User talk:NeilN

VxFC yet again

Special:Contributions/2.96.189.207, thanks JoeSperrazza (talk) 10:43, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

JoeSperrazza, blocked. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:03, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Vandalism at Millennials

As an admin, could you undo an edit that "can't be undone". See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Millennials&diff=680386758&oldid=680386473

The editor went through the article and changed a bunch of dates that are supported with reference. Thanks.

Never mind, but if you could warn the editor that would help.

2606:6000:610A:9000:D52D:1294:44E9:4E3D (talk) 19:18, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I've fixed the last little bit of disruption. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:06, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Swiss Global Air Lines destinations: apologies Reply

Dear NeilN, Please accept my apologies for overzealous tagging of the page Swiss Global Air Lines destinations. I see there are many such pages that, on reflection, are useful reference for airline passengers. Thank you for your work, Jamessinarau (talk) 22:29, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

sinarau, thanks for recognizing the tagging was overzealous and thanks for your efforts with checking pages. And hey, nice article on The Red Onion Jazz Band. I've listened to some of their stuff. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:14, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Vandalism at Mujaddid

Hi, please unprotect this page. You are supporting vandalism!!! Take a look at the Talk page or the article's edit-history, and compare my version with the suggestions and ideas in the talk page. THANK YOU.BiKaz (talk) 23:10, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

BiKaz, calling good faith edits "vandalism" only gets you warned not to do that. Using verses from the Quran to justify your editing [1] doesn't help either. This is a content dispute and you will have to make your case on the talk page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:00, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

@NeilN: "calling good faith edits vandalism"?!! I've already posted my opinion in the talk page. And I did NOT remove Ahmed Raza Khan Barelvi and Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. I don't know what they want exactly?! But what I am sure about it is that they will keep reverting my edits, and then ask for protection because edit-warring!BiKaz (talk) 22:30, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Relief India Trust

@NeilN: I want to bring your attention to this page again. Since the name of the organisation is Relief India Trust but a user is editing its name deliberately as Scam India Trust. The user 27.7.232.68 is new to wiki and has started on Relief India Trust. It seems as if user has come just for defaming the organisation without any proof or references. You can once check on what is going on and why they are deliberately adding Scam India Trust. Looking forward for your reply.Vinay Jayanth (talk) 07:50, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Vinay Jayanth. You can warn the user against vandalizing and if they persist after a final warning, let me know or report to WP:AIV. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:33, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Grey DeLisle pending changes

NeilN, could you explain the pending changes call on that article? The amount of vandalism is pretty light. In fact the _last_ thing called vandalism appeared to be just an edit by someone who was trying to add useful information and screwed it up (she apparently is the host of "combination lock" a new TV show). Any my edit (IP edit removing tags) was also a screwup where I removed a lot more (I really have no clue how, I'm a fairly experienced editor and I've no idea what happened, I later made the edit correctly so hopefully it was clear _that_ wasn't vandalism). That leaves 1 maybe 2 cases of actual vandalism in the last month. Seems a bit light for page protection of any type. 108.73.162.59 (talk) 06:57, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

The article is a target of a serial socker who continually adds hoax information. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 07:17, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

OK, I guess I'm not seeing it in the recent past. But thanks. 108.73.162.59 (talk) 07:53, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Combination Lock is the hoax information. I should have made that clear. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:14, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Ah, the fact it was in our article confused me. All the same person. Thus WP:RS. My bad, thanks. 108.73.162.59 (talk) 14:20, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Marlene Favela please help me

Hey Niel about Marlene Favela wikipedia page...please niel help me restore the information and unprotect the page please.. I wish you can see this message and help me Add the information I edited in Marlene favela page. please help me as an administrator. I'd be forever grateful if you help me and use the information I put and customize it like how awards are supposed to be written in Wikipedia... the information is reliable. As a Marlene favela fan I feel ashamed of the page especially that she has only one award recorded there. please help thanks niel — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ejezie Swanky (talk • contribs) 11:03, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ejezie Swanky. I see you've posted to the article's talk page which is good. Another editor has replied with his concerns about sourcing. If you address those, you can probably move forward. As an aside, please don't edit the article using a fan's viewpoint. Your edits should be neutral and encyclopedic in tone. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:19, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Niel!! I admit I was wrong. I didn't know how to use Wikipedia then. But can you help me restore my edit and I'll bring out reliable sources of my information to the Wikipedia page ! I'll bring the proof here to your talk page and thanks for your reply — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ejezie Swanky (talk • contribs) 17:06, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

@Ejezie Swanky: Please don't post sources here. Please post them on the article's talk page where the other editor can see them and discuss them with you. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:44, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

YTURZAETA

Thanks for the blocks. I was not fooled; YTURZAETA probably freaked out after the first warning and generated a couple of socks. GAB^Hello! 14:10, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Next time, I'll make my sarcastic tone on the vandal's talk page more apparent. Cheers, GAB^Hello! 19:41, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

GAB, I got what you meant. The all caps in my response was just mimicking the vandal's style. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:44, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Kelechi Iheanacho

Hello Neil. please could you protect Kelechi Iheanacho before IP edits get out of hand... JMHamo (talk) 16:00, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Done, 2 days. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:14, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

JMHamo (talk) 16:17, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Vandal

If you are around, if you could jump on 207.62.246.202 that would be very much appreciated. User talk:207.62.246.202 --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 21:27, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

The IP was blocked by another admin. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:20, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

You can get blocked BEFORE you might be blocked?

But still, I was sooooooo close! Krett12 (talk) 17:58, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

@Krett12: Occasionally, yes. In this case it was clear the article was being vandalized by a bunch of kids so they all got blocked. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:02, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Wildcat

hello, i keep editing the page because cats have no predators. i can't let it go due to autism, so i will keep trying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.159.114.22 (talk) 19:09, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Since you cannot stop yourself, I have stopped you. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:33, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

A Dobos torte for you!

7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos Torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it. To give a Dobos Torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

You were very timely in following up on my WP:AIV report. Thanks. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:04, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

User Ferret is harassing me

He follows me around George123456781 (talk) 22:09, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

@George123456781: Please don't edit other users' user pages. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:19, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

@neiln he edits every edit I do even the real ones that are truth — Preceding unsigned comment added by George123456781 (talk • contribs) 22:21, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

@George123456781: Like this one? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:32, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry : Relief India Trust

Hello @NeilN As you recommended i opened a SPI against suspected accounts editing Relief India Trust here is the result Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/KatherineWatts. This is a dispute where the one party using promotional (paid !) news article (as Source) which are biased and serves a particular interest (mildly put commercial and in reality close to fraud and extortion in practice) that's why we are seeing a lots of disruption and allegation in that page by disgruntled and harassed users. Although the criticism is lacks a proper source for the time being excluding it severely undermines the tone and its editorial integrity.

All those sources are questionable in their neutrality which the article relies on its promotional tone. This kind of practice is common in Indian peninsula : You can infer from a recent uncover of : Axact using same kind of telephone extortion by Diploma_mill. I request you as the spi investigation pointed out and previous article creator and authors are confirmed socks this article needs a cleaning for the sake of neutrality and common sense of its promotional tone.

All those promotional identical news sources are telling one part of the story, wheres those long distance telephone extorting calls are another tell. This article is in hand of a bunch of socks where they found a loophole how to advertise where people trust Wikipedia as a source of authentic information. --DChinu (talk) 08:45, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

DChinu, posted here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:41, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Feral Cat

Hi - Since you were the one who blocked User:TheFeralCat, thought you might like to know they are back doing the same edit warring at the same articles under another IP [2]. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:22, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

@Winkelvi: Yes, blocked. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:22, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	For being proactive at WP:AIV and on-wiki generally. JustBerry (talk) 15:51, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Copyright Violation Detection - EranBot Project

A new copy-paste detection bot is now in general use on English Wikipedia. Come check it out at the EranBot reporting page. This bot utilizes the Turnitin software (ithenticate), unlike User:CorenSearchBot that relies on a web search API from Yahoo. It checks individual edits rather than just new articles. Please take 15 seconds to visit the EranBot reporting page and check a few of the flagged concerns. Comments welcome regarding potential improvements.

NeilN somedays I just patrol the Eranbot suggestions and look for copyvio (e.g., the one you helped with [3]). I try to not be too heavy handed on editors - especially new ones. Regrettably, we are not getting the bot to stay running and updating as much as we'd like. Support (i.e., occasion use) from experienced editors like yourself would help our cause. --Lucas559 (talk) 18:05, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Hey Lucas559. Am I right in thinking I can't run this bot manually against an article? I was looking through articles in Category:2012 novels and a lot of them seem ripe for a copyright check. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:39, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

NeilN as a non-programmer, I am not sure how much effort would be involved. The bot checks all "recent changes" over a certain byte threshold (about 35 words). You could force the bot to scan your old articles by making a strategic edit that looks like you changed +35 words. For instance, just changing a word in a paragraph and then copy and pasting that same paragraph often looks like a 'big' edit to wiki. Then wait... The bot runs RCs every few hours, but has to wait on the third-party Ithenticate to do it's part. We borrow their technology and, thus, are last in queue. On the Erabot reporting page [4] you could then control-F to search by article or sort by Wikiproject (you need to download the script for that function to work). Mirrored sites would be a big issue with old articles. Lucas559 (talk) 16:34, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

God Hates Us All

Hi there. Can you change the description on God Hates Us All to ninth studio album (instead of eighth, which currently is) from the opening sentence. It seems that the number was erroneously changed, as the discussion says otherwise. Thanks.--Retrohead (talk) 21:41, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Retrohead. There seems to be some dispute about that and when the article was promoted to WP:FA the description read eighth studio album. [5] I can't edit through full protection to change that. My advice is to ask on the talk page if the change is now undisputed. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:50, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Edit wars

As a sixty-five-year-old, these wiki procedures are rather mysterious to me, but could you renew this? (Protected "Heathenry (new religious movement)": Edit warring / content dispute ([Edit=Allow only administrators] (expires 15:24, 9 September 2015 (UTC)) [Move=Allow only administrators] (indefinite)))

Frankly, one person has hijacked the article over the last two months, renaming it and reversing all edits except his own. I think we need a month or two of peace to restore equilibrium. Thank you --ThorLives (talk) 05:58, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

@ThorLives: Looking at the article history, it's not just one editor who is disputing your changes. If you cannot come to an agreement on the talk page, please consider WP:DRN where you'll be expected to focus only on content matters. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:49, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. That second editor is some sort of associate of his. Ogress, the other editor, never edited the page until the wars began. --ThorLives (talk) 17:59, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

ThorLives, Ogress had one edit to the article in 2014 so it may be on her watchlist. Plus, the article was mentioned at ANI so that's a surefired way to have editors take a look. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:04, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Very well. Thank you for looking into the problem. --ThorLives (talk) 23:40, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

@ThorLives: It is on my watchlist, and I am not aware of ever having edited alongside @Midnightblueowl: before, who incidentally appears to use she/her pronouns. I'd note here that your constant concern for editors' credentials and your self-importance as a PhD, while admirable, is not necessarily relevant to the topic. Ogress 01:03, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Contrary to ThorLives' accusation, User:Bloodofox is not an "associate" of mine. They are simply an editor who happens to take an interest in this article and who appears to share my views that a number of ThorLives' suggested alterations to the article are problematic. Ogress is quite right that I prefer female pronouns, but I do not expect ThorLives to pay the slightest bit of notice to that given that they have repeatedly engaged in Personal Attacks and 'Outing' (as well, of course, as disruptive editing and edit warring) with absolutely no sign that they recognise that this is wrong or intend to stop; that's why I took this issue to the Administrators' Noticeboard. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:13, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea how I am an "associate" with anyone on Wikipedia, whatever that is supposed to mean. I've seen plenty of nasty clique behavior on Wikipedia over the years, but I am not a part of one and my involvement with this page has generally been minimal due to limited time. I am glad that this page seems to finally be getting the attention it deserves, however. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:49, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks, as you've done so often, for protecting an article that's been heavily vandalized. Cheers, 2601:188:0:ABE6:5DC5:559E:75C4:C241 (talk) 15:15, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome. The followup took a lot longer than I expected as the deletion nomination wasn't correctly listed. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:33, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Template:California wildfires

Can I ask why you locked the page instead of just preventing non-confirmed users? This seems a pretty clear case of an anonymous user repeatedly removing content. They were informed multiple times to discuss the changes on the talk page but instead chose to keep reverting multiple user's reversions. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 16:17, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

• this is a pretty case of an user Zakman repeatedly duplicate the years in the different sections trying to make a huge navbox instead of one-section clear template. 109.108.251.119 (talk) 16:20, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

@Zackmann08: There's zero discussion on the talk page by either side. It was either protect or hand out multiple blocks. Please also see my talk page post. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:21, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

I happen to come across the barnstar while checking out another section of the talk page; I definitely agree - you definitely do a lot on WP:AIV, etc. to make sure things are in line. Thanks for your hard work. --JustBerry (talk) 20:11, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Just realized the edit you thanked me for was the barnstar. My pleasure! --JustBerry (talk) 20:12, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

david irving

Please don't edit war. And please don't undo good faith edits without discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.233.83 (talk • contribs)

Replied here. And I strongly suggest you read WP:BRD before messing about on a good article. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:47, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

DAVID IRVING edit warring warning.

