry for my naivety). I thought I knew what I needed to do... I will go back to the beginning. As the firm is over 250 years old I thought it would be good to include something about the history of the firm. So I will go back to the drawing board on the facts and submit as a draft for your review and agreement. 217.37.89.137 (talk) 15:40, 25 August 2015 (UTC)Linda Heyworth

Not sure what you're referring to? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:42, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Mentor

Can you be my unofficial mentor for Wikipedia advice? Or are you too busy for this. It is possible that I may have very few questions but am bound to have a few. Sandra opposed to terrorism (talk) 16:21, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Sandra opposed to terrorism, subject to availability, I answer all good-faith questions posted here to the best of my ability, so sure. I will add a welcome message to your talk page containing some helpful links. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:26, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring block

Please explain to me why only the IP (173.197.107.20 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)) was blocked for edit warring at {{California wildfires}}. Further, please explain to me why the logged-in editor was afforded the opportunity to revert their revert (which, by the way, was their 6th in a 24h period - [6][7][8][9][10][11]), but the IP wasn't. Alakzi (talk) 17:35, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Alakzi, replied here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:43, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Can we unblock them on the promise not to edit war? Presumably, since they've handed out a 3RR warning, despite their disagreeing with you over whether their first edit constitutes a revert, they'd not have reverted again. I don't see what's to be gained by keeping them blocked for another twenty-four hours. Alakzi (talk) 18:12, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Alakzi, if they are willing to undo their last revert or you want to take responsibility for that revert, then yes. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:51, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I'll take responsibility for it then. Alakzi (talk) 18:58, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Sikhism

Neil, Thank you for your involvement on the Sikhism page. Could you kindly specify whose feedback I should be waiting for ? I have opened a section to discuss with anyone who is interested on the article's talk page, but no one has posted anything there. The last user who did a blind revert, without giving any appropriate justification upfront, later vaguely says he did it for "readability". He has not responded to my message on what specific aspects he has issues with. Nonetheless, I have made some modifications for improved readability. Please let me know whose response I should be waiting for, and on what exact issue, before proceeding with my edits ?

Thanks again.

Js82 (talk) 23:37, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Js82, as I said on your talk page, you need wait for feedback from editors reverting you. Don't expect instantaneous feedback. A day or two is sufficient. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:41, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Neil, again, thanks for quick response. I understand your point. However, the last user who undid only later vaguely says "readability". Is that sound enough reason to ask someone to hold off on for a day ? I have no issues waiting for feedback, but it has to have some logic I believe. This way, anyone can edit an article citing any frivolous reason, without having any accountability at all. Even with all that, I have myself edited the article for improved readability based on my own perspective. Is it prohibited to now upload an edited version (with "improved readability"), when another use can apparently use that as a pretext to get a lock on the article for several hours ?

Js82 (talk) 23:48, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Js82, you are edit warring against multiple editors, not just one. You've been told about this before. [12], [13] and WP:3RR is a bright-line rule. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:58, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Okay Neil, although I do not see your response addressing my question.

UPDATE: I do see you have posted on the talk page, prompting others if they want to respond. I appreciate your genuine efforts. Thanks again ! Js82 (talk) 00:02, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Paid editing

One of our users is advertising paid editing for wikipedia sites for companies here on wikipedia. They are connected to a rash of troll events so I'm hesitant to hotlink them, it's "OCCullens". I ran into them because they posted they are a Falangist, which is a singularly odd political choice in the modern age so I checked their user page. Ogress _smash! 01:02, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

@Ogress: I have removed the advertising and posted a note on their talk page. FYI, to hotlink a user without notifying them you can use the {{noping}} template. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:54, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

What the hell. That's seriously beyond the pale. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 03:00, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

FreeRangeFrog, if you want to block, I'm not going to shed any tears. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:03, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Blocked as what? That's the problem with COI, very little is actionable. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 03:04, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

FreeRangeFrog, I agree, and that's why I couldn't justify WP:IAR and blocking. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:06, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I seriously question that editor's motivations; I've found a few pages of his I've tagged as hoaxes like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amerind metal#Amerind metal, he identifies as a social darwinist and is all over racism in a way I strongly suspect is trolling. Ogress _smash! 04:30, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

A little help please(Probably a facepalm for you )

Rhianna Pratchett and Lila Tretikov pages seem to be in a disarray. I wanted to revert to a good version but then I read the policy change and removal of person data. How can I put the pages back in order without reverting to person data? And yes, I am handicapped in technical situations and do driveby msging on admins pages. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 04:50, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

FreeatlastChitchat Fixed now? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:52, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Awesome FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 04:54, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

FreeatlastChitchat Somebody over on the dev side screwed something up to cause these messages to pop up everywhere on WMF sites. To get rid of them, purge the page. An easy way to do this is to add the purge gadget (Preferences -> Gadgets -> Add a "Purge" option to the top of the page, which purges the page's cache when followed.). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:58, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch man. I tried to summon the nerve to ask you "how you did it, cant see a thing from history", then I thought better of it . FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 04:59, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

FreeatlastChitchat I don't bite :-) --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:01, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Death of Sandra Bland

SANDRA BLAND WAS MURDERED. SHE DID NOT COMMIT SUICIDE! Please edit the Wikipedia page to say so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.38.24 (talk) 16:22, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

You will have to take this up on the article's talk page but this issue has been amply discussed. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:41, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

California Fires

Hello. I want to take a moment to both thank and apologize. First and foremost, thank you for your approach to talking with me about this issue/debate. You pointed me towards some good resources to help me understand this process. The apology is for engaging in the edit war in the first place. I messed up, plain and simple. ("Insert pointless excuse here"). Moving forward I am going to use this as a learning opportunity to make sure I don't mess up in the same fashion again. I wanted to ask what your thoughts were on removing the page protection? I was one of the principals involved in the edit war that caused the page to be protected. I have already stated on the template's talk page, and will state here again, that I will NOT be making any changes to the color scheme. I would think that if the page were unprotected and I did just revert it back again that would (AND SHOULD) earn me a nice little block. It would be great to be able to edit the template to continue to add fires and other stuff to it. Let me know your thoughts on the matter and once again, thank you! Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing})

Jabs at an editor on a talk page

Hi NeilN. Would you mind taking a look at this thread and commenting as you see fit? It's related to the dispute that led you to protecting {{California wildfires}} and refers to Alakzi and a recent ANI thread. I'm not asking for any administrator actions to be taken, but I also think it's important that the participants in that thread know that their combative comments directed toward Alakzi do not help in resolving the situation. Normally, I'd just comment civilly myself, but this whole incident has been far too factional already. I imagine it would be taken better if it came from an administrator rather than someone from the accessibility WikiProject. Feel free to ignore this if you don't think comment is warranted. ~ Rob^Talk 18:15, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: It looks like the conversation has moved on... --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:28, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