Your recent editing history at David Irving shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. NeilN talk to me 02:45, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

   If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

A copy-paste job? Seriously? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:50, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I only put relevant warnings on you page because of your conduct. That they happened to be copy pasted is incidental. They are relevant to your behavior. I ask again, please undo your revert of my good faith edit or I'll take this further. Also I'm still learning the html style of wikipedia. Please don't be frivalous.

No. And reading WP:BOOMERANG might be helpful. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:11, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

thank you. i read it. please now explain why you reverted a good faith edit without comment. If you don't I'll have to report you as you really don't seem open to reasonable discussion.

Guidelines

Please explain your reasons for not following guidlines regarding the David Irving article. Unless you supply a good reason I shall go ahead and make improvements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.233.83 (talk) 02:55, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Again, read WP:BRD. You want to make a significant change to introduce some false balance. That's not WP:NPOV. And it's not up to you to decide what's a good article. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:59, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I read it. please read about not undoing good faith edits, especially without comment. Furthermore as a new contributor, please show me where I was supposed to see that it's NOT up to me to decide whether an article is good or not. i read it. it's bad.

I want to make a small change to stop the article reading like zionist propaganda. You seem reasonably intelligent. Try looking again without ego. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.233.83 (talk) 03:11, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Read it again (and note my reverts had edit summaries). Good faith or not, your edits were just rehashing the old "Irving is not a Holocaust denialist" trope that SPA's try from time to time. Also, linked for the third time: WP:GA. It outlines the GA process. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:17, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

conflict of interest

the instructions on this site are rather difficult to understand, it has just been dumped on me this morning and I would just like to know where I can find simplified instructions on how to declare conflict of interest on editing pages, i just spent time going through the citations to make sure the links weren't dead only to have everything wiped out again

i'm looking for some help here but all i am getting is a smack in the face

Envirodefence (talk) 15:46, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Envirodefence, it's in the requires disclosure page, partially reproduced below:

These Terms of Use prohibit engaging in deceptive activities, including misrepresentation of affiliation, impersonation, and fraud. As part of these obligations, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. You must make that disclosure in at least one of the following ways:

• a statement on your user page,
• a statement on the talk page accompanying any paid contributions, or
• a statement in the edit summary accompanying any paid contributions.

--NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:50, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Britannia Hotels

Thank you. Contaldo80 (talk) 07:47, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

ISO certitication confusion

I'm gonna have to call {{confusing}} for your comment here. I agree for the pic thereof, but not sure about the dick therein. DMacks (talk) 16:24, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

DMacks, monitoring some of Wikipedia's sex-related articles over the years has probably made me somewhat jaded. I see something like that, sigh, try to do what needs to be done without letting the image burn a hole in my brain, and move on. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:32, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Mihir Shah

Hi NeilN,

I am writing to ask about the issues regarding the wiki page - "Mihir Shah". I provided credible external citations to back up my article but I understand that there are important issues with it. I will be glad if you can point out what I can do to improve the article and prevent it from being deleted.

Thanks and best wishes, Vidhya — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vidhyahere (talk • contribs) 17:13, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Vidhyahere. The article is not currently nominated for deletion but if it is in the future, you need to show the article has sources that demonstrate the subject is notable. WP:BASIC is key: "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." Do any of the current sources fit that bill? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:25, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Neil,

Thank you. Sure, I will work on adding more sources of the type you mention, this week. Is there a way you could also remove the tag that says, "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject.". I know I am the major contributor to this article, but that does not mean I am close to the subject. I just happened to be one of the people editing this. Will you be able to remove this tag if perhaps multiple people contribute to the article?

Thank you and best wishes, Vidhya — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vidhyahere (talk • contribs) 18:19, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

@Vidhyahere: Okay, I'm taking you at your word that you have no conflict of interest and have removed the tag. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:28, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Neil,

Thank you very much! That is great. With respect to the comment, "This article's tone or style may not reflect the encyclopedic tone used on Wikipedia"; If we change and correct some grammatical issues, will you be able to remove this tag? I will get back to you soon after these corrections.

best wishes, Vidhya — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vidhyahere (talk • contribs) 18:54, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

@Vidhyahere:, yes, I will have a look. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:03, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Neil,

I am working on the language editing - it is in progress. Meanwhile, I have some details on the credibility of the media sources I have cited. I want to assure you that they are independent and highly valuable sources in India. Do these help to remove some of the banners on the top of the article? Here is a list:

The Hindu- The Hindu is an English-language Indian daily newspaper published since 1889. According to the Indian Readership Survey in 2012, it was the third most widely read English newspaper in India. As of October 2014, it is printed at 17 locations across eight states of southern India: Bengaluru, Chennai, Hyderabad,Thiruvananthapuram, Vijayawada, Kolkata, Coimbatore, Madurai, Noida, Visakhapatnam, Kochi,Mangaluru, Tiruchirappalli, Hubballi, Mohali, Lucknow, Allahabad and Malappuram; The Indian Expres: It is an English-language Indian daily newspaper founded in 1932. It is published in Mumbai by Indian Express Group. In addition, the Express group publishes 5 other newspapers including the Financial Express for the business community in India and worldwide; The Economic and Political Weekly- The Economic and Political Weekly, published from Mumbai since 1949, is an Indian institution which enjoys a global reputation for excellence in independent scholarship and critical inquiry. Economic and Political Weekly is indexed on Scopus, “the largest abstract and citation database of peer-reviewed literature”, which is prepared by Elsevier N V; Oxford University Press: OUP is the largest university Press in the world and publishes in all academic fields, from multiple offices across the world; UNRISD Palgrave Macmillan: The United Nations Research Institute for Social Development (UNRISD) is an autonomous research institute within the UN system that undertakes multidisciplinary research and policy analysis on the social dimensions of contemporary development issue;

best wishes, Vidhya — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vidhyahere (talk • contribs) 15:05, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Vidhyahere. Sources look good. I've replaced the tags currently on the article with one - like resume. A couple points: The article has a few instances of Dr. Mihir Shah or Dr. Shah. These should be replaced with just "Shah". Also, the content needs to be tightened up as it reads too much like a CV. A good way to do this is to remove things that don't have secondary sources. For example, "He is a Member of the International Steering Committee of the CGIAR Research Program on Water, Land and Ecosystems (WLE)." Is that important to anyone else besides CGIAR and Shah? If so, a secondary source should have covered it. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:26, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Magnetogenetics

per Jytdog advice[6] please redirect to optogenetics, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:05, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Sock again

Hi. Your semi-protection of Shoe fetishism expired, and the IP vandal is now attacking it as User:Lop345.[7][8] KateWishing (talk) 23:19, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

KateWishing, it's a strange situation. Previously, the IP was adding quasi-gibberish and I would have no problem blocking for that. Now, however, all they and the registered editor are doing is adding different dubious sources and they're not block evading as far as I can tell. And the registered editor is almost autoconfirmed so semi-protection would be ineffective. I will semi-protect to stop any potential socks but you're best bet is to post on the article's talk page, outlining issues with the sources. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:36, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Qed237

Sorry for dragging this into the vandalism page. I just have no idea how to handle this guy anymore. I've reported him to admins and they won't do anything. All he does is spitefully revert pages that aren't 100% correct, even when he knows to correct them. It is despicable behavior and the fact that he is being implicitly supported by the admins who have gotten involved makes me want to quit editing. There's obviously no point to attempting to contribute here. Eightball (talk) 13:21, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Replied here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:38, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Eightball You think this kind of message is okay? Perhaps people would listen if you learn how to communicate. Qed237 (talk) 13:59, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

NeilN, could you please talk to him to behave and discuss properly, now User:Eightball is even shopping for help as I was told here by User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi. Qed237 (talk) 14:08, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Mrmike1695 - sockpuppet investigation. Any interest?

Hi NeilN, you started an ANI about this problem user earlier in the year, and he was eventually banned. He has been using multiple accounts and IPs since. He has a very distinct style and subject area focus. I started an SPI on his other accounts, but it is moving slowly and Willondon doesn't want to get involved at this time. Would you be interested in weighing in/ having a look? Thanks! JesseRafe (talk) 16:59, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

JesseRafe, I prompted the SPI clerk (but poor Vanjagenije seems stretched pretty thin). Let's see if we can get a CU done. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:11, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! I agree, I saw how that user is doing most of the work, but I provided the diffs and know Vanjagenije saw them because s/he moved them to the right place. Just waiting for it to move along, as Mrmike is continuing to be a thorn in many a-side. Thanks for dropping in on it! JesseRafe (talk) 17:34, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Consensus

Hello. At what point is it ok to close out this discussion with a consensus. Been up for a few days with very few responses. But all 3 have been supporting it. Also, when it is time to close it, what template should I use to archive it? --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:58, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

@Zackmann08: RFC's typically last thirty days unless there is clear overwhelming consensus or agreement to close early. You could also try implementing the change and see if anyone objects. As you participated in the RFC, you shouldn't close it. BTW, Alakzi has been indef blocked at his own request. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:25, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

offensive

Hi Neil, please check this edit summary [9]. - Kautilya3 (talk) 18:07, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Oh, there is more [10]. - Kautilya3 (talk) 18:10, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

User blocked now. - Kautilya3 (talk) 18:14, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, by SpacemanSpiff. BTW, it's a good idea to also revoke TPA and email for these socks or the abuse will continue. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:18, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I'd blocked and taken care of the mainspace stuff, if Thomas.W wants that treatment applied on his talk page, one of us can do it. I'll take care of TP and email now, wasn't aware of the sock background. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 18:20, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

• @SpacemanSpiff: Evlekis gets drunk and bored every Friday evening, so this was just his usual pathetic Friday "fun". Thomas.W ^talk 19:02, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Glad to know that there's more than one reason for a block I made! —SpacemanSpiff 19:04, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Axial Seamount IP Again

The Best-Known-For IP is using 186.9.128.73 to edit-war further at Axial Seamount. Also, see here.

Thanks, GAB^Hello! 21:52, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

GAB, blocked, articles semied. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:28, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks very much! GAB^Hello! 00:52, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Thanks for looking after my talk page. A true fellow editor - your diligence and hard work in fighting vandalism is much appreciated. JustBerry (talk) 23:57, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

3 poles

Thanks for your help with page protections at Richard Parks and Pole. Similar edits from the same IP range continue at Three Poles Challenge. I'm not sure where to report this? Burninthruthesky (talk) 07:33, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

I've updated Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Best known for IP with the recent 4 IPs I know of. Burninthruthesky (talk) 10:14, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Burninthruthesky. You can report further appearances at WP:ANI or WP:AIV and link to the LTA report. You can also report here and I will take a look if I'm active. Basically, my practice is to leave the IP alone if they're making uncontested edits but immediately block if they start reverting. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:49, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. Good to see an effort being put into sensible policy enforcement. Many thanks. Burninthruthesky (talk) 08:20, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Help on Tommy Sotomayor page being constantly vandalized

As you can see this editor is constantly vandalizing the Tommy Sotomayor Wikipedia page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2607:FB90:2B62:7885:A522:FCD4:8B4E:A18E

Here is the history of this page where you can see these vandalisms have to be changed back:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tommy_Sotomayor&action=history

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tommy_Sotomayor

Can you please help stop this? It keeps happening, thanks! Neptune's Trident (talk) 00:10, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Neptune's Trident, blocked. Please let me know if they return under a different IP or when the block expires. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:16, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Neptune's Trident (talk) 00:18, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Barrhead

Should this revision be deleted/hidden? The Quixotic Potato (talk) 01:33, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

The Quixotic Potato - done, thanks. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:57, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 03:06, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

V x f C

• Today: Special:Contributions/86.149.12.206
• Yesterday: Special:Contributions/86.149.11.139

Thanks, as always, JoeSperrazza (talk) 14:16, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

JoeSperrazza, blocked the latest one. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:19, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/151.226.184.94 - Thanks, JoeSperrazza (talk) 15:13, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Shut down. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:28, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

And again, Special:Contributions/92.25.65.202. Thanks, JoeSperrazza (talk) 10:55, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Edward Winterhalder Edits

The piece of information I am trying to add is from the official website of the creator of the show (a notable person) directly referencing the statement following it. I believe the person reverting it (from similar IPs) is the subject of the article himself as he appears to use the page for self promotion. What should I do next rather that keep reverting his edits? Nikko11 (talk) 17:29, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Nikko11. You can use Talk:Edward Winterhalder to discuss your change. I see someone else has already posted on the topic. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:33, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, I will post there. Nikko11 (talk) 17:34, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Vandalism at Oliver White.

Could you semi-protect the page please (if not already done). I've just had to revert and remove a lot of vandalism from the page, and it looks like it's ongoing. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 18:11, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Skamecrazy123, semied two weeks, PC-protected 6 months. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:15, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Looks like there's a separate article for the YouTuber at Oli White, though it's currently tagged for speedy deletion. —C.Fred (talk) 18:40, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks C.Fred. If the article survives we should probably add a hatnote to Oliver White. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:43, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

There's evidence of coverage at Oli White, so I've declined the speedy, and I've added the hatnote to Oliver White. Both articles are on my watchlist now. —C.Fred (talk) 19:13, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

C.Fred, take off protection, you think? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:14, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I say leave it on and let it run out in two weeks. I don't have faith that the average unregistered teen editor will read the hatnote. :) —C.Fred (talk) 19:16, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

C.Fred, ...while eating cactuses. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:17, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

How to request 1R notice?

How do I request that a 1R notice be placed at the top of an edit window for an article that is being overreverted? Thank you. Checkingfax (talk) 22:50, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Checkingfax, if the topic is under discretionary sanctions, you can make a request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:04, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

The topic is not controversial, only the conduct of a single editor. The protocol of approaching him in a neutral manner is risky because efforts in the past by others have all been met with poo flinging. Checkingfax (talk) 23:13, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Checkingfax, 1RR won't be put in place because of one editor. I could advise you better if I knew what the article was. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:28, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, NeilN. The page is Cooper Union. All of my non-controversial, minor, good faith edits have been reverted by editor Beyond My Ken. Beyond My Ken translates to I'm 'Smarter than You' in British English. Here is a link to a less than civil exchange regarding edit reverting. Checkingfax (talk) 00:14, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Checkingfax, I've interacted with BMK before and he can occasionally be gruff. However the conversation you point to happened almost three years ago and there's been no discussion since last May. Looks like you're having a MOS dispute? Is that correct? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:25, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

No. BMK has reverted *all* of my edits. I pointed you to the worst interaction I came across on page-1 of the CU Talk page.. I scanned BMK's userpage and it is an extensive personal Manifesto about how he expects others to edit. Checkingfax (talk) 00:49, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Checkingfax, how about posting on the talk page, not directly addressing BMK, but explaining why your edits improved the article? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:08, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

OK. Checkingfax (talk) 00:23, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Fwiw, when someone starts a procedural vote against BMK, I can chime in with my less-than-welcoming experience on Cooper Union as well. It's a real WP:OWNERSHIP issue. Sad it's affected so many and nothing's been done yet but I guess you're like me and have better things to do than wend through the bureaucracy. — LlywelynII 09:59, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Jolly nice to see you having a fine old time poking the bear. Have fub fun (on second though) fub! BMK (talk) 22:32, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Lenore Skenazy

So, you think that truthful, referenced information is vandalism? Apparently it doesn't agree with your viewpoint which is totally against what Wikipedia is about. Looks like it's time for you to discontinue editing if your personal views override facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.83.48.77 (talk) 00:02, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I think copyright violations are copyright violations, --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:12, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Copyright violations? Methinks you are sorely mistaken an obviously shouldn't be editing anything if you think referencing news articles are copyright violations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.83.48.77 (talk) 00:31, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Referencing news articles is fine, but copying passages word-for-word is a copyright infringement. Hats off to NeilN and/or other editors for catching and fixing it. —C.Fred (talk) 00:48, 21 September 2015 (UTC

It appears you are mistaken Fred. The edits deleted the information entirely, and as other articles here on Wikipedia that are not edited contained the information. It appears that you all are opposed to the truth, which is against the principles of Wikipedia. The Nazis would be proud.

---

Thanks to IP pointing out the Lenore Skenazy article I now know I was raised Free-Range. My parents were 50 years ahead of Ms. Skenazy. Rewrite the rape tidbit and it is good to go on Wikipedia. Checkingfax (talk) 02:06, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

IP block

Could this IP please be blocked. They did not heed to multiple warnings and received a final warning. Cheers. DaHuzyBru (talk) 15:30, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind NeilN, but I got to this one first. HighInBC ^{(was Chillum)} 15:38, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

HighInBC, less work for me! Thanks! --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:39, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Peace, here to go through what you said I did.

What did I do, that was personally commentary, that was not like the line that I just deleted and then replaced wording it as written in The Qur'an - this might seem like personal commentary however all I did was remove a sentence but then add what The Qur'an says in my own words. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.105.193.224 (talk) 20:35, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

"what The Qur'an says in my own words" which is problematic but you also cannot gut a major, important part of an article just because you think it doesn't have sufficient nuance. [11] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:40, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

[[[You were originally talking about the article about God in Islam. As for this wikipidea article, I removed these because 1. They clearly show a bias, why would someone post things like 'apostasy, slavery....' when this is basically only about 5% of what the madhabs mention. It should contain much more information on this specific madhab. 2. The information they give is so plain, one sided, sharia isn't so simple, for instance scholars when judging people for hudud you can cancel the punishment if the person says that they didn't do it, or if there is doubt on it, but this isn't mentioned in the post making it one sided. This is supposed to be unbiased right? So show what the tradition says, not this, this is so plain. Sorry if what I say sounds rude in anyway but this is literally twisting information, hiding information to trick masses to think one group of people believe in things they don't.

Here is some more information on it if you want:

“The harsh punishments imposed under Islamic Law (though less harsh than those prevailing in Europe until comparatively recently) are the expression of principles which cannot be changed to suit our convenience; what matters, however, is not that the punishment should be inflicted whenever appropriate but that the principle should remain intact. The Prophet told his people to ‘avert penalties by doubts’, and any stratagem which averts the penalty without impugning the Law is legitimate. The tale is told of a lawyer in Harfin’s time who rose to wealth and eminence after devising a subtle legal argument which saved the Caliph from having to charge his own son with adultery. The Westerner might say that this cunning lawyer earned himself a fortune by twisting the law to suit his master; the Muslim, on the other hand, approves his conduct in that he found a way for the Caliph to show mercy without offending against the majesty of the Law.

The severity of the punishment for adultery marks the gravity of this offence against a society based upon the integrity of the family and its delicate web of relationships. The existence of the penalty makes the necessary point, but its application is made almost impossible – except in cases of voluntary confession – by the proviso that four unimpeachable witnesses must have observed the act in detail and must submit to being flogged for perjury if the case is still not proved. Flogging is specified as the penalty for a number of offences, but the Law does not specify what instrument is to be used, and in the early days of Islam it was often nothing more damaging than a light sandal or the hem of a garment; this was still technically a ‘flogging’, the point was made and the Law was upheld. A thief may have his hand cut off, but not if he stole from genuine need or because his family was hungry, or if he stole the property of the state.”

— p. 185, Islam and the Destiny of Man, Charles le Gai Eaton]]] - ip

If you think other notable views are missing then please add them, with appropriate sources. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:58, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

And do you understand why I removed them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.105.193.224 (talk) 20:59, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Because of your opinion that the section is unbalanced. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:02, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

It mentions 5% of Islamic Beliefs, not fully, in the most plain way, saying this is what Muslims Believe - this is honestly not true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.105.193.224 (talk) 21:07, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

You have at least two options - you can add more on Shafi'i (not general Islamic) beliefs as I stated above or you can propose deleting the entire section on the article's talk page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:06, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I sent it thanks for your time. 81.105.193.224 (talk) 17:57, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Ceiling fans

It looks like someone is trying to get autoconfirmed, and is building a YouTube Ceiling Fan video template.[12] Not sure I need to say much more than that. Scr★pIron^IV 21:30, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

ScrapIronIV, thanks for the note. Floquenbeam blocked the David Beals sock, I nuked the page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:20, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

More trolls on Tommy Sotomayor page

We've got more people vandalizing the page, this user:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/99.194.88.147

And these users from a few days ago and a couple weeks ago:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/68.204.111.244

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/212.50.103.74

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/212.50.103.74

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/50.153.236.7

Here's the page history:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tommy_Sotomayor&action=history

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tommy_Sotomayor

If possible, could you please help with this? Thanks. Neptune's Trident (talk) 00:20, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Neptune's Trident, I've started protection at two weeks. If disruption starts again after protection expires then please report to WP:RFPP or post here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:24, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

22 September 2015 - help in dealing with a vandal

Hello, you helped recently in blocking a vandal on America's Next Top Model (cycle 22). We have a new one (User:Jpiippo1) who is probably the same user you blocked two days ago - but with a new name/account. He has already had three of his edits reversed as vandalism on this page. In addition, he has gone through several past seasons of ANTM making unsourced changes. Most of those articles apparently have watchers who have already reversed his changes but others need to be checked. Anything you can do to help? Thanks, SchoolMarm101 (talk) 00:36, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

SchoolMarm101, blocked one week. If any other editors show up, let me know. Would be useful in preparing a SPI. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:32, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Another IP block request

This IP received a final warning. Has not heeded to any warnings. DaHuzyBru (talk) 12:52, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

That and/or semi protection for Seth Curry would be ideal. DaHuzyBru (talk) 12:56, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

@DaHuzyBru: IP blocked. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:01, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

AdviCe

Re: your closing comment he's carried on as before. Blanking messages, accusing me of vandalism for posting them, refusing discussion, and even reporting me to the AN/I Talk page. I assumed that was an accident at first: but now I wonder if, having been advised to desist from logging suprious reports to the incident page, he is attempting to evade those warnings by posting to talk instead. Advice appreciated. (PS my involvement only began over some offensive userboxes on his page (see discussion on my talk, here.) _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 14:12, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: Moved to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#talk_page_vandalism.2C_User:Fortuna_Imperatrix_Mundi. Contemplating further action. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:29, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Anand.ndtv (talk · contribs)

Can you keep an eye on the editor and his IP socks' edits at Beti Bachao, Beti Padhao Yojana and Save girls articles (which I just realized are duplicates)? Abecedare (talk) 19:29, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Okay. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:47, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

FYI

Voyage60 (talk · contribs). This is an "edit-warring only" SPA. I tried to talk with them [13], but received no response. Perhaps they have a point, but without talking this looks like intentional disruption. This might be also a COI problem since they edit nothing except a single BLP page. I am telling this because you gave them previous warning... My very best wishes (talk) 01:15, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

My very best wishes, blocked 24 hours for their textbook edit warring. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:45, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Calculus

Hi NeilN-- Thanks for contacting me. A disturbing "edit war" is indeed what I'd describe is exactly what is happening, here, and, frankly, I want no part of it, but the important 'Calculus' article can't be left as it is, though I refuse to fight further. I left academia partly to avoid this sort of thing, and have no particular interest in being involved in any further such fighting. I only have so many hours left to live. But the person who's placed him or herself in charge of the article...well, I make my argument you should care about this article enough to send in some other, qualified, scholar, math and history expertise, please, if you can find such a person and enlist them, to fix the situation. Actually, rather than waste your time and attention complaining about any specifics, I will leave it there. But the 'Calculus' article can't be. It's too important. It's just...I don't do stupid academic spats, like I said. I hope you find it worthwhile to examine the situation, and, better, that the truth will out, either way it falls. Just, you know, reasonably soon. ThanksRandall Adhemar (talk) 06:31, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Randall Adhemar, I've noticed you refer to yourself as a scholar more than a few times. Wikipedia:Expert_editors#Advice_for_expert_editors is probably worth a read. Also, even if the material you added was properly sourced, much of it it is too trivial for the lead which is supposed to be a summary of the body. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:45, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

@Randall Adhemar. You can not cite WP as a source and can not insert that much text in a summary of the page on something that has been described differently in the body of article. However, assuming that Newton indeed discovered Differential (mathematics) in 1666 (that must be sourced to books on history of science), it seems pretty obvious that it was him who authored Calculus, and Leibniz only further developed the method. Work on the body of the page first, get sources and get consensus. My very best wishes (talk) 13:46, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	I see you around quite a bit on what I can imagine is a slightly tedious part of mopping up (UAA/RPP), so I wanted to say thanks :) samtar (msg) 13:20, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I can't figure this out

Hi N. The Niger River (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) showed up on the Category:Wikipedia pages with incorrect protection templates. As I looked at your protections I couldn't figure out why. In the logs I see the change of protection and the addition of pending changes protection. The PC protection seems okay but there are a couple oddities in relation to the regular protection. First, when you added the protection template you put an expire date of Sept 26 but the line in the log for that action doesn't have a date rather it has the word indefinite in parentheses. Next, when I get to the editing field There is no pink box above the field telling me that the article is protected. Now I know that PC protections do not cause that pink box to appear but regular protections do. Hopefully it is something simple. Thanks for your time and thanks for protection the Tim Burton article. MarnetteD|Talk 14:38, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

MarnetteD, I used Twinkle to change an indef semi to an indef PC so I have no idea why it added that tag. Also, there was an extra {{sprotect|small=yes}} tag already in the article. All fixed now, I think. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:48, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the fixes. My work with these has taught me much but there is always more to learn. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 15:13, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

You've already blocked one of these accounts

User:Mouad911 and User:Moumou101 have been making similar disruptive edits that deal mostly with geographic entities. I trust somebody will look into this. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 19:00, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

BeenAroundAWhile, sock blocked indefinitely, master blocked one week. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:08, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Barack Obama Sr.