It since has, yes. I started writing that message before it had but was distracted by other things. Still, I wonder how many times editors can be expected to see negative comments about themselves posted publicly before responding to them. It's the response that will wind up at ANI. ~ Rob^Talk 18:33, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: This is not Alakzi's first kick at the can. That's all I'll say for now. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:40, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

"For now"? When can we expect the rest? Please, don't hold it in. Alakzi (talk) 19:02, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

And there's no need to escalate the situation. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:04, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

You're the one who's escalating the situation, with your constant provocation, like throwing your weight around on my talk page, and now responding to a report of taunting with a taunt. Alakzi (talk) 19:07, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I could have easily blocked you for edit warring. I didn't. Instead, I fully protected the template which happened to be on your version. I warned you against edit warring and you responded with "Fuck off my talk page, idiot." You might want to rethink who is doing the provoking. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:17, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

You're doing the provoking when you come to my talk page to assert your authority; a violent reaction to oppressive treatment is natural to humans. And, if there was any doubt, I'm not thankful to you in the slightest for not blocking me. Alakzi (talk) 19:22, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

PP on Nimby et al

Thanks for protecting NIMBY and several other pages till the 26th September. The students don't seem to have given up yet and have added the same material at Cup and Lecture hall. Some protection on these until after the 20th September might also be useful. Many thanks  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   19:09, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Velella, I'm trying to determine if I can do a rangeblock. Stay tuned. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:37, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Velella, okay, I've performed two rangeblocks for one week. 2600:1:E400:0:0:0:0:0/48 and 2600:1:E500:0:0:0:0:0/48. Hopefully that will slow the disruption. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:55, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm guilty of WP:3RR

I just realized I've violated 3RR on Battle of the Bulge. I reverted my own last revert. I started a discussion on talk. What else should I do? Maybe I could self-impose a 24-hour block? Or bring myself up for AN3? --A D Monroe III (talk) 19:58, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

A D Monroe III You realized your mistake and self-reverted so no admin is going to take action. Lay off editing that specific article for 24 hours and continue to discuss during and after and you'll be fine. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:04, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I come with a related question and see that someone asked you this. When you do 3RR, I think it means that you changed it back 3 times. Based on what I know now, that is rarely productive. My question to is if 3RR means 3 times to one area? If one makes an edit to the articles section on history then, a few minutes later, makes an edit to the section on geography, then fixes a reference in the demographic section, then fixes something in the "see also" section, that is 4 edits. Is that a violation of 3RR? I would think not but Wikipedia is a strange place.

Or is 3RR simply:

user 1: Is to.

user 2: Is not.

user 1: Is to.

user 2: Is not.

user 1: Is to.

user 2: Is not.

user 1: Is to.

If that is the case, then 3RR is not a good policy and 2RR is possibly better. Sandra opposed to terrorism (talk) 22:46, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Sandra opposed to terrorism, Wikipedia is always a strange place :-) WP:3RR is pretty clear, "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period." Consecutive edits count as one revert. In practice, admins will look at what you're reverting. A simple example: Suppose you're in a disagreement with other editors about whether a person should be British or Irish. You change the lead to refer to her as Irish. Someone reverts. You then change the "Early life" section so she's Irish. Someone reverts. You then change the "Career section". Someone reverts. Lastly, you change a category from British artist to Irish artist. Even though you are editing different areas, all your edits have the same goal and you have broken 3RR. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:23, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Unless I'm misunderstanding your example, that wouldn't yet be a breach of 3RR, as both the original editor and reverting editor (assuming it's all one person) each reverted exactly three times. 3RR forbids reverting more than three times, and the original addition of content isn't a revert. Of course, that's semantics, as it's clearly edit warring and therefore against policy. ~ Rob^Talk 00:15, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Rob, you're misunderstanding. The first edit is a change and therefore a revert. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:21, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

To Sandra opposed to terrorism's point, I agree that 3RR is a bit excessive. I personally try to follow 1RR for myself, that is, follow WP:BRD. But in my editing I noted above, I was multi-tasking and I didn't readily realize what my individual edits were doing together on one of the articles I was following. I suppose that's why the rule is 3RR and not 1RR -- for occasionally distracted editors like me. I know you can still get blocked for edit warring without violating 3RR; it just takes a bit more effort to judge. --A D Monroe III (talk) 16:13, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Harassment

Can you strike and hide a comment as harassment? At least two editors including myself object strongly to this IP referring to transgender people as "it" and I have no idea where to ask for an admin to strike that part. Here's the conversation: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Gender identity and here's the diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style&diff=prev&oldid=677998942 Ogress _smash! 21:21, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

@Ogress: Discussion has progressed and removing that comment now would stir up a hornets nest. I have added a note about discretionary sanctions. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:09, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

@NeilN: No worries. I think sometimes people get away with murder when it comes to trans people, I'd like to see the people who say trans folks are monstrosities and objects to get the same treatment as those who make wild racist claims, but I agree that timing is key. Ogress _smash! 02:13, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

List of Internet forums

I’m contacting active participants on this article to vote “yes” or “no” on this suggested format. [Talk: List of Internet Forums]
72.181.218.181 (talk) 00:44, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Hey

Remember when i asked to protect the article 1964 Brazilian coup d'état? Well, the problem persists. I tried to explain to the guy (this guy), he didn't joined the discussion in the talk page. So i spoke portuguese with him in his talk page (my portuguese is just as good as my english, i might add) but still very little talking and no engaging in the article's talk page. Could you talk to him? maybe coming from a administrator it might change his disruptive editing. Better talk to him than blocking the whole page. But if he persists... Well, that's with you guys. Thanks! Coltsfan (talk) 01:39, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Coltsfan, done. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:27, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

NeilN, It appears it was to no effect [14]. Coltsfan (talk) 02:38, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Coltsfan, blocked for edit warring. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:42, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Pashedmotatos

Any objections if I move this to indef? I suspect this account is either a sleeper or compromised, and the blocked anon user who appears to be using it was responsible for some very bad edits, real block-on-sight sort of stuff. --Bongwarrior (talk) 03:20, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Bongwarrior Nope, no objections. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:22, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Neil. --Bongwarrior (talk) 03:27, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

1964 Brazil Coup

the editors and I already had the talk. I sourced the official Brazilian House of Representatives website but they insist reverting my edits which are factually correct, president Goulart was ousted by the congress on April 1st 1964.