I added properly sourced information to the entry and had it promptly reverted TWICE within a very few minutes.

I don't have any idea why some of the editors have such huge ego problems, that they insist on preventing corrections and additions to pages.

In the immediate case, I added the date of marriage February 2, 1961 of Barack Obama Sr to Stanley Anne Dunham. The source site contains photocopies of immigration documents filed by Mr Obama upon which he states the date of marriage. 946towguy (talk) 20:50, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

946towguy, your source, WorldNetDaily, is frankly garbage and is not considered a reliable source, especially for anything to do with Obama. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:55, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

That is your editorial opinion, which is not based on facts. You obviously allowed your bias to prevent you from actually looking at the source material, which are unquestionably accurate photocopies of official U.S. Government records obtained by FOIA request. If you disagree with the documents released by the government, you should note that in the talk section.

In any case, the revert was improper. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 946towguy (talk • contribs) 21:01, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

946towguy, actually, not my opinion. [14], [15] and other discussions at WP:RSN. Also, look at WP:PRIMARY (assuming you believe that WND is somehow the only organization in the world that magically got access to these documents). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:10, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

The author makes reference to these same documents to explain the lack of certainty of his birth year being either 1934 or 1936. If you are reverting my edit, then you must also remove that statement as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 946towguy (talk • contribs) 00:20, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

946towguy, that's a reviewed secondary source which is a reporter from the Boston Globe, [16] not a birther website. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:27, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

No, it is a tertiary source. The author is citing a reporter, who looked at the same documents that are available on that and several other websites. The White House has not disputed the validity of the documents in question, which are secondary sources when posted on a website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 946towguy (talk • contribs) 01:37, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

946towguy, you're welcome to find a source that has the same quality for this and this. It's not WND. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:53, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

I see you have a bias against the WND news site. I make no complaints about many of the sources on Wikipedia which have a severe leftist bias as long as the underlying information is correct. The plain truth is that documents released under FOIA speak for themselves and it is up to the viewer to draw their own conclusions, accepting or rejecting the accompanying commentary. Here is a site with the complete immigration file and very little commentary. http://www.scribd.com/doc/54015762/Barack-Hussein-Obama-Sr-Immigration-File. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 946towguy (talk • contribs) 04:42, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Here is a copy of the FOIA disclosure for Barack Soetoro, Lolo Soetoro and Stanley Ann Dunham Soetoro. http://www.scribd.com/doc/74212035/Obama-Immigration-Records-FOIA-requests — Preceding unsigned comment added by 946towguy (talk • contribs) 05:08, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

The above mentioned documents contain: The divorce certificate filed by Stanley Ann Obama against Barack Hussein Obama for, "Grievous mental suffering inflicted upon Libellant by Libellee," signed by Judge Samuel P. King of Hawaii on 3/5/64, and finalized on 3/20/64 with the amendment of a grant of sole custody of Barack Hussein Obama II to the mother, with reasonable visitation by libellee and reserved right of child support; The marriage certificate between Stanley Ann and Lolo Soetoro; as well as many other relevant items.

Finally, in the article on Stanley Ann Dunham, footnote 7 is used to cite the same marriage date.

946towguy, again, please read WP:PRIMARY and WP:RS. Anonymous users uploading legal documents fail both. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:35, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with your conclusion. If the source in footnote 7 (tertiary source) of the Dunham article is sufficient to support the date of marriage, then the same citation is sufficient in the Obama Sr article. So, I should be able to make the edit to the Obama Sr article and quote the same source as the Dunham article as they would both be either sufficient or insufficient.

The url (http://www.scribd.com/doc/74212035/Obama-Immigration-Records-FOIA-requests) that I cited is a publication of a secondary source. The original research of the primary sources was completed by the staff of T. Diane Cejka, Director of FOIA, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service, U.S. Dept of Homeland Security on July 29, 2010 in response to a FOIA request by a Kenneth Allen, of Tuscon AZ. Further documents at the URL, which I am not citing here, were compiled in 2011 as the original research of Paralegal Specialist Melissa Watermann DHS/CIS/NRC (melissa.watermann@dhs.gov).```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by 946towguy (talk • contribs) 17:44, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

946towguy, you can try those arguments regarding scribd documents at WP:RSN. I doubt you'll get very far. If you want to use the sources from the Dunham article, I have no issue with that. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:59, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

File:Tropes vs woman.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Tropes vs woman.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. RJaguar3 | u | t 03:42, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Calculus 2

Hi NeilN-- Thanks for contacting me. Below is what I intended to write yesterday, but which I don't think went through. What I actually wanted to say was that I noted you'd taken it on yourself to take a look at the page--for which attention I thank you--but that I feel you are (half, I guess) in error. I agree that the too-big-summary of the calculus controversy did not belong, as it was, in the header to the Calculus page (I figured that was the task to work on tomorrow). But more importantly, I disagree that the article doesn't need a brief but accurate statement on Calculus's origins to start off the description--and in the article as reverted, you don't have that. Which is to say the history statement is either wrong or inadequate, and I feel that needs attention.

Revision/addition, 11pm Sept 25th: I noticed you wrote on the page itself, but haven't yet had time to look at and address the details of your response, other than noticing that you took a very dim view of, as it were, my 'side' in this dispute--looked like largely on procedural grounds (I didn't use 'the talk page'? Which talk page would that be? The one I was initially invited to, or the one I was told to go to after the fallacies started piling up on the first talk page--we may differ in that I don't hold the preferred procedure of a given journal, field, or encylopedia to be a primary issue after a certain point, as opposed to, you know, just getting to the truth; you can always make sure the citations are lined up and augmented afterward, that's a minor issue; neither Leibniz nor Newton discovered Calculus by citing properly, after all. But I digress. And of course understand that editors have to have different priorities as regards rules)--and went decisively against me. I can't promise I'll ever be able or willing to respond adequately--I have my duties in print in the outside world, and, as I've been trying to explain, really have absolutely no desire to be involved in this or any similar conflict. But, fair warning, you can ignore me for now (and probably forever), but I've documented the various interactions as regards all this in my own database, so to speak. So it may come up again at some point, whether here or elsewhere. I'd rather not, but your Calculus article header is still wrong, and I find that unacceptable in the long term, and it seems to me that the sociology of Wikipedia culture may be declining, which is an even larger issue. I probably won't have time to beat about this any further in any forum, but I wanted to let you know, again, as a sort of fair warning, in case there's any action you'd like to take. I promise that if I write something up to go into print about this, I'll give you the opportunity to be fairly quoted and in the appropriate context regarding potential issues raised--but, again, it's likely I won't have the time, so I'd treat this as a minor concern. Best wishes and etc, and have a good weekend. -"R. Aldhemar", Sept 25th 2015.

A disturbing "edit war" is indeed what I'd describe is exactly what is happening, here, and, frankly, I want no part of it, but the important 'Calculus' article can't be left as it is, though I refuse to fight further. I left academia partly to avoid this sort of thing, and have no particular interest in being involved in any further such fighting. I only have so many hours left to live. But the person who's placed him or herself in charge of the article...well, I make my argument you should care about this article enough to send in some other, qualified, scholar, math and history expertise, please, if you can find such a person and enlist them, to fix the situation. Actually, rather than waste your time and attention complaining about any specifics, I will leave it there. But the 'Calculus' article can't be. It's too important. It's just...I don't do stupid academic spats, like I said. I hope you find it worthwhile to examine the situation, and, better, that the truth will out, either way it falls. Just, you know, reasonably soon.

Thanks Randall Adhemar (talk) 03:46, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Randall Adhemar, your initial post went through and I've already replied: User_talk:NeilN#Calculus --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:03, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

NeilNNeil,

I didn't mean to imply that it hadn't--merely that the roughly 24 hour between writing and posting might have been responsible for a technical glitch (as it were) that accidentally deleted those posts. I'm not good enough with computers to know if that's technically possible--but I don't see how I could otherwise have been responsible for the deletion/damage. Thus, I deduce, perhaps wrongly, that it was the editing delay and my own lack of technical knowledge that caused the problem. Apologies. -R.A.Randall Adhemar (talk) 04:08, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Generation Z

Hi, could you unlock the Generation Z article? The editor who locked it made the lock for way too long based on a single IP who was the only one making the same unreferenced changes over and over again. Thank you. 2606:6000:610A:9000:E963:8D23:826F:7197 (talk) 04:22, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

See here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:09, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I've unprotected after consulting with the protecting admin but please try not to edit war. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:36, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. 2606:6000:610A:9000:C515:B17:9595:53C6 (talk) 00:43, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Feud with Derbundeskanzler

Hello, NeilN. I would like to apologize for the disruptive debate with Derbundeskanzler, regarding The Backyardigans' country of origin. What seemed to be a formal debate has turned into a fight, and we are both very sincere about our actions.

We have come to a decision that the series will be deemed Canadian-American. After viewing this article from a press release, I now realize that a majority of the series is owned by Nelvana, a Canadian studio. But with my points, Derbundeskanzler and I have agreed that the series is also American, thus revising the series as Canadian-American, than American-Canadian on the page.

Again, our feud was comprised of argument and whether who was right or wrong, and we are very remorseful.

A message by Derbundeskanzler will follow.

BackyardigansKaibigan (talk) 05:20, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Dear NeilN,

I am truthfully sorry for the disruption caused by me and BackyardigansKaibigan. After much consideration and the discovery of a press release stating that most ownership of The Backyardigans belongs to a Canadian company, we have decided on what is right for the page and no further disruption will be made regarding the series' country of origin. I hope that you could either revise the page to what it should be, or lower its protection, so that the article can be accurate. Once again, I apologize for my actions. Derbundeskanzler (talk) 05:25, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

FACE:B00C collateral victim

addresses with FACE:B00C in their range are used by internet.org app service and not "geologically localized" in that a person in south asia can get allocated an address for a time which will be later cycled to any person in EU or NA. blocking entire ranges is too much collateral damage. please look deeply into this. block the sock accounts, not ip ranges. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahfuzur rahman shourov (talk • contribs)

@Mahfuzur rahman shourov: I have no idea why you're telling me this. I don't think I've done a rangeblock on that address. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:47, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

checked the page on sockpuppet investigation for some "najaf ali bhayo". you and dmacks are the admins I found at first glance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahfuzur rahman shourov (talk • contribs) 05:54, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

The range is actually 2A03:2880:3020 and if it's some kind of proxy service for Facebook, it should be blocked. Pinging DMacks as they performed some of the blocks. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:05, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Exactly as NeilN said. DMacks (talk) 06:29, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive editor

Could this user please be blocked. They are being very disruptive, not communicating and not heading to warnings. DaHuzyBru (talk) 15:05, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

DaHuzyBru, blocked three days. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:13, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Thanks for the help at Keke Geladze and my talk page. Admins have to put up with some crazy stuff sometimes, and I really appreciate what you do. clpo13(talk) 15:07, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

clpo13, thanks. The ones I feel for are new editors or editors who work peacefully on their quiet little area of Wikipedia and get sucked into these situations, having no idea what's going on. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:08, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive editor 2

I regret to inform you that a problem user (Versus001) whom you blocked and was blocked again remains disruptive. This user follows me and deletes my edits using specious reasons. Example,

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=September_11_attacks&diff=prev&oldid=682890986

It is a well known fact that there were reports of a State Department bomb on September 11, 2001 but that memory is now being lost due to children born after that date or who were very small then. Wikipedia can preserve history.