I did not violate 3rr between 27 and 28 of August. On what grounds did you block me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcobjj (talk • contribs)

@Marcobjj: WP:3RR is not an entitlement. You reverted four times on August 25-26th and despite two warnings thereafter, reverted again on August 28th without a single post to the article's talk page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:52, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:1964_Brazilian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat#Armed_forces_or_Congress.3F Marcobjj (talk

Marcobjj, you've joined the discussion. Good. But please don't insert your post between another post and a direct reply. Now wait to see if the others respond. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:22, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

They are not able to counter my sources or deconstruct my argument in the Talk Page but they keep reverting my edits nonetheless. Marcobjj (talk

Elon Musk facebook

Thanks for the block on that IP. They've been trying to add that Facebook group for a while. I tried to get it added as a blacklisted link, but that doesn't seem to have gone anywhere. Any way you could nudge that along, or have it added? Thanks much. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Border Town ‖ 00:25, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Ebyabe, it was added [15] but the user wasn't adding it as a link. I don't think the blacklist will help, right Guy? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:32, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, I see what you mean. Just have to keep an eye out for future occurences. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - State of the Union ‖ 16:43, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Rafic Hariri

The neutrality of this section is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. (October 2012) , OCTOBER 2012!! Neill , Respectfully , It is a non-sense. Obviously, the talk page is useless. The content of the current page of wikipedia is saying that Rafik Hariri was a thief based in only two sources.

The talk page is the only way you're going to effect change. You need to outline your concerns in a detailed fashion ("it's nonsense" won't work). I agree this is a content dispute and not straight out vandalism and that's why I haven't protected the page or blocked you. If, after posting to the talk page you feel discussion has stalled, try the options listed at WP:DRN. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:20, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Please note the IP keeps altering the article [16] without any attetmpt of discussing at the talk page.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 11:56, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Continues to talk in article [17]. Still not using talk page. 97.85.113.113 (talk) 07:02, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

The IP shows no intentions to discuss any portion of the article and rather keeps warring and pushing their preferred version of it. Isn't this enough? I'm tempted to request protection again, but there's only one disruptive IP acting there.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 19:19, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Jetstreamer, I've blocked the IP temporarily for re-adding the note to the article. However, this is clear edit warring on your part and could be considered tendentious editing. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:32, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I've simply reinstated a paragraph that has been marked as needing a citation since February this year. The proper procedure is either to add a citation or to discuss at the article's talk (something the IP has been encouraged to by you [18]). Please also note that I'm not the only one reverting the IP edits.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 20:55, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

@Jetstreamer: I suggest you read WP:BURDEN which is policy. Six months is ample time for you to provide a source, especially for such contentious material. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:06, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

You're right about that. I've undone my last edit to the article [19].--Jetstreamer ^Talk 21:21, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

@Jetstreamer: Thank you. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:26, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

bad apple?

Unfortunately, it seems that the user you blocked has not changed his behavour about 3RR. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2015_Thalys_train_attack&diff=prev&oldid=678240104 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2015_Thalys_train_attack&diff=prev&oldid=678197169 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2015_Thalys_train_attack&diff=prev&oldid=678177989 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2015_Thalys_train_attack&diff=prev&oldid=678228734

going against the edits of me, Green Cardamom, and Tough Sailor. Versus seems to want to not list one of the involved passengers in that list, the one that is the second most cited (Stone, is the one that talked to the press the most).

In the end, I think this bad user will win because I am not a fighter. Actually, if 2RR is more sensible as I mentioned before. Sandra opposed to terrorism (talk) 15:01, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Blocked for 60 hours. Doug Weller (talk) 16:08, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Correcting the Language link to an article

Hi Neil, I have a very minor technical question for you regarding this article: Billie Awards

The awards were also referred to as the "Billies" and thus the page used to have a note redirecting to Goat

I believe this created a bit of confusion as the languages section on the left hand menu connects to the Somali - language page for "goat." I removed the note at the top but I do not know how to de-link the languages menu option. Could you help me out with this? Thanks -Classicfilms (talk) 17:09, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Classicfilms, done. Clicking "edit" at the bottom of the language links will get you to the Wikidata interface where you can edit interlanguage links. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:14, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks Neil!-Classicfilms (talk) 19:40, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Pearl Going Page

You've removed content that was sourced and attributed to news articles. re; rape was front page news in NZ and internet bullying well documented and sources provided. It is also well sourced that she isn't only a climbing athlete she is a prominent media publicist.

Also sponsors are still active.

How you have left article provides no balance or explanation to warrant it as a Pearl Going page

Please correct.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alpkate (talk • contribs) 00:01, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Alpkate, see WP:BLPSELFPUB. Also, have you been editing as this IP? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:38, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Help?

Could you please help me with these IP's On Aberdeen Airport and try to get them to stop edit warring, before I pass the 3R. They remove information and don't provide any source for their claims, thanks. RMS52 ^{Talk to me} 05:34, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

User:‎Js82

Since you have interacted with the user previously, can you take a look at the user's recent edits to Hindu and Sardarji joke? Seems to be soapboxing and edit-warring at both pages, and discussing the issue with him may not be very productive. Also seems to similarly disruptive at other articles, but I haven't taken a deeper look at those. Abecedare (talk) 14:51, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

You are the one edit warring. I already put in my explanation on the talk pages. Please do not edit war. And thanks for bringing in the admin.

Js82 (talk) 14:53, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) And now Js82 has copy-pasted my warning to him, to my talk-page including the personalized note I had added to the templated message. Not a promising sign. Pinging @SpacemanSpiff: too. Abecedare (talk) 14:56, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

A mistake which has been reverted. Js82 (talk) 15:00, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

And just to clarify, stop portraying my response to a matter as sensitive as this (the attempted definition of Hindu that tries to subsume Sikhs) as "soapboxing". I don't want to go into the details here on the admins page, but have explained it on the talk page of the article. Js82 (talk) 15:07, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

@Js82: When you make a change that has been reverted, you need to use the talk page to explain why your change improves the article and wait for consensus to form. Post-revert-post-revert-post-revert is not acceptable. Also, your comment, "At whatever place you are going to mention the Indian Constitution's grandstanding fake and deceiving definition, the vehement Sikh opposition to it must certainly be posted right alongside, rather than "somewhere else later". There can be no compromise on this whatsover." has two major problems: soapboxing and a clear indication that you will edit war until you get your way. Both will get you blocked, sooner than later. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:11, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Neil, I perhaps got too excited and realize why you think it was soap-boxing. But, before drawing conclusions, please do take into account the gravity of the situation. This (and other similar issues) have been the major reasons for the Sikh struggle in India for the last 70 years (that have lead to genocides of Sikhs). So, it's importance cannot be over stressed. Now, there can only be two ways out here: either you mention it alongside, or later. I only wished to convey strongly that it must be mentioned alongside, otherwise it appears to be an "Upfront: Hindus include Sikhs by Indian Constitution. Somewhere later, Oh, by the way, Sikhs do not accept it..." I don't want to take up further space here, and hope you would keep monitoring the situation. Thanks. Js82 (talk) 15:22, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

• I think Js82 has now been extended sufficient good faith and the behavior has long crossed the line of being disruptive. A block and/or topic ban is imminent if this doesn't change, which is also what I said the last two times.—SpacemanSpiff 17:46, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

To present my side, it is very apparent that most of the times I have been engaged in issues with editors who generally have a common theme: They are all very active on pages relating to Hinduism, India, etc, and also, not surprisingly given the history, have been actively writing articles on Sikhs and Sikhism over the last several years (based on their own perceptions.) Given that Sikhs are such a small minority, no one in the past probably bothered to present the actual Sikh point of view on all these articles. Now, since I have come in, these people have generally been having issues, since there own version of Sikhism has been challenged, so they keep coming up in hordes to issue me warnings, without really bothering to read all the discussions that I painstakingly often start and participate in. And I did say this is a 'general' theme. There have of course been some issues here and there with other editors as well, but who does not have them. I understand that is part and parcel of life here at Wikipedia. Furthermore, whenever the concerns raised by the other editors have been genuine (e.g., pointing out copyright violations etc) rather than complaints based on opposition to their own POVs, I have always been understanding.

Given this situation, I would urge other non-Indian/non-Hindu admins to please remain engaged. It is very hard for one voice to keep standing up when faced with such drastic opposition, especially one that operates in groups and has been controlling things here for several years.

Js82 (talk) 19:22, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

@Js82: Given that Wikipedia is the seventh most visited website in the world, and every change to major religion articles is scrutinized closely, it defies belief that "no one in the past probably bothered to present the actual Sikh point of view on all these articles." I've looked at your edits and I believe it's far more likely that your beliefs make it hard for you to edit neutrally. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:35, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Neil, visited website does not necessarily mean the minority viewpoint has been represented accurately. The visitors would also naturally reflect the same demography as the overall population. Given that how hard it is to get anything worthwhile accomplished here (especially for a minority person, when confronted with a relentless gang of men who keep coming one by one to raise opposition), it is not beyond logic that that no one has seriously bothered to work on the Sikh related pages all this while. If you see most of these pages, they smack of Hindu authors who keep imposing their India and Hindu centric views. Just walk around some of them and you will see it (tags to self concocted terms such as Indian religions, dharmic religions), emphasis on always trying to show Sikhism as being somehow related to the Hindu philosophy; emphasis on Sikhs having fought over the centuries for Hindus against Muslims (when in reality Sikhs are just supposed to fight tyranny, irrespective of for whom and against whom) ; citing the Indian Constitution's fake and deceiving definition of Hindu (to subsume all other religions) upfront without any mention of the Sikh opposition. This last one is actually a perfect example, which we are debating right now as well: How do you explain this part (Sikh opposition) not being covered, if all these articles have been "scrutinized closely". Just put article 25A India constitution Sikh on Google, and see how many hits you would get citing the Sikh protests. How come these have never been alluded to ? Clearly, the scrutiny you talk off appears to be only limited to "verifying whatever has been written" and not to actually presenting the complete neutral POV.

Thanks for your efforts and reading my posts. And thanks also for commenting on my edits. I would hereon try to retain a more neutral POV in my posts.

Js82 (talk) 19:44, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Neil, to add to my previous posts, I just happened to search for "Sikh" on the talk page of the article Hindu. That is live proof of what I mentioned above. Some people have already in the past objected to whatever is said in the very first paragraph, but given the nexus of the Hindu lobby that exist here, there words have just been subdued. Here is one such editor's words:

"Why is it not noted in the first paragraph that many of those religions mentioned object to, and reject their status of being called Hindus in the Indian Constitution. I can provide many sources, but knowing the editing on Wikipedia I doubt that the truth will be told. Here is one source. ....."

"Wikipedia is obviously supporting those pro-Hindu fascist groups (such as RSS, Shiv Sena), that wish to club everyone as Hindus. Why still does it not say that religions object to being called Hindus? This article should be placed in the category where it does not meet wikipedia standards."

Apologies for pushing more content here, but it was needed to clarify my position. Please go and read all this to get a fair picture. And now, 2 years later, the same story is being repeated, just with different characters.

Js82 (talk) 07:29, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker) I took a look at Js82's contribution to Sikhism (this edit) and there are a few problems with it. First, there is the restatement of the religion from Pantheist to Revealed but without a source change. At the least, I'd expect some talk page comment that confirms that the source was previously misrepresented. Then there are citations to Tliang Mohalla which, I presume, is a religious text and is therefore not reliable, especially because we're dealing with translations. Then, there is text that is uncited (central pillars of Sikhism) and the citation to sgpc which is not an independent or evaluative source. I'm also concerned about the statement above about 'the Sikh point of view'. Merely being a Sikh (I assume Js82 is a Sikh) does not qualify one as a representative of an entire group and there is no guarantee that Js82 is not merely pushing his or her own view of what Sikhism is or isn't. It is precisely because of this that we prefer reliable secondary sources rather than working with whatever view an editor brings to the table. Js82 may mean well but the pattern of their editing is of concern. --regentspark (comment) 21:21, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Need guidance/advice regarding the issue with the Ghulam Ahmed Pervez dispute

I'm trying to ask you and Albino what I can do here, what are my options? You are asking me to go to Dispute_resolution_noticeboard, but that board requires the matter to be discussed on the talk page, which the other editors who are reverting refuse to do... Other editors have deleted my edits multiple times, removing sourced content from Ghulam Ahmed Pervez. They are not discussing their deletions on the talk page, just arbitrarily deleting content and sources. Admins aren't protecting the page, I've been warned now for edit-warring so I can't do anything else.... I spent hours yesterday including sources and created a section for "differing opinions" to present both sides of the argument... All that is now gone. How is this in keeping with Wikipedia's neutrality? Please advise. Code16 (talk) 16:48, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Code16, any discussion about controversial material is going to require patience. We're not talking about hours here, but days/weeks. If you want more outside input, start a WP:RFC. If one side is refusing to respond to good faith discussion then admins will eventually see that and take that into account when taking action. But again, that's not, "they didn't respond in twelve hours". --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:56, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Sure, I'll be patient but need to know how to proceed. I just checked the RfC process, but it doesn't look like that's an option now that everything is already deleted... How do I use an RfC now that all of my edits are already gone? I have to link something to the talk page, which points to something in the article, but they deleted practically all the sourced material that was being disputed (without discussing the matter on the talk page).... Isn't this vandalism now? Code16 (talk) 17:32, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

@Code16: As you've reverted multiple times, you know that all your versions/edits are in history and can be linked to from anywhere. Example. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:52, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh nice! Thanks, I'll just copy that link in the RfC citing that previous version, (I'm not experienced sorry, as you can tell). Code16 (talk) 17:59, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Hey there

I noticed Wikiknowledgesource (talk · contribs) is adding sometimes questionably RS material and I suspect it is because he's "Dr Hutan Ashrafian, a scientist and historian based in the United Kingdom", as the edits notably state. I've removed one because it's questionable (Bodhidharma existed!... you're a medical doctor writing about kung-fu, not reliable) but I'm not sure what COI material we should pass on to the editor as I've rarely (been aware I've) encountered it. Ogress _smash! 18:24, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

@Ogress: Thanks for noting this. I've placed a COI warning on the editor's talk page and reverted some of their additions. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:46, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi,

I see you have deleted some of my text.