Sandra opposed to terrorism (talk) 16:45, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Sandra opposed to terrorism, please don't bring open ANI threads to other pages. It just wastes time and can get you accused of admin shopping. I am sorry things don't seem to be going your way, but sometimes you really do have to step back and listen to what uninvolved editors are saying. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:55, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

This is not shopping because I have not notified anyone of this following and reverting harassment. As far as that train attack article, it would be better if everyone was told to stop editing that article for a month. I would gladly comply if those bad editors were asked the same request. Instead, I voluntarily (and without coaching) stepped back from that article and those 2-3 aggressive editors falsely claimed consensus and gutted an important section of an article that I didn't write (someone else wrote it). Sandra opposed to terrorism (talk) 17:12, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Sandra opposed to terrorism, it's obvious from the ANI thread that you and Versus001 have continual content disputes. If you want sanctions against Versus001, you'll have to propose them there. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:18, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't want anyone blocked. I just want to live in peace and not be harassed and followed around. Sandra opposed to terrorism (talk) 17:32, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Sandra opposed to terrorism, interaction bans also need to be proposed at WP:ANI. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:37, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm sure that Versus001 will read this. Would you kindly ask all parties to be on their best behaviour? I will comply with your requests. This could avoid a prolonged fight on ANI for an interaction ban. You can merely write some words of wisdom here. Sandra opposed to terrorism (talk) 17:46, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Sandra, I didn't notice it at first and therefore didn't use it as my reasoning, but the info you tried to post was already mentioned in the section. Here is the following paragraph from the Events section of the article:

"At 9:42 a.m., the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) grounded all aircraft within the continental U.S., and aircraft already in flight were told to land immediately.[99] All international civilian aircraft were either turned back or redirected to airports in Canada or Mexico, and all international flights were banned from landing on United States territory for three days.[100] The attacks created widespread confusion among news organizations and air traffic controllers. Among the unconfirmed and often contradictory news reports aired throughout the day, one of the most prevalent said a car bomb had been detonated at the U.S. State Department's headquarters in Washington, D.C.[101] Another jet—Delta Air Lines Flight 1989—was suspected of having been hijacked, but the aircraft responded to controllers and landed safely in Cleveland, Ohio.[102]"

Either way, I was not meaning to be disruptive. Versus001 (talk) 18:09, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

IP blocked

Can we lose the talkpage access of that IP you just blocked, not sure their comments are constructive. Amortias (T)(C) 19:27, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

@Amortias: Done. Really reminds me of Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Best known for IP. Some London IP's in there but nothing in the 90.* range. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:38, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Revision Delete Requests

I've got two revision delete requests to make, both on privacy concerns.

• [17]

• [18]

By the way, thanks for the help earlier in dealing with that troublesome IP editor. ~ NottNott talk|contrib 20:44, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

NottNott, done. Thanks for catching these, especially the first one. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:49, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

90.198.x sock

Don't you think it would be more helpful to range block those IPs trolling on WP:ANI? Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 23:45, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

@Callmemirela: Yes. But both rangeblock calculators are down and I have a good feeling that any rangeblock would be way too wide to be acceptable. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:52, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Understood. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 00:23, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Earth system science issue, and your note to terradactyl

Hi - First, my apologies, I don't know the Wiki rules so well, and didn't even know what canvassing was, so perhaps you can help clarify all this a bit more for me: yes, I was writing just now to some of the editors who dealt with creating and editing the section for which I just requested protection, from long before I had anything to do with it. My assumption was that those editors would be interested in the conflict going on, but didn't think that this equated in any way non-neutrality about the actual material involved. Is it considered biased, from Wiki's point of view, to assume that users involved in creating the material, and presumably therefore knowledgeable about this material, would be interested in the expunging of their material from the entry?

As far as the material itself in the section in question goes, I believe that I actually have a more neutral point of view on the relationship of Gaia theory to Earth system science than the few editors who have been highly motivated to see the material deleted from the article. I am admittedly not neutral, however, on whether I feel this material should be included in the article - clearly I do not, given that I spent a great deal of time editing the section, and it clearly seems highly germane to the article, with world-renowned figures commenting in various ways on the relationship between these things - but that desire for inclusion is not against any of the neutrality concerns of Wiki, is it? Aren't the point of view concerns of Wiki about the way in which material is expressed with neutrality? Clearly, material cannot be expressed with neutrality if it is expunged! I have created a section that is very well-referenced, and that provides a wide range of viewpoints, from those claiming that the two, Earth system science and Gaia, are largely synonymous, to those claiming that they are quite distinct.

As the talk page shows abundantly, I have consistently asked those editors removing the material to instead include their own material showing their point of view that the two are not closely connected, if that is what they feel and they can provide properly sourced material saying so. Please note that I have studiously avoided removing any other editors' work - I rarely hit revert except when the prior edit has been nothing but a subtraction of my own work. I don't believe in destruction of other points of view! Here are some of my comments on the talk page from just this week, citing Wiki rules on this, as far as I understand them:

Hi, BatteryIncluded - Btw, just to expand on the lack of appropriateness of what Prokaryotes et al are trying to do......this is what Wiki says:

It is inappropriate to remove blocks of well-referenced information which is germane to the subject from articles on the grounds that the information advances a point of view. Wikipedia's NPOV policy contemplates inclusion of all significant points of view. [5]

If they have some other point of view, they should feel free to express it!

Again, I hope that you can help clarify my understanding of the way this all fits in with Wiki's rules, if I have misunderstood them. Terradactyl (talk) 03:44, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Terradactyl. If you're going to notify editors of a discussion then you need to notify all potentially interested editors, not just the ones that you think will support your position. Also, the notifying message must be worded neutrally, not advocating your position, as your messages were doing. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:24, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Neil - Thanks much for getting back. Actually, I'm a bit confused still, and wondering if you could look into this a bit further. I don't know what position you think I take on the relationship between Earth system science and Gaia theory. Indeed, among the range of authoritative positions on this, from those seeing them as identical, to those seeing them as distinct yet overlapping, I am more or less undecided, frankly. What position on this could I have possibly expressed through what I just wrote to the editors who initiated the section? In terms of whether I think the section on the relationship between them should exist, again, that is a very different issue - if it is germane to the subject and well-referenced, it should not be removed, correct? To do otherwise is against Wiki policy, right? Now, if you have some very famous people saying "X and Y are the same thing," and other famous people saying, "Well, X and Y are NOT the same thing, but interrelated," is it not clear that it is germane to subject X (and to subject Y!) that this interrelationship be discussed in its article, with a full range of views of what that relationship may or may not be, as expressed through well-referenced sources? I have not yet seen any valid argument for the removal of the material. I am sure you noted that my citations were from the primary academic textbooks for Earth system science used in university curricula, from statements from the likes of NASA's Director of Planetary Sciences Division, etc.

Keep in mind, moreover, when you speak of my writing to "all potentially interested editors," the actual history of the article and the section at hand: The section began shortly after the article was started, in 2011. The section then went through very few significant changes, really none at all, until, boom, in November of 2014, Toby Tyrrell, someone who has published the only book of recent times harshly critical of Gaia theory, removed it all himself, calling it "irrelevant." Thus, all the editors involved in the section were those few I wrote to yesterday (none of whom seem to be actively editing at Wiki these days, in any case), and then me and those others involved in the current dispute, all of whom are fully aware of my opinions on the article and the expunging of this material. So I don't see who else there should have been.

I would have assumed that the administrators of Wiki would want to help the situation, which is why I reached out and asked for protection of the article. There happen to be just a few ardent, aggressive Neo-Darwinist editors dealing with the article right now, aside from me. Of course, all of their comments will say that I am the one who is "biased" or against NPOV, etc, etc, needless to say.

But I ask you this: when the most widely used academic textbook for university-level study of Earth system science (Kump, Kasting and Crane) has discussion of the interrelationship near its opening, and first teaches students about mechanisms of Earth system science through something taken from Gaia theory (Daisyworld, used as the title of the book's chapter 2), what exactly, in your opinion, would be the justification for NOT having a discussion about the range of views on the relationship between Earth system science and Gaia theory in this article? Remember, I have simply been asking other editors not to remove the section, and to instead add their own edits to it.

I look forward to your response, and thanks so much again for your time and attention!! Terradactyl (talk) 16:13, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Terradactyl, as an example you wrote to editors, "If you care about this material, it could surely use more editors who don't feel the need to expunge "Gaia" from the discussion!!" A neutral notification would have simply consisted of, "There is a discussion regarding Gaia on Talk:Earth system science you may be interested in."

Administrators will use their tools to protect pages from disruption but are precluded from weighing in on content as "admins". That is, for content matters they are treated as regular (albeit experienced) editors. This is to prevent them from gaining any unfair advantage when deciding content. In this particular case, I have more restrictions placed on me because of WP:INVOLVED. I can't use my admin powers and weigh in on content for the same matter. I can advise generally on Wikipedia policies and guidelines but can't say, "you're right" or "they're right". Editors seem to think there should be some material on Gaia but not what is there currently. Can you propose a revised version on the talk page? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:46, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks again, Neil - Yes, OK, I see what you are after, and I'll change that (although there won't be any other notifications like those of the other day, in any case). So, not just neutrality about the information content of the subject itself, but a more general neutrality about the process of Wiki as well. That isn't what I had understood, but it makes sense. I'll try........

If you get the chance to look at the Talk page, which only had a few sentences when I started posting there earlier this summer, you see that lots of ink has been spilled over this, much of it mine......

Cheers, Terradactyl (talk) 19:45, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi

Could Nat Fyfe please be semi protected. Just won a league MVP award and is being bombarded by IPs and new users vandalising the page. DaHuzyBru (talk) 13:34, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

DaHuzyBru, Three days. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:39, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Adnan Sami

Hi Neil, Hope you are doing fine! I saw you declined my request of semi protection, my reason for semi protection is just to stop act of Vandalism on Adnan's Profile. If you see all the famous Bollywood actors pages are Protected for ex salman khan, aamir khan etc. Adnan Sami is in the same league and due to recent controversy related to his citezenship, he is exposed to too many trolls and vandalism. With due respect i will request you to reconsider the same. have a nice day ahead vaibhavthedestroyer--- 13:25, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Vaibhav.times. Please look at our protection policy. Articles are not protected preemptively and there isn't enough recent disruption to merit protection. If you look at the section above this one, you'll see an article which has the level of disruption necessary for protection. [19] Also, can you please fix your signature? It must contain at least one link to your user or talk page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:46, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Spinnin' Records

Hello, Sorry to bother you, but I have noticed that you have placed a note on the article Spinnin' Records stating to only include individuals with their own article (it seems as though this is due to a disruptive editor). However, I feel that for the completeness of the article, all artists should be included. Would it be possible for you to remove this notation? AnonymousMusician (talk) 23:43, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi AnonymousMusician. Another editor added that note, not me. However it is consistent with our WP:LISTPEOPLE guideline. Wikipedia articles don't aim for completeness but rather a summary of what is notable. You can add people without articles if you also provide sources to show they are notable. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:29, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Advice on what to do about User:Westleft?

Westleft (talk · contribs)... What do you think would be the best approach for dealing with this editor's troubling editing? I'm all pumped up to report this editor at WP:ANI now. First, I need to gather more evidence. I'd already given the editor a stern warning months ago. And since that time, this editor's problematic editing has continued. I wouldn't trust this editor to edit even an article about a children's book. Flyer22 (talk) 00:04, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Flyer22, I would probably pick three recent problematic edits and ask Westleft to explain them. If you're not satisfied with their explanations then ANI could be the next step. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:34, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I'll wait to see if Westleft replies to my latest post on his or her talk page. And no need to WP:Ping me, Neil, you know I've watched your talk page for some time now. Flyer22 (talk) 00:42, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, force of habit :-) --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:43, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Request for comment!

Would love you to comment on this discussion about what qualifies as a current wildfire if you have a moment. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 00:12, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Zackmann08. Where is the discussion that triggered the RFC? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:42, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

The discussion arose from a disagreement between myself and another editor. Rather than get into a reverting war, I figured I would start an RfC. (see this edit for example [20]). Tried to post the RfC with as neutral a tone as possible and waited for someone else to vote before I voiced my opinion. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 03:37, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Action needed

Hi Neil. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Mohombi_Nzasi_Moupondo Thanks. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:32, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Acroterion got them. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:38, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Detroit Fire Department

Can you please help me and give me some advice? Literally every other fire department page on Wikipedia has had the section that lists Closed/disbanded fire companies removed from their page. It is an established convention. Listing out these stations violates WP:NOTSTATSBOOK and has been outlined in the Project (see: WP:FIRE-STRUCT). Yet an anonymous user with an ever changing IP address continues to come in every few weeks and revert the changes bringing this list back. The latest time, I reverted their edit, ONE time, and they immediately accused me of edit warring and re-reverted my edit: [21]. I've gotten myself into hot water before here and would really like your assistance. I have tried talking to the user, no response.--Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 04:39, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

what is wrong?

many muslims asked you to remove the picture in prophet Muhammad's(peace be upon him) article. the reason for us is it is not appropriate and can consider haram. i though there is respect in the belief of the religion in this website and there is respect in the viewers as long. i am 100% sure nothing wrong when the pictures removed. Simpleabd (talk) 12:15, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Simpleabd, I see you are edit warring with multiple editors on multiple articles. Please stop now or you will be blocked. Wikipedia articles are not written in accordance with religious beliefs. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:28, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

why change topic? i am just trying to contribute here. i am not trying to disrespect the article. Simpleabd (talk) 12:40, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Simpleabd, but you are disrespecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines which, on Wikipedia, supersede the Quran or any religious beliefs. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:45, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Fringe Beliefs

Thanks for the heads up NeilN! I was only trying to be more fair toward other beliefs about the beginning of life. I want to help other people make a more informed decision about their worldview and I will not force a choice on anyone. Evolution has not been conclusively proven so I was trying to make the article not sound like it was. Thanks for helping to make Wikipedia an educational and clean place! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Milku3459 (talk • contribs) 15:00, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Milku3459, evolution is not about the "beginning of life" so right off the bat, you have a problem. And yes, mainstream scientists believe the mechanisms of evolution have been conclusively proven. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:08, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Let me quote directly from the Wiki.