Can you guide me to the appropriate appeal process?

I think my last statement was balanced and based on published academic work.

The statement did not state fact, rather suggested the source of an opinion.

Kindest regards,

WKS (wikiknowledgesource) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiknowledgesource (talk • contribs) 18:49, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

@Wikiknowledgesource: Please use the talk page of the article in question. And are you Dr. Hutan Ashrafian? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:53, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Ongal

Two months should suffice for now. In that time, the human behind the unregistered editor and the pretender/prince could have a falling out. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:49, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Not here?

When you get a chance, could you look at User: Charles Eugene Hill (doctor? Their edit history (all on their user page and other users' talk pages) doesn't lead one to believe they're here to constructively contribute to the encyclopaedia. The grammar alone... Cheers. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Inspector General ‖ 16:45, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

@Ebyabe: I stumbled across them a few days ago. I will monitor. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:37, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

@Ebyabe: Blocked indef per a report at AIV which pointed to this. The deleted contribs are the same nonsense. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:50, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks much! Now, if you want a laugh, see this. :) --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Health and Welfare ‖ 23:53, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

@MarnetteD and Ebyabe: No idea what the balloon animal thing is about but I do have concerns about the source used as it never calls D'Onofrio married. Perhaps look at the source used in the Scacchi article? [20] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:06, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Laws of robotics

I finally accepted you deletion, but the real reason is that it was cited from primary source, and there is no discussion of it in other sources, i.e, per WP:UNDUE. Cheers, - üser:Altenmann >t 01:22, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Since you have a correct "gut feeling" for dubious content in this area, please review articles roboethics, Ethics of artificial intelligence and Machine ethics, which are heavily loaded with OR and, as a tag says it, ""partisan sources". I will be happy to join the cleanup.I'd say the first one if especially full of BS. - üser:Altenmann >t 01:31, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Altenmann. I will take a look but the main reason my attention was drawn to the robotics article was the COI editing as detailed here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:49, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Re: Green Party of Canada

Understood. :-) Me-123567-Me (talk) 02:10, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Sock puppetry

Hello Neil. Banned vandal is back with another account: Amookhteg (talk · contribs). Bests...176.219.138.154 (talk) 07:49, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

CU blocked. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:44, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

A worrisome activity

User:RAJIVVASUDEV edits the userpage of User:Themessengerofknowledge. Then User:Themessengerofknowledge moves the page of User:RAJIVVASUDEV to User:Rajiv Vasudev (rather than requesting user renaming). Then they give each other barnstars. So far no harm, but I'd suggest an admin to give them a friendly warning to be more serious with editing. - üser:Altenmann >t 05:56, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

@Altenmann: Done. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:07, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

User Sharif uddin in Zina article

Hello NeilN, I would appreciate if you had a look at the edits of Zina article and its talk page. Despite an invitation to the talk page in April and again recently in August, @Sharif uddin has not been responsive, and is continuing to revert without explanation before, during or after a due wait for an explanation. Best regards, RLoutfy (talk) 08:16, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

@RLoutfy: When a ping doesn't work I often post an explicit message on the editor's talk page. I've done so here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:15, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Understood

Respected NeilN, Greetings of the day! I took great help in an article from Themessengerofknowledge that is why trying to correct his page.My sincere apology if anything done wrongly and assurance for the future. all the best Rajiv Sharma (talk) 09:57, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Relief India Trust, SELFPUB, edit war

@NeilN: Hi! This is regarding the edit war going on at the Relief India Trust page. Firstly, you write that my interpretation of SELFPUB is incorrect. I made the interpretation in the context of what I've written in the Relief India Trust page. In the section, I have reported experiences of people with the organisation Relief India Trust. I do not make any claims, nor do I report claims made by the people who write on social media - I have merely reported their experiences. By reporting their experiences with the organisation, my edit does not, I believe, fall into the category of "claims about third parties". I am reporting their claims about their own experiences, and their claims have been verified on the respective sources by the users. I might be wrong in my interpretation though, and I seek your advice.

This organisation has been soliciting money through unethical means, and in their communication, they use this Wikipedia article as a source to prove their authenticity. Without the section on criticism, which I included, the article looks like an advertisement. Checking the history of the page shows that the page was made and was maintained, and is being maintained by sock puppetry. Many of the initial users have been blocked. Looking into the contributions of the users who made the current edits and try to maintain the advertisement-like tone of the page, it does seem that they are using sock puppetry. It might be that they are charging money from the organisations whose pages they maintain on Wikipedia.

It is to counter the advertisement tone, and to warn others who are referred to the Wikipedia page as proof for the organisation's authenticity, that I included section. This has led to an edit war: DChinu and myself trying to keep the criticism section;Aarvig and Bullus trying to delete the concerned section. Aarvig has been involved in deleting such criticism earlier on the same page, and in similar edit wars on other pages.

May I request you to check into the matter and advise on what could be done? Protect the page with the criticism part, or delete the page? Thanks a lot!Neogarfield (talk) 14:42, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Neogarfield. I looked at the article when a request was made at WP:RFPP. At that time, I determined the deletions were not disruptive as the edit summaries pointed out concerns with the sources. This is a content dispute which needs to be resolved by talk page discussion. WP:NPOV is what we strive for but we do not use dubious sources to get there. Personal blogs and forums discussing experiences with third parties are not acceptable sources. For example, a blog post I wrote about a bad experience with a Samsung product could not be used as a source in the Samsung or product article because the post itself is making a claim about a third party. If my post was reported on by a reliable source like a quality newspaper then it could be used. Many of the sources in the criticism section look very dubious from a reliable source point of view and discussion is needed and research should be undertaken to see if better sources can be found. If you suspect sockpuppetry then please open a case at WP:SPI. Protection of your preferred version is not an option right now. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:01, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying NeilN! Neogarfield (talk) 16:24, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Hey @NeilN:. Quick additional question. Would a legal letter, composed and signed by professional attorneys, make for a verifiable source? Couldn't find an answer on Wikipedia:Verifiability. For example, in this case, this legal notice. Neogarfield (talk) 16:40, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Neogarfield, no, there are two issues with that. First, the provenance of the letter cannot be confirmed. Anyone can mock up an attorney letter and host it on their website. Second, even if the letter was confirmed as to be authentic, it's still a primary source. A reliable, secondary source needs to mention it to give it context and importance. Again, an example: If I sued Apple for a faulty iPhone power charger which sparked a fire that burned down my house, the letter my lawyer sent Apple is not a reliable source per WP:PRIMARY. It is full of unverified claims and companies are subject to lawsuits all the time. Now, if my lawsuit caused a major class-action suit to occur, and secondary sources covered this connection, then the letter could be used as a source in some fashion. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:59, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Hey NeilN. Thank you, I understand. Neogarfield (talk) 12:52, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

D'Onofrio

What I find amusing is that (a) apparently the Greta Scacchi article is unimportant, even though the marriage to D'Onofrio has been listed there for years and (b) Cvanderdonk's assumption of my gender. It's not the first time that's happened. I find it rather amusing, actually. Also, I proposed on the talk page that she get her husband to make a public statement about the marriage situation. That is, if he really cares, and if that user really is his wife. I know WP:AGF, but I have doubts on that front. Or if she is, she really doesn't like Scacchi. Whose article, again, she doesn't seem to care about correcting. Never a dull mo' around here, eh?  :) --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - State of the Union ‖ 16:10, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

@Ebyabe: This whole situation is strange, starting with the mysterious TrishGow, who was around for the first quarter of 2007, made some claims regarding OTRS, and then disappeared. Seems to be your day to hammer home WP:V, with this article and Talk:René Bazinet. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:28, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

And don't forget Talk:Evolution. Like I said, I'm all for WP:AGF, but there is a law of diminishing returns. At some point one has to realize the other party is never going to get our policies through their head, and at that point just go, "Sure, Wikipedia is evil and unjust and biased, yadda-yadda-yadda." Nothing is impossible for the person impervious to reason. Except getting some articles changed the way they want. Cheers. :) --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Union of Opposites ‖ 19:39, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Hey there,Friend!

@NeilN ,Hey there ,Administrator! [Respected NeilN], Although I know that you are much,much experienced and skilled in wikipedia editing than me, As you have written on your talk page that you welcome suggestions as you are a human being after all, I wish to humbly remind you that according to the Wikipedia's article on Wikipedians,that-

'Wikipedians or editors are the volunteers who write and edit Wikipedia's articles, unlike readers who simply read them. Anyone—including you—can become a Wikipedian by boldly making changes when they find something that can be improved. To learn more about how, you can check out the basic editing tutorial or the more detailed manual.

Wikipedians do a wide variety of tasks, from fixing typos and removing vandalism to resolving disputes and perfecting content, but unite in a desire to make human knowledge available to every person on the planet.'

So I don't think its a crime to edit another person's user page(without vandalizing it,of course!,and if there is no objection from the user) in general,or to give barnstars! {If it has been forbidden by 'The Wikipedia guidelines',please don't hesitate to enlighten me}

Although I accept it was not sensible on my side to list permissions I don't yet have... And moving the involved user's User page was wrong too.[P.S thanks for reverting on that][P.P.S I myself anted to ask an admin to do the same] I wish you to accept my apologies ,and I promise trying to improve Wikipedia on my part...

I also hope you do't take it personally (in a non-intended manner) and I just wanted to clarify on my part...

Themessengerofknowledge ^{write to me} 13:01, 31 August 2015 (UTC) 17:49, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

@Themessengerofknowledge: It's not really a good idea to edit another editor's user page without their express permission other than to revert vandalism. My main concern was your move of their user page but I'm sure that won't happen again. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:06, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

user:81.170.31.87

Good afternoon. You have a lot on your plate, as always, but I'd like to bring this IP to your attention. He's at 6RR on Oscar Wilde and has ignored multiple warnings from myself and other editors. I'll initiate a formal complaint at WP:AN/3 if you'd prefer, but since it's such a clearcut case (and I'm at 2RR and can't revert him further) I thought the most expedient move would be to go directly to an admin. Either way, thanks. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 17:45, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

@DoctorJoeE: Abecedare took care of it. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:57, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring under multiple accounts

You should ban the edit warring users under Temple of Bel due to the obvious use of multiple accounts and abuse. Removing facts, live interviews and sources should not be allowed by the destructive users with multiple accounts. Please preserve the facts, truth and history of this article by banning the accounts performing edit warring and abusing the "undo" feature for reasons not logical. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.66.250.200 (talk) 18:44, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

The only one I'm looking at blocking is you. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:47, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Class project

Re this change: you requested abeyance to see if "this class project improves the article". Are you in contact with someone indicating that a class project is presently active on the page? The last Class Project template was added to the talk page in 2011. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:58, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi WikiDan61. I was investigating per a request at RFPP and came across this. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:01, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Unlock page

Would you please unlock the List of Steven Universe episodes seemed unnecessary to lock it for the next 6 months. There are also some details I need to fix. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.121.53.75 (talk) 21:42, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I protected it after a request at WP:RFPP pointed out disruption had started right after the 3 month protection had expired. Perhaps get an account? It's really easy... Or you can list the fixes on the talk page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:19, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Robust bare link tool needed

Makeref seems to be a dead link, Refill does not catch 100% of the bare links (and cannot access the ubiquitous nytimes.com site at all), Reflinks is MIA, Proveit is tedious at best.

Are there any good ones out there? Cheers! Checkingfax (talk) 08:14, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Checkingfax, reFill is the best of the bunch I think. I've posted on User talk:Zhaofeng Li/reFill. Now that the WMF have dumped development of Flow, perhaps it's time they worked on something that would be welcomed by the community and helped out on tools like this. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:15, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Cheers! Checkingfax (talk) 19:29, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

This thread may interest you regarding Flow: User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#D.C3.A9tente.3F

Checkingfax (talk) 21:48, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Seeking your input

Greetings sir,

I'm seeking your input regarding the sources collected for the Parwez article here:[21].

It looks like most of the sources are being accepted, just two questions remain:

1. Can I insert the sourced comment that Parwez rejected "some" hadith to clarify (not remove) his "Quranist" title?
2. How many primary sources can I use to suppliment the 3rd party sources on which there is consensus?