Evolutionary history of life "Highly energetic chemistry is thought to have produced a self-replicating molecule around 4 billion years ago, and half a billion years later the last common ancestor of all life existed. The current scientific consensus is that the complex biochemistry that makes up life came from simpler chemical reactions. The beginning of life may have included self-replicating molecules such as RNA and the assembly of simple cells." Evolution is not all about the beginning of life but part of it is. I don't think all scientists agree on evolution. http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/scientists/ http://www.reviewevolution.com/press/pressRelease_100Scientists.php I'll try to edit more less sensitive topics first. Maybe then you will trust me. Milku3459 (talk) 15:23, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

comment: If evolution really is about the origin of life, then how come people do not need to know what the identity of the first life form was in order to study morphological trends among successive generations of trilobites or fish, or to breed chickens and orchids?--Mr Fink (talk) 15:30, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Milku3459, mainstream scientists, not fringe theory pushers or ones who have no relevant expertise. A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism is worth a read. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:32, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Could you please add a monthly OKBot update to these two website articles on Wikipedia

On this article, The Numbers (website):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Numbers_(website)

If you open the article for editing as you see in this link:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Numbers_(website)&action=edit

You will see in the infobox website that it lists it's Alexa rating as being updated monthly by OKBot, but I've been checking this article from time to time and it has NEVER been automatically updated by OKBoT, I've been having to update the month Alexa stats by hand, can you fix this so OKBot DOES update this section of this article automatically each month:

|alexa = 53,289 (September 2015)< name="alexa">"The-numbers.com Site Info". Alexa Internet. Updated monthly by OKBot.

Could also update this PopMatters article to also have OKBot update the website Alexa statistics for each month as well:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popmatters

As you can see in this link when you try and edit:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=PopMatters&action=edit

The website infobox lists Alexa as having OKBot updating it's new Alexa settings each month, and the bot hasn't been updating the statistics for the site each month, again, I've had to do it by hand with editing:

| alexa = 26,315 (September 2015)<name="alexa">"PopMatters Site Info". Alexa Internet. Updated monthly by OKBot.

I'm not sure if you're the one to ask about fixing this, thanks. Neptune's Trident (talk) 16:31, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Neptune's Trident. OKBot was blocked in 2014 for messing up articles. [22] Its operator, OsamaK, doesn't seem too active. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:40, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Okay, thanks anyway! Neptune's Trident (talk) 17:59, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Voyage60

That SPA is warring again.-Lute88 (talk) 18:01, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Lute88, blocked again. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:11, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

thanks...-Lute88 (talk) 18:22, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Another warrior

I don't know if this is in your competence, but there is anohter one, different style 2RRs per period https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Againstdisinformation .-Lute88 (talk) 18:52, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Lute88, if you're talking about Human rights in Venezuela I've already posted to the talk page and another admin has fully protected the article. However sanctions against that editor will probably need another ANI thread. [23] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:05, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

List of monarchs by nickname

You protected the page List of monarchs by nickname from a persistent vandal, the protection has expired and the anonymous vandal is back with his insertion of "Tut the Nut". Please could you reinstate the protection or perhaps devise some other means of discouraging the vandalism. Thanks Dabbler (talk) 17:34, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Dabbler, PC protected another six months. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:41, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Question Concerning 1 Revert per 24-hour period

User:NeilN, Hi. I have been informed that all articles related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, broadly construed, are under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24-hour period). I understood this to mean that we cannot "undo" another editor's edit more than once in a 24-hour period. But does this also mean that if a certain editor was displeased with one aspect of my edit, and deleted it entirely, that I cannot come back and make the correction according to his directives (reason for deleting)? Or, if I re-worded my original statement so that the general text differs from the first, would that also be considered "making two reverts" in a 24-hour period? I am in need of this clarification, since an editor on the WP-page West Bank has addressed me on my personal Talk-Page that I may have infringed the rule of one revert per 24-hour period, when, in actuality I only reworded my edit to alleviate a certain difficulty. Please check my edits on the page West Bank. Thanks. Give advice.Davidbena (talk) 18:03, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Davidbena. On a WP:1RR article when an editor reverts your revert and indicates why, it's best to talk to that editor, propose your tweaked wording, and get their agreement before editing the article again. You did break WP:1RR (inadvertently, I know) as you are reverting back in the same concept. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:56, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Neil. So, should I delete my edit, and open-up a discussion about its relevance?Davidbena (talk) 18:59, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Davidbena, yes, I think self-reverting would be the wisest course of action. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:02, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Done.Davidbena (talk) 19:03, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Arthur Miller

Thank's for fixing my mistake. Was trying to revert the vandalism and obviously reverted something I shouldn't have in the process. Appreciate you cleaning it up! --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:49, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Refiling for semi-protection

Hi, NeilN! Just leaving a quick message to let you know that I did understand you meant that I need to re-file this page, I've just decided to wait and see if the other two I filed about get semi-protected. If not, there's no point in re-filing the third. Sorry again for my error, I know that must have seemed like an odd request to you (especially since that 2010s page is such a minor one). I will be more careful in the future. Thanks, again!Cebr1979 (talk) 23:20, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Cebr1979, no need to apologize. Far from the oddest thing I've seen at RFPP :-) --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:22, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

AN discussion you might be interested in

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Étienne Dolet (talk) 07:07, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

IPsock of banned User:Vote (X) for Change again

Special:Contributions/89.240.30.105. Thanks, JoeSperrazza (talk) 12:07, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Blocked by @Acroterion: thanks, JoeSperrazza (talk) 12:23, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/188.222.175.101. Thanks, JoeSperrazza (talk) 01:00, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Caste AE

Just to clarify, we shouldn't be looking for a category as the proposal is to add individual articles and/or individual talk pages to the list. This would be very similar to the current filter except that it'd cover many articles instead of one. Noting here instead of responding there as you may want to modify your post as opposed to having a discussion there. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 13:13, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

@SpacemanSpiff: That would mean admins would have to enlist the help of a edit filter manager, correct? Any idea how filter efficiency would compare between say a list of fifty articles versus a category? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:21, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

@SpacemanSpiff: But, Space, there's a suggestion on the table at AE from EdJohnston (and I mention it too, in my TL;DR bouquet of responses) that the restricted caste articles should form a category of their own. (Unless I misunderstood Ed.) Don't you think that's a good idea? That category could then be, hmmm, edit filtered. Right? Bishonen | talk 13:30, 1 October 2015 (UTC).

Neil and Bishonen, if you look at {{Ds/talk caste}} that adds talk pages to a category. See an example for the usage at User talk:SpacemanSpiff/sandbox2/req. It can be modified for the article to add the article into the category, so that shouldn't be an issue. I was under the impression that pulling from a category wasn't possible, but I could very well be mistaken and if it could, then it eases up the workload. —SpacemanSpiff 13:36, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

SpacemanSpiff, in my post, I pinged MusikAnimal to get their input as I don't know if anyone participating in that discussion is an edit filter manager. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:46, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Oh, and there's a bigger problem with a category pull:Any editor can add an article/talk page to the category; any editor with over 500/30 can remove the category. This would in effect make it a non-admin DS. :) —SpacemanSpiff 13:48, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

SpacemanSpiff Actually, I thought about this. I don't know if it's possible as I don't know if filters work on diffs or the entire content, but if they work on diffs, maybe a second edit filter allowing only admins to place and remove {{Ds/talk caste}}. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:53, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Hey MusikAnimal, can you please chime in here too? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:05, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Sure. For one, I think it will be trivially more expensive to target articles by name than it will to target a certain category, but using a category might make it easier to manage. Then you do have the potential that some editors might remove the category, knowing it's what's triggering the edit filter. An additional filter just to see if they add/remove the category is certainly possible, but a bit overkill if you ask me. We want to minimize filter usage where possible. We could instead use an embedded comment "don't remove this category or else!" (except you know, not as threatening). It seems to me than any editor with over 500 edits over 30 days will see it and understand the implications of circumventing restrictions imposed by the filter. Either way I think this filter should be combined with the Gamergate one, and everything we've discussed thus far won't prohibit that. — MusikAnimal ^talk 14:15, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Another thought, if there's some common necessary template (navbox maybe?) being used across all the concerned articles, you could add the category there and fully protect it, but shutting out other editors from contributing to that template is less than ideal — MusikAnimal ^talk 14:19, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

MusikAnimal, I created {{Ds/talk caste}} for this purpose, but it obviously has to have a modified version -- something similar to {{Pp}} if it is to be used in article space too. I've tested it out at User talk:SpacemanSpiff/sandbox2/req and you'll see the category play there (right now it uses the test categories X1, X2, X3, feel free to play around with different iterations of the template on that page (and also fix the errors I've made on the template/documentation! It's the first non-navbox template I've made). Another question, would it be any easier if this was a list on a single page instead of a category? I think that might be a more workable solution from a practical standpoint as we wouldn't have to keep checking to see if someone's removed it or added it incorrectly. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 17:40, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm a complete and total idiot... when I said the filter can check for a category, I meant that it checks for it as it does for any text; e.g. literally looking for the syntax [[Category:Something]] in the article body. So obviously a transcluded category isn't going to work... sorry for that misleading idea. However if you go about your idea in using a template that will work just as well, as we can just look for the template instead of the category. Additionally, the transcluded category is still kind of favourable for organizational purposes, just know it won't work functionally by itself.

Aside from that, the edit filter won't be able to check the contents of a page and filter an edit going to another page (it can act on one page only), so I still think your template approach is best. I really like the idea of making a padlock for this restriction, then it's almost like a whole new level of protection that will be handled by a single filter. This is a nice workaround to a protection level that doesn't exist in the software. That begs the question, though, would pending changes level 2 with semi-protection suffice? That's a native way to handle it that's a little more inline with the "openness" philosophy of Wikipedia. There's no consensus to use it, but I believe we actually did use it with Gamergate controversy at one point, and given we're about to add a new article to a similar restriction, I bet consensus could change to favour it with the backing of ArbCom. Just a thought... we can get by just fine with the edit filter as well. — MusikAnimal ^talk 17:53, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

And about the template... I was thinking it could work just like the {{pp}} templates, where you have a banner and a padlock (the latter invoked with small=yes). If an article is put under this 500 edits over 30 days restriction, you'll surely want some notice on the talk page. So, you could use the same template there. If you want different wording since it's the talk page, we could use magic words and parser functions to give that flexibility. There'd be some other parameter such as filtercheck=yes that would be what the filter is looking for (so {{Ds\/Protect.*\|\s*filtercheck\s*=\s*yes (or similar regex), and you could use that param on the article or talk page accordingly. How does that sound? — MusikAnimal ^talk 18:12, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

That sounds like Greek to me. Not being a techie, I'm completely unfamiliar with the latter part of what you've said, I made this template reading through the help page and looking at a couple of other samples and that's about the extent of my knowledge! But if you think there's a better way to handle this I'm completely for it, I thought we'd need two (like you say, we do need the banner announcement on the talk page, but not all talk pages of corresponding articles will be under this restriction) but I take it I'm mistaken. Feel free to do any necessary modifications (I've left a note at the AE page linking to the current version, so if you make any significant changes you can note it there). This may be a dumb question, but couldn't a filter be made to look at Wikipedia:Pages under 500/30 restrictions and work off of the links or unlinked titles from that? cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 18:25, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

• It worries me to see Pending Changes 2 mentioned. (And somebody went there at AE too, I think, though I can't seem to find it.) For my part I will be quite discouraged and give up trying to admin the area if we should be referred to PC2, and to trying yet again to get consensus for that old chestnut. Why not just do a 500/30 restriction already? You see all the uninvolved admins at AE agreeing to it? How could another year or two arguing about PC2 possibly be simpler? Sitush will be long gone by the time something happens on that front. Bishonen | talk 19:42, 1 October 2015 (UTC).