Your opinion will be highly appreciated. Thank you. Code16 ^{... Logic Bomb !} 11:30, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

@Code16: That's a question for the article talk page and I see others are discussing with you. I am limited to what I can say here per WP:INVOLVED. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:24, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Understood sir, thanks for clarifying. I'll attempt to ping a few random/uninvolved editors to contribute an opinion so as to strengthen the consensus before I make any edits. If at least 4 or 5 editors contribute that would be great I think. Thank you. Code16 ^{... Logic Bomb !} 13:57, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Connection issues

Just wondering if you've had any problems accessing Wikimedia sites. The last couple of days I keep getting sporadic ERR_SPDY_PROTOCOL_ERROR and 400 Bad Request errors when trying to check Wikipedia. After it happened a few times, I tried getting on WikiCommons and WikiTravel and the same thing happened. But not WikiVoyage or any Wikia or any other site. Maybe it's my computer, but why would it not affect the non-Wikimedia sites. I have to do some weird chrome cache clearing to get them to work again. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Border Town ‖ 13:26, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

@Ebyabe: Looks like a Chrome issue and sites that support the SPDY protocol. [22] I use Firefox. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:30, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Figures. What is it with Chrome? Anyway, thanks. Maybe I'll look at other browsers for Wikipedia too. Cheers! :) --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - General Health ‖ 14:43, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

History of Surveillance

After the class supposedly finished with this article, it is a morass of walls of text, improper citations, and - as you described - a mess. I am tempted to restore a prior version, before the class started editing. Do you have any objections? Scr★pIron^IV 13:54, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

@ScrapIronIV: No objections. Perhaps post to the talk page with a link to their last version and invite editors to see if there's anything worth incorporating? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:58, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Except, of course, there isn't a good version. Someone had plans for it, and gave up in 2013, and it had barely been touched since then, until that class started. Perhaps a dose of WP:TNT is required here. I think there is an aricle in that mess somewhere, but sorting it out to find it is the real challenge. I will absolutely post a request for assistance on the talk page. Thanks! Scr★pIron^IV 14:04, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Where to report

Hello again N. I am drawing a blank on where to report this activity. The editor is continually removing prods and speedies from articles that they created. I know that doesn't count as vandalism but I have forgotten whether the report should go to ANI or somewhere else. Is it short or long term memory that goes first? MarnetteD|Talk 19:50, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

MarnetteD, I always reported to AIV (after the proper warnings, of course) and the processing admin usually blocked. I will block if it seems the tags are merited (example: User talk:Shakaib Islam). That is, I won't block if notability speedies are removed from an obviously notable topic. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:15, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I haven't dealt with speedy removals in many, many moons, thus, my confusion. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 22:20, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

FYI The social media links that you removed from this users page were restored. Re: the posts on Ebyabe's talk page isn't it amazing to realize that it is 32 years since the first series of Blackadder aired? Where does the time go? When I think of how delightfully goofy Tim McInnerny was as the various Percy's and then see his career since then I marvel at his craft. Early in his editing I was helpful to User:John Thaxter. After that we had a wonderful online correspondence and he would send me his reviews. He gave a glowing one to Tim for his performance as Iago opposite Chiwetel Ejiofor's Othello back in 07. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 13:04, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

MarnetteD, I was pretty lucky. A history teacher of mine decided that Blackadder was "historical" enough to be shown in class so his personal VCR tapes were my introduction to the show. I still remember his contempt for the official classwork exercises (copying text from overheads) and him giving us photocopies of the material and showing selected episodes instead. Couldn't happen now but hoping today's students come across teachers like him. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:56, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

What a great experience! Thanks for sharing it with me. Your teacher had a "cunning plan" to educate his students. MarnetteD|Talk 14:00, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Page protection

Hi, Neil! I saw you on the protection page and know you are an admin so just wanted to ask: I recently filed for protection on the Cougar (slang) page but, nothing has come of it yet. If it's just that noone has gotten to it, that's fine: no rush (and I know that simply filing doesn't mean it will definitely happen but, it also hasn't been declined yet so...)! However, if it's because I did something wrong which is causing it to be ignored, would you mind telling me what that is so I know for next time please? That's only my second time ever doing it. Thanks in advance. Bye for now!Cebr1979 (talk) 22:03, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Cebr1979. You did nothing wrong. If admins are processing other requests but not commenting on yours that is an indication it's not a clear cut case for protection or a decline, either in terms of disruption or level of activity. In this case, admins (including myself) are probably wondering if the occasional insertion of trivia merits protecting the article and are waiting to see if further disruption occurs in the near future. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:26, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Gotcha, thanks!Cebr1979 (talk) 23:38, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Per capita of Indian Cities

Hi there is a big issue in this page. Wrong information is given in this page. The Brooking institution report is completely wrong, in which it states Karanataka state per capita as Bangalore cities per capita. The second reference shows the Bangalore cities per capita correctly. Please Unlock the page or edit it as before showing Bangalore's per capita as 4750 dollars. Bangalore city contributes to 60% of the states economy. So the cities per capita cant be same as the states per capita. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.134.8.163 (talk)

The article's talk page has ample discussion on this. The article was protected from your disruption. You cannot change a sourced number to an unsourced number that you've made up. As you've been advised, you need to find another source. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:12, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Deletion not completely working?

Hi, I saw that you deleted User:Rakibhasan786 at my request. Yet the page is still there, though the speedy deletion template looks odd, there's no History tab, and there are Create Source and Create tabs instead of Edit Source and Edit tabs. I tried purging the page but it didn't change anything. Any ideas? —Largo Plazo (talk) 00:04, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

—Largo Plazo, it's completely freaky. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#What.27s_happening_here.3F. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:06, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

May 2014 San Diego County wildfires

Because of my recent issues with violating the WP:3RR I wanted to ask for you input before I do anything else. Could you please look at the recent changes to May 2014 San Diego County wildfires? There is a user that is continuing to insert unreferenced and incorrect material. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 00:44, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

@Zackmann08: I see you've used the talk page which is good. Is the dispute still unresolved? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:29, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I just gave up because the individual never responded to my attempts to talk and simply kept reverting my changes via actual undo's or other edits. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 21:57, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for unprotecting the Tasmanian devil page! --110.20.234.69 (talk) 01:16, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Regarding Relief India Trust wiki page

Hello NeilN First of all I would like to thank you to let me understand my simple concern is not involved on Wiki war or intentionally remove the part of the page Relief India Trust “Negative reviews and criticism”. I come across the page and find some unusual activity and check the reference links on that page I found that http://techapple.net/ Ref No: 7th, 15th and 17th is a technology related page and the only odd post I found about Relief India Trust and look like intentionally done. Second reference http://vishnugopal.com reference No: 10th and 12th is a personal website and self driven content and some experiences which is not credible to Wikipedia there are some more links like Quora Ref No: 11th , wordpress.com Ref No: 14th , Weebly Ref No: 13th , Facebook self posted Ref No: 9, i.imgure.com Ref no: 16th public platform for image posting. Iims.edu Ref No: 18th and 19th is not is not related to concerned. As per my experience of Wikipedia and their policy the references mention is not credible. So I would like to request you to take suitable action for this. Regards BULLUS--Bullus (talk) 09:37, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

2015 AFF U-19 Youth Championship for page protection

Hi @NeilN: I talk you will be see to Requests for page protection that! Thanks! Boyconga278 (talk) 10:22, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

@Boyconga278: Reprotected for 2 more days. Note that you adding a padlock icon to the article won't do anything - only admins can protect. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:15, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Please adopt me!

@NeilN Although I know you are no really into this 'adopting' thing but I am a fan of how you actively try to make Wikipedia a better place...

I think I can learn a lot from you. 

Please consider the same. Themessengerofknowledge ^{write to me} 13:01, 31 August 2015 (UTC) 11:50, 3 September 2015 (UTC) P.S YOU MAY WITHOUT TO LOOKUP ON WP:AAU — Preceding unsigned comment added by Themessengerofknowledge (talk • contribs) 12:07, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Themessengerofknowledge. I will answer any specific questions you have within reason but I don't adopt users, sorry. WP:AAU is a good place to learn how to get adopted by editors who are willing to adopt. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:13, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

You know who

See Special:Contributions/92.25.66.96 & Special:Contributions/80.42.79.200, pushing Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_120#Proposal_to_change_the_focus_of_pending_changes. Thanks, JoeSperrazza (talk) 13:19, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

JoeSperrazza, latest one blocked. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:28, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

And again, Special:Contributions/86.171.93.3, restoring [23] comments of Special:Contributions/80.42.79.200 to User talk:Jimbo Wales. Also [24], [25] JoeSperrazza (talk) 10:29, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Blocked. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:10, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Page protection

Hi there, can you please protect Renaldas Seibutis. Thanks. -KH-1 (talk) 13:26, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Three days. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:29, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Neighbors 2

Now an auto confirmed user has done the same edits. What now? Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 02:49, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

@Callmemirela: Usual process. Increasing levels of warnings followed by a report if unsourced additions continue. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:53, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

What about the sockpuppetry? Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 02:54, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

@Callmemirela: Is it a sock (of who?) or just another person adding what they read in the gossip columns? That editor has been editing sporadically since April 2014. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:59, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

That could be a possibility. But I see it as sockpuppetry when ten thousand IPs all charge in with the same edit and mount to a confirmed user they had forgotten about. Knowing from past experience, there are the disruptive IPs, the helpful IPs and the inexperienced IPs. One IP will continue to add the same content without sourcing and doing disruptively. Then an IP will kindly add a source or say it was announced on some day or whatever. I've seen that before and what I see on Neighbors 2 is the same person. Unless my sight is blurry and my mind is going nuts? Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 03:03, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

@Callmemirela: Gomez is uber-popular with younger editors so I think it's likely they just want to update articles with any scrap of gossip. If we don't have solid evidence to tie the editor to an IP, we can't block. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:10, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Alright, thank you for your help (: Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 03:14, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

@Callmemirela: And you have veteran editors, who should know better, adding the same speculation to the article. [26] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:26, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

That makes it easier. I had IPs adding information without sourcing. At least someone did it. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 05:07, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

A hopping IP edit warring at zakat article

Hello NeilN, Have a look at Zakat edit warring by a hopping IP, and no response yet on its talk page despite an invitation. I wonder if semi-protecting the article for a few days will help. Best regards, RLoutfy (talk) 10:39, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

@RLoutfy: Warned editor and posted on the article talk page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:19, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, RLoutfy (talk) 12:19, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Radio Biafra

Your protection on this page has expired. The talk page indicates the disagreements are ongoing. Perhaps prolonged protection is required. I'm about to decline the outstanding edit request on BLP grounds. Bazj (talk) 14:42, 4 September 2015 (UTC) ...even though anybody's approval or disapproval is moot at the moment. Bazj (talk) 14:45, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Bazj, the article hasn't been edited yet so let's see if re-protection is necessary first. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:48, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Request to Semi-Protection article

Not sure where to post this request. Is it possible to protect Black Panther Party. It seems to be a vandal magnet. If there is a specific page to post this request, then please point me to it. Thanks. Mitchumch (talk) 18:47, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

WP:RFPP is what you're looking for. Cheers. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Welfare State ‖ 18:54, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

@Mitchumch: Ebyabe's correct. I have pending change protected the article for 6 months. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:56, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

@Ebyabe: @NeilN Thank you. Mitchumch (talk) 19:12, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Hungama TV

As predicted, more copyvio content was introduced. I am in the process of removing it and I was debating if I should start an ANI report on the users? Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 05:06, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

@Callmemirela: Aman33445 blocked one week. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 10:39, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 18:31, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

The Situation At Pete (Disney)

The edit war at Pete (Disney) is about the anonymous editor inserting original research, i.e., his claim that Pete is really a wolf, and his attempts to keep his original research in the article. As far as I've known the anonymous editor, he demonstrates no ability or desire to discuss anything beyond saying something is so because he said so, or to stop because he said so.--Mr Fink (talk) 16:04, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Mr Fink, the article has a couple mentions of "wolf". The problem is there are no sources for "cat" either, also making it problematic. I don't care what it is, someone needs to find a decent source so the issue can be settled or it can be shown that one side is changing sourced facts. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:11, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough.--Mr Fink (talk) 16:12, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Deletions

You don't understand. Please take a look at the page history, and then the comments found on the User talk page. It is obvious that that those entries needed to be removed. Thank you. 23.104.14.46 (talk) 16:35, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

The comments are fine. Please don't delete them again. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:51, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

POV on Haiti and your removal of bias tag

You've blocked my attempt to show bias in the Haiti article, which I assume means you think its not biased. Haiti has been in a non-stop crisis for 50 years, starving children eat dirt cookies daily, sewage runs down the streets, most people live in abject poverty, and literacy is the lowest on this side of the planet, I can provide reference for every single one of these claims, and yet you and others want to exclude this information from the article on haiti. I do not understand your perspective on this. I am trying to follow all of Wikipedia's rule and guides and no one seems to be doing the same. Haitian STEVE (talk) 16:37, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Haitian STEVE, "no one seems to be doing the same" is a good indicator that your edits are seen as problematic. I've replied on the article's talk page. Please keep the conversation there. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:41, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

User:96.11.165.218

FYI, I extended the block to 3 months since the user has been at it since April, has no useful edits, and the IP seems stable. Abecedare (talk) 17:57, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

@Abecedare: Okay, thanks. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:59, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Also need to change visibility of his this edit on this talk page.--Human3015^{Send WikiLove}  18:01, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

@Human3015: As far as I can tell, it's a run of the mill insult directed at me. Has to be really bad or a BLP violation to have me perform a revdel on my own pages. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:07, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Took care of the mainspace insults, which were more egregious and at BLPs. The one on your page (tr. "Your mother's...", which is an established insult by insinuation) was relatively mild, and I too wouldn't revdel it unless the recipient cared. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 18:11, 5 September 2015 (UTC)