I wasn't around for the original debate, so I wouldn't know. It was just a thought, an edit filter works just as well in this case. However I got to thinking, as much as I like the template idea, we face the potential of any ole editor adding it to some other page, and that page will get locked up until someone comes by and removes the template. Now, we can add an additional filter that only allows admins to add/remove the template, no problem, but I only see that as worthwhile if we have numerous articles under the new filter-enforced restriction. It also just feels weird having a new level of protection at our disposal without broader consensus for its usage. I suppose so long as it's only imposed by arbcom it's fine. Anyway listing out the page names individually in the filter might be the best route I think for now. How many pages are we talking about anyway? — MusikAnimal ^talk 00:12, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

MusikAnimal, I see this as starting off with maybe 10-12 pages (in addition to the two already included). But this will likely be a dynamic list and there could be short term additions and removals sometimes. Which is why my earlier question on whether a page Wikipedia:Pages under 500-30 restrictions with listings either of article links or just bare titles would be a feasible solution. If the filter could be made to check that list, then admins who do the arb enforcement action can be made to directly enter/remove from that page and the filter could work off of that without an edit filter rights ed having to manually change it every time. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 03:54, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't clarify! As far as content goes, edit filters work only off of the edit itself and the affected page. There's no way to fetch the content of another page beforehand, unfortunately :( I want to move forward with the template idea combined with another filter allowing only admins to add/remove it. This would allow the usage to scale and do so without filter modifications. I don't really do ArbCom or honestly even know how to read those pages... are the arbitrators in agreeance with this idea? Perhaps we should write back there and clarify what we've come up with. It's just a big move to allow the addition of a little template impose such a powerful editing restriction. You don't think we need more community input? I'm indifferent... I just don't want to implement it and get brought to ArbCom myself =P — MusikAnimal ^talk 04:19, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

@MusikAnimal: First we need to get approval for admins to implement the 500/30 restriction on any caste article which is regularly disrupted. That's at AE. This is a discussion on how to technically implement the restriction if approved. The simplest way is to have an admin contact an edit filter manager (EFM) every time a change is required to the list. I was exploring ways where admins did not need the assistance of a EFM. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:40, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you

Hi Neil. I wish to thank you for your comments and support during this incident. I am thankful that this place has admins like you. Take care. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 14:51, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

full protection

I dont think full protection is necessary at Jewish Israeli stone throwing, there is one IP hopping user that has vandalized other pages (eg here). Semi-protection I think would be a better choice. nableezy - 17:07, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Same for List of Palestinians killed and injured by Israelis in connection with stone or Molotov cocktail throwing nableezy - 17:07, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I have warned the editor for the talk page edit. However Plot Spoiler is right. [24] The IP's content edits are not outright vandalism and reverts need edit summaries. Those articles are also under WP:1RR as is Palestinian stone-throwing. I chose to fully protect rather than hand out blocks. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:23, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Well the 1RR doesnt apply to reverts of IP addresses, and when you combine the repeated removal of sourced content, the outright falsification of content (eg here) the vandalism of users comments on talk pages (eg here) I dont feel that any of the edits require any explanation beyong rvv. nableezy - 17:29, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I see POV-pushing but not obvious falsification so you'll have to point that out to me. Also, you are at six reverts of non-vandal edits at Palestinian stone-throwing. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:42, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

The obvious falsification is calling Hebron a city in the Israeli West Bank. But seriously here, you have somebody using multiple IPs across articles and talk pages making repeated reversions without any comment (with 9 reverts on that same page, all involving removing sourced material without comment), but the three users, all with thousands of edits in this topic area, and all are reverts are the same here? nableezy - 18:06, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

@Nableezy: If you want sanctions against the IP then the place to propose them is WP:ANI or WP:ANEW (before reverting six times please). And the three editors making reverts here should know enough to provide edits summaries for the reverts. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:04, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

All right fine, but, I just want to impress upon you how tedious this stuff can be. Its a regular occurrence in this topic area, an IP, or a few depending on how dedicated the person is with jumping between IPs, will go through a bunch of articles and make garbage changes. I mean changes that no experienced user on any side of the topic would make with their actual account. Like calling a settlement in the West Bank a city in Israel. They do this without making any comments and revert for a few hours, then they get bored and go away. I think it was Zero0000 who wrote somewhere that cleaning up this crap is just one of the rote practices that editors do, and its one of the reasons why when the 1rr was first implemented in the topic area it didnt include edits by IPs. When something like that happens I revert and ask for semi-protection, and when thats added the IP either, if they are a genuinely interested new user trying to make a positive impact on the encyclopedias coverage on these topics, goes to the talk page and raises his or hers objections or the IP goes away. I say either or, but it really is just the or. Fully protecting those articles, or not semi protecting it and leaving them open, stops people interested in actually improving them. You want to say the IP edits are not outright vandalism fine, but making us go through the hassle of going to ANI every time somebody does this same crap for two hours and disappears would make it so there was no time for anything but that. nableezy - 19:18, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

User evading block

Hello, I am sorry to bring bad news but an editor you blocked, Asdisis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is evading block again. First he has done it by using several IP accounts at Talk:Serbs of Croatia, and now he is doing it with a new account, Relichal1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). He just went on editing the same issues he edited prior being blocked, such as Croatian Military Frontier (at the Kingdom of Croatia (Habsburg) article), issues regarding Serbian-Croatian dispute on sucession of Yugoslavia, and he even came to one of my discussions at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. You can see it all in his contributions, it is not much. He must have thought that I woudn't report him, since no one did it previously at Serbs of Croatia when he used IPs. But it is clearly him. FkpCascais (talk) 18:56, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

@FkpCascais: I'm pinging Drmies as they placed the initial block (I just removed talk page access) and I have to head out soon. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:08, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh God not that one again. Drmies (talk) 19:09, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

OK I gotta run too; I did not see a cause for a block immediately; the best thing to do is to add it to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Asdisis and see if there's still CU evidence available. Getting such info is handy since it's likely that there's more of these socks; note how little overlap there is between these two accounts. And thrown in the IPs as well. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 19:14, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

BTW, I'll be happy to semi-protect Talk:Serbs of Croatia. Feel free to archive the lot. Drmies (talk) 19:16, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Serbs of Croatia has been calm for a while now, so there may be no reason now for protecting it. I am gonna add it then at the sock investigation. Thanks. PS: he has been active for most of the time, but no one really had the patience to report him, we just all ignored him. Also, he announced he would be evading block by changing IPs and making new accounts. He also mentioned that he has many sleeping accounts. So the problem of how permanently to solve it seems complicated. FkpCascais (talk) 19:39, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

What's going on? FkpCascais I came to your discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard trough your contributions since I saw it is regarding Yugoslavia. I supported your opinion there. Well the right opinion, not yours in particular. That is the way I came here too. I'm looking at contributions of that other user and I can't see him editing, even once, any of the articles I have edited. You named several articles both I and him had edited, but I can't see any of them in his contributions. I'm confused, Why are you lying? Relichal1 (talk) 19:41, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Please stop evading block and go to your talk-page and make the proper procedures for unblocking request. FkpCascais (talk) 20:12, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I asked you. Why are you lying and why have you wasted my time making me go trough the other editor's contributions to find not a single common article which we both edited(and you named several)? I'm close to reporting you of harassment. Relichal1 (talk) 20:46, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

The person who allegedly just created an account and is a newcomer, went on looking at my contributions and recent discussions, is speaking about harass? And is familiar with wiki rules and reports? And has same editing patterns as one indef-blocked editor who was engaged in discussions with me? Hummmm all coincidence? ... He is now edit-warring at the same articles he has done it before. FkpCascais (talk) 21:35, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Obvious sock is obvious. I have blocked again. Let me know on my talk page if this character returns. They seem incapable of hiding their idiosyncratic style and are thus easy to recognize. HighInBC 21:39, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks HighInBC. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:32, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Twinkle problems

Hi Neil, are you having these Twinke problems [25]? - Kautilya3 (talk) 09:22, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: No, I'm not. See this. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:11, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

White power music

You might want to look again at protecting the page, given that the IP has returned. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:27, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

@Ghmyrtle: I've blocked the IP. I will keep an eye on the article and protect if a third IP shows up. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:28, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Close analysis

Only one user has been edit warring, and made over 3 reverts in 24 hours,[26][27][28] and 2 edits at start without gaining consensus priorhand.[29][30] Not to forget about the very hostile discussion at the talk page, "reply makes zero sense. I mean literally zero",[31] and again "you continue to make zero sense. I mean literally zero sense".[32] I think that better choice was to simply block him or topic ban. Currently you have protected a non-consensus version. D4iNa4 (talk) 14:22, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

D4iNa4, I think you mean I didn't protect your preferred version. Given that multiple editors on both sides are edit warring over what seems to be a longstanding issue, I'm okay with that. See WP:WRONGVERSION. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:35, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Agree. Can you consider having a watch on this article? Because this is turning into battleground. D4iNa4 (talk) 14:42, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

D4iNa4, any page I touch goes on my watchlist. However, if disruption continues after protection expires feel free to leave a note here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:46, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry

Okay. I apologize for what I did. It won't happen again. CLCStudent (talk) 20:43, 2 October 2015 (UTC) I want to let you know I gave a level 1warning and a level 2 warning before. The user deleted those warning. CLCStudent (talk) 20:45, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi CLCStudent, they are allowed to delete warnings. A better response to this was not another templated warning but something like this. I know it's likely that message will be ignored but at least we tried to reach out. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:51, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

A Star for You!

		The Admin's Barnstar
		Your dedicated efforts to Wikipedia to keep its integrity are appreciated. Wishing you happy moments both at Wikipedia and in your life. -AsceticRosé 04:18, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Neil, let me also add my appreciation for all the work you do in keeping control. Please make sure you get enough sleep! - Kautilya3 (talk) 09:52, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi! Thank you very much for semi-protecting the UAAP Cheerdance Competition article. I really appreciate you for taking action to further stop further vandalism of this article.

-Best wishes, Boogie314 (talk) 12:55, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

@AsceticRose, Kautilya3, and Boogie314: Thanks everyone! And Kautilya3, lucky for me I don't need a lot of sleep :-) --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:03, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

October 2015

Your recent editing history at Cuckservative shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.--Cuckservative (talk) 13:53, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Cuckservative, see WP:BLP. If you think a blog which has a header of "Would you like some fag marriage with that side of waffle fries?" is a reliable source then you have no business editing here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:06, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I have no problem with you removing the names cited by the Right Stuff blog. However, Breitbart News is one of conservative media's leading voices and a legitimate source. You also haven't respond to my talkpage inquiry about similar lists such as [[Hanjian#Notable_persons_deemed_to_be_hanjians with no citations whatsoever. You have no business editing here if you think you own the articles.--Cuckservative (talk) 14:10, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Talk page stalker here. See this diff. Checking the front page of Breitbart for a few moments I would have reason to be doubtful as well. ~ NottNott talk|contrib 14:18, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Actually, part of what the community expects me to do here is look out for BLP violations. And I was responding while you posted here. I pointed out your request was irrelevant. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:20, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Un-Protection Request

Although I had originally requested page protection, do you mind removing the page protection of Koh people per this discussion? Please ping me upon reply. --JustBerry (talk) 17:43, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

@JustBerry: I've dropped it down to PC. Let's see if that serves the same purpose. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:34, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Agree - that might be optimal, actually. --JustBerry (talk) 18:35, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Is there a way to

Hi, do you know or is there way to undo the reverts that I have done to my talk page? I want all my messages back so that it would be both easy for me and the users who wants to leave me a message. (time saving). There are some swearing in Turkish, I can delete them after they are reverted. Thanks for taking the time to read my mesaage.Ashur (talk) 18:25, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ashur. You can look at and access past history here. For example, clicking on July 30, 2015 gives you this. You cannot undo all your reverts as you would get edit conflicts with newer posts. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:32, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply Neil. I wanted to get all my talk page back but it seems there's no way to do it. I already knew that you can look at the history and taught getting the talk page fully back might make it easier. Thanks for your time spent on my behalf.Ashur (talk) 06:46, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Section blanking when edited in good faith

Dear NeilN, per WP:HTRIVIA hints I was adding a Continuity errors section to the Rachel Green(e) article. I was confused as to why the page title was Rachel Green but the infobox and lead sentence both said Rachel Greene. She's one of the main fictional characters on Friends (Jennifer Aniston). Anywho I started crafting the section and Betty Logan reverted my efforts part way through with a WP:TRIVIA comment. I reverted back with a WP:HTRIVIA note and I put an inline edit note. I placed an {{in use}} banner on the page and went back to crafting my section was almost done and Betty Logan blanked the section again. By the way at least half of the Talk-Page comments are about Green/Greene. It sure confused me. I also changed the lead to mention both names with the intention of expanding on the "why" in the Continuity errors section.

The WP:HTRIVIA hints have a lot of good suggestions for other Editors who land on an article and the HTRIVIA advice is to improve the section rather than deleting the section.

From reading the Talk page there is acknowledgment that Green/Greene issue is worthy of discussion

I need your advice on how to soft pedal this. My in-use banner is still up. I'll go take it down until I hear from you. Thanks and cheers! Checkingfax (talk) 23:25, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Checkingfax. Did you read the other editor's post on the talk page? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:33, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes. Betty Logan seems overly wound up to me. Betty Logan is more like a SPA than I am. Rachel Green(e) is a GA and I've apparently encroached on some forbidden turf :) Blanking my section with an in-use banner up is harsh. Sigh. Checkingfax (talk) 23:49, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Checkingfax, probably the best way to approach this is to find secondary sources for the material you want to add. That would address her objection and show notability. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:00, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Continuity errors from TV shows don't get coverage AFAIK. Hmmm. WP:HTRIVIA does not address that. The GA reviewer stated that not all plot discussions have to be sourced. Is there a disconnect? Sigh. Checkingfax (talk) 00:14, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Checkingfax, plots do not have to be sourced as the show itself is the source. However what constitutes a continuity error can be a matter of interpretation so it needs a source (same with any plot analysis - e.g., this is the scene where X first fell in love with Y). Also, if you look at secondary sources, you're going to get coverage of the plot. This is not the case with continuity errors (as you said) as they're deemed less important. This is also reflected in our articles. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:27, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Yeah. There are five heavy paragraphs on her hair ("The Rachel") but I was going to keep the name continuity error down to 100 words or less even though it has consumed 9 years of Talk page debate/discussion. Checkingfax (talk) 00:40, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Please help

Hi, coud you help me with this user he is constantly attacking me with ad hominems, mocking me in his summaries, edit warring, etc. There is something that you, or else, can do? See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Owen 'Alik Shahadah, Black_people#Arabslavetrade.com, User talk:Rupert loup#I have asked and Asked and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive_189#arabslavetrade.com. Rupert Loup (talk) 05:57, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

YOu need help, what recruiting WP:CANVAS to help you crusade. You are edit warring across numerous articles, articles you have no history of editing on, all to wipe out someone WP:IDONTLIKE--Inayity (talk) 06:38, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Rupert Loup, hmmm, yes. It seems that both of you were blocked for edit warring but you successfully appealed your block. Pretty poor behavior by Inayity in some edits, attacking different editors rather than focusing on content, removing an AFD tag, and using IMDB and Google searches as sources. Hopefully they will adjust this after their block expires. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:59, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:RPP

Hi, Neil,
I wanted to help out more at this noticeboard and I had a question. You gave indefinite semi-protection to the user page User:Anjana Larka because of a report of persistent vandalism. But when I looked at the page, only the editor had edited his userpage. I didn't think user pages were protected unless there had been active vandalism so I was just wondering if my understanding of page protection is incorrect. Thanks for any advice you can offer, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:52, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Liz. This is where policy and practice may differ as the policy is somewhat unclear. WP:UPROT states, "User pages and subpages can be protected upon a simple request from the user, as long as a need exists—pages in userspace should not be automatically or pre-emptively protected." The related close here adds further nuance but is also not completely clear. How I read this (and I'm taking a cue from past admin actions) is that user pages may be protected preemptively upon a simple request but user talk pages may not. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:05, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Okay, that helps, NeilN. I appreciate the explanation. I've seen page protection requests declined because of a lack of recent vandalism to the page but it seems to be more of a judgment call for user pages. Thank you for taking the time to respond so thoughtfully. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:16, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:RPP, part two

Would you mind if I reverted your protection change, or would you mind self-reverting, on {{clear}}? If I understand rightly, Steel meant basically "it's fully cascade protected, so there's no point in having template protection". Since this defeats the purpose of template-protection, I've removed {{clear}} from Wikipedia:Cascade-protected items, so as far as I can tell, the confusing situation mentioned by Steel is no longer going to arise. Nyttend (talk) 23:40, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Nyttend, absolutely no problem with you changing protection but when I edit the template, it still says it's cascade protected. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:52, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the permission, and thanks also for the heads-up. Turns out that several redirects were also transcluded on that page, and when {{A}} redirects to {{B}}, cascade-protecting A effectively protects B as well. I've removed them from the list and will protect them individually, since I've effectively unprotected some heavily-used redirects. I checked the template before removing the redirects and saw the warning you mentioned, and I've re-checked without seeing the warning, so I think we're now good. Nyttend (talk) 23:59, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Liga II

Do you want to help improving Liga II of Romanian football ? or Cupa Romaniei ? we already started but is a lot to edit. please help .. at least with a few seasons. thanks--Alexiulian25 (talk) 00:15, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar

Thanks for the story here. I think it's somewhat changed my perspective on Wikipedia editing. But, quite frankly, it's not just about one story. Despite how hard it might be to hear this admin's advice, it's definitely advice that will get you a long way as an editor. And, for that, in addition to all of your hard work at SPI, AIV, etc. I greatly appreciate all of your quality contributions, comments, etc. Well, we all do, to be fair. JustBerry (talk) 02:48, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Wait, I already gave you an admin's barnstar. Pfft. --JustBerry (talk) 02:49, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

V x f C yet again

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vote (X) for Change, Special:Contributions/86.150.228.250. Thanks! JoeSperrazza (talk) 13:04, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Possible unauthorized automated edits

Hello. I've been analyzing the contributions of Marioluigi98 (talk · contribs) and I reverted a lot of them. They seem like automated bot edits but I cannot be sure. Please advise. Fleet Command (talk) 20:21, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Fleet Command. I looked at their edits and nothing stood out for me. Their edits are not that high speed. Have you asked them how they're choosing articles to edit? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:52, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Can we please talk?

Hi, so I'm the user that put in the report to protect Delirium. I did that because the same user was repeatedly adding incorrect information to the page. And when I say repeatedly, I mean about 20 times. I kept removing it, but they kept adding it, so I wanted the page to be protected. I take it that you are an administrator, so I wanted to ask you why you seem to view me as a bad person. You and livelikemusic both seem to have serious problems with me, and I'm not sure what I did to cause that. Have I added some incorrect information to pages? Yes. But when they've been removed and explained to me why, I did not re-add it. Why, then, do you guys have a bigger problem with me than the user who re-added it 20 times? See, people make mistakes, right? No one's perfect. And when I've been told that I made a mistake, I accept it and move on. This user did not. I just don't understand why you guys are picking on me (I read yours and livelikemusic's comments on my report for Delirium). I'm actually really offended. Is this the way you guys talk about other users? Because as an administrator, that does not seem professional. Please leave me a message on my page with your thoughts, because I am beyond confused as to why you and livelikemusic have a problem with me.

So, I've been trying to talk to you on livelikemusic's page, but they keep deleting my comments. Is there any reason why you guys are ignoring me? I'm really starting to regret making this account... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smoore95GAGA (talk • contribs) 02:08, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

@Smoore95GAGA: Pretend you're someone who knows nothing about the topic. One person says this is the list of producers. Another person says no, this is the list. Then they proceed to tell each other they're wrong 20 times without showing the third person any proof. That's the situation here. Wikipedia content is built on verifiability, using reliable sources, not what editors think is correct or incorrect. Find sources for your content and everyone will be a lot happier. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:16, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

The source comes from the tracklist, which has Max Martin, Ilya and a few others listed as producers. That's where it came from. As a matter of fact, a few other people tried to delete the "Continuous" thing as well, they just didn't report it. Again, I did this because I thought it was for the good of the page. My information was sourced, theirs wasn't. How am I at fault here? Also, livelikemusic continues to delete my comments. They are handling this situation very immaturely. I realize that I have not been here as long as them. but I deserve just as much respect. Also, if you look at the page for Ellie Goulding's "On My Mind", they are doing the same thing, and several other users have tried to stop them. They won't stop. Smoore95GAGA (talk) 02:29, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

@Smoore95GAGA: livelikemusic is allowed to delete your comments from their talk page if they have nothing to say to you. Before I protected the article I asked you if you had a source for the producers. You responded, "Well, most of the songs are written by Max Martin, Savan Kotecha, Ryan Tedder and Calvin Harris..." Nothing about producers (I cannot assume writers are always producers). I still don't know what is your source for the tracklist that contains the producer names. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:32, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

iTunes is the source. And I actually didn't add the writers and producers for the tracklist. Someone else did, and they are a certified user, so it must be cited properly. Either way, "Continuous" was not listed in that original list. Smoore95GAGA (talk) 02:34, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

@Smoore95GAGA: Okay, that's part of the issue. There's no such thing as a "certified user". When it comes to this kind of stuff, we're all editors whose additions must be cited properly. I checked iTunes, got the tracklist, but no producer info. Did you check yourself? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:39, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

To be honest, I have no idea how to get the producer info. How would you do that? It all seems pretty real to me, if you look at the page. Nothing seems to be fake. I had just noticed that people are trying to delete that person's information, so I assumed it was false. Smoore95GAGA (talk) 02:41, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

@Smoore95GAGA: Again, you can't assume things are real or fake. You need to do your homework and find third party sources that confirm the info. Livelikemusic is good with that stuff for music and they're pretty cool if you take the time to listen to them and show a bit of patience (we're all volunteers here so we can choose when and if we want to get involved). Maybe they'll have some tips. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:48, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

See, that's my problem. You and Livelikemusic seem to be like best friends or something, and I don't understand that? It's like if a boss was friends with an employee. It's just not right. You should be neutral here, since you're an administrator. Not everything livelikemusic does is right, you know. And not everything I do is wrong. Smoore95GAGA (talk) 02:51, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

@Smoore95GAGA: Actually I'm pretty sure I've declined some of their protect and block requests before and I know we've had amicable disagreements on content. I'm just trying to point you to someone who knows a lot about how Wikipedia music articles are written and sourced. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:58, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Ok, well I don't know your guys' history, I just know that I've been doing my best to add correct information here, and I didn't like that you guys were talking about me in a disrespectful way. Smoore95GAGA (talk) 03:00, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

@Smoore95GAGA: I'm sorry you felt that way. It's clear now there was a misunderstanding about "certified users". --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:03, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Here is some advice from me as an uninvolved editor, Smoore95GAGA. The way that editors earn respect here on Wikipedia is by scrupulously complying with our policies and guidelines. In this specific situation, my advice is to never add or restore any content which is not verified by a published reliable source. And never, ever, ever engage in an edit war, even if you are 100% sure that you are right. Instead, take it to the talk page, work to build consensus, seek a third opinion, or pursue formal dispute resolution. Do things the right way. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:11, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Protected article

Hi, After edit warring the article Ottoman Empire is fully protected. It is understandable. But do you realize that the protected article now reflects only one of the two warring opinions, ie biased ? I think two opposing opinions should be stated before protection. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 07:27, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Nedim Ardoğa, please see WP:WRONGVERSION. Also, I believe the article is in the same state as it was before the edit war began. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:14, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Chinna Jeeyar

The July account is back as a slightly different IP and a new account. Can you take a look please? I thought it'd be IP-hopping this time, but the IP's been static for close to 24 hours. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 13:16, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

@SpacemanSpiff: Blocked two weeks. I'll keep an eye on the article. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:33, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. —SpacemanSpiff 13:34, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Supdiop

Hi Neil, I'm not sure if you're aware but our new friend's posted an incomprehensible question[33] as well as Support[34] (and then striking 3 mins later![35]), Don't really wanna revert all his edits but at the same time think it's unfair on Ian having to put up with his crap ?, Anyway wanted to make you aware, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 18:39, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

@Davey2010: [36] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:42, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I give it a week!, Ah well thanks anyway. –Davey2010^Talk 19:02, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Asking again for your professional advice

Hi, User:NeilN. I would like for your professional advice concerning an editor whom I feel is being very disruptive in an article which we have both taken great pains to write. We are both the chief contributors to the article Bayt Nattif, but, we have had our differences as to what is appropriate to add in this WP article. It concerns the history of the depopulated Arab-village, Bayt Nattif. Please review the history of that article, and, especially, the article's Talk page, under the sub-section: "..and yet again..." My disputant in this case is a Palestinian Arab woman by the name of Huldra. Any advice as to what is or is not appropriate will be greatly welcomed by me.Davidbena (talk) 02:27, 7 October 2015 (UTC)