User talk:NeilN

dogs again

What exactly did I do? I explained why they're not apex predators! TheFeralCat (talk) 17:34, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

TheFeralCat, editors don't care about your "explanations" if they're not accompanied by reliable published sources. I could "explain" why I thought dogs ate cats but I would get the same reception if I didn't provide sources. Stop edit warring and present sources. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:55, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Because there's no evidence dogs eat cats, and I can't show anything that say they don't, but I know they don't because all the things I've heard of dogs killing cats say they leave them, and the story with my dog, and my cat's mother story. TheFeralCat (talk) 18:51, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

TheFeralCat And no on is going to pay attention to your anecdotes. WP:V: "Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors." Other editors have told you this. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:12, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

it's a fact they don't eat cats. i can't produce proof but i know it's true, proof they do eat them? And everyone knows they leave them most of the time, so it would be more accurate to put that they kill them, and killing can lead to preying on anyway. TheFeralCat (talk) 20:48, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

TheFeralCat, can you please stop adding a new section every time you post? And "but i know it's true" is not an accepted rebuttal to sourced statements. Example from Dingo: Their consumption of domestic cats has also been proven. If you want other editors to listen to you, you need to provide sources that contradict existing sources. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:06, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

References

Ok, can I just say something? Killing can lead to preying on, and I need evidence they do eat cats. I know for a fact dogs almost always leave the cats they kill. If you put "kill", then that makes more sense, as if they kill them they usually leave them, and they can eat them after they kill them. If you let me edit this, and fix the wildcat page, I will never bother anything again. TheFeralCat (talk) 16:06, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

TheFeralCat, I'm acting as an administrator here, who has warned you against edit warring and tried to explain our verifiability and sourcing policies. If you want to make a change, you'll have to engage the editors opposing it. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:13, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Found this on dogs not eating cats: https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20111219204735AAu4a40 TheFeralCat (talk) 16:34, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

TheFeralCat, please actually read the reliable source guideline. Yahoo Answers is no better than "I know for a fact". --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:08, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

I forgot to follow through and actually revoke the talk page access. Thanks for catching that! OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:08, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

@Ohnoitsjamie: It was either that or have the page appear at the top of my watchlist for the next half-hour as the user made another twenty edits :-/ --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:12, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Oops!

Plip!

(or maybe a trout) to me for that revert. Thanks for cleaning it up! TheMesquito^buzz 02:16, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Protection level

Hi NieN, The Yo Yo Honey Singh is currently Semi-protected please set protection level of page to Pending changes protected (level 1). Thankyou. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Þørnø $ (talk • contribs) 13:19, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

@Þørnø $: It was RegentsPark who set the semi. You should ask them first. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:24, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

 Done NeilN, you have carte blanche to undo or change any admin action of mine!--regentspark (comment) 17:54, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

regentspark, thanks. I usually follow the guideline of asking the protecting admin first as they might have some insight as to why protection was set that way. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:59, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring on political correctness

I know that this is the standard complaint, but PC was left in the wrong version, the one that has nobody's agreement. Other editors had (and I just had) pointed to the possibility of DRN or RfC to the user you blocked. In the circumstances, may I revert once myself? Should I leave it to another 'regular'? There are actually few serious disputes on the article, most of us who have it on our watchlist, do so because we know it to be a target for pov-pushing from IP's and from newbie editors. Pincrete (talk) 20:44, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Pincrete, please leave it for another editor. Watchers of this talk page may chime in and have an independent look at the edit and discussion. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:49, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Could we get a block?

The IP 181.198.164.8 keeps changing the dates on Millennials and Generation Z. Could we get a warning and then a block if they persist? Thanks. 2606:6000:610A:9000:F802:B5B:AFCA:5526 (talk) 21:01, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Added an edit warring warning. Obviously I can't block but I'll keep an eye out. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:04, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Revdel at Wikipedia talk:Protection policy

Hi, you didn't need to do this nor did you need to revdel the edit of 20:16, 16 October 2015. Consider this situation on the same page from earlier this year: one bad edit, one revert; only the first edit needed to be revdelled. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:08, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

@Redrose64: One unnecessary revdel. Got it, thanks. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:25, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Redacting a sock puppet

Hi Neil, can you please redact puppets and masters related to puppet [[Warner Sun]]. Thank you. ...Checkingfax ( Talk ) 03:04, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

@Checkingfax: Redact? Not sure what you want me to do here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:17, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I was hoping you could vaporize their disruptive input to Wikipedia. Cheers! ...Checkingfax ( Talk ) 04:20, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

@Checkingfax: Can't do that as that's normal disruption and not covered by WP:CRD. There was an admin who tried that with another socker. He got taken to ANI and dramah ensued. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:26, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm... somewhere yesterday I read a blurb that it was SOP if requested. Thanks! ...Checkingfax ( Talk ) 04:28, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

review methods

Hey NeilN, I have started up reviewing again recently with the help of the new tool (not sure of the name but buttons appear on the side of my browser allowing me to mark pages as reviewed with a tick). I have generally been giving users the benefit of the doubt and in cases of articles that might not be notable I added more references needed, if there are no references, then I add the unref tag. I have been feeling the notability tag is a bit too harsh and not wanting to scare the newecombers away. As for that article that you linked, that's my bad as I felt since it was linked it wasn't an intended copyvio (i.e. person just added from that page with the intention of rewording it later). Of course if another person looks at the article and feels it should be deleted then I don't mind, as I feel an extra set of eyes having a look is better than me being bold and nominating the page for deletion. I hope this answers your question. Kind regards, Calaka (talk) 11:34, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Same reasoning for the trekking article. Giving it a chance for the person to add more references to prove its notability with additional articles/sources. If they do not respond or don't add more sources proving its notability, then I would agree to another user adding the article to be nominated for deletion/prod. Cheers.Calaka (talk) 11:37, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Hmm the Colleen article can be rewritten to be less promotional sounding, would you suggest they are not notable?Calaka (talk) 11:41, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Calaka, please stop reviewing and carefully read through Wikipedia:New pages patrol, noting the copyright violation instructions and: "Does the article have any other glaring issues? Try to fix them. If you can't, then check Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup for any appropriate cleanup tags that might need to be applied to the article." If you have reviewed an article, you cannot let copyright violations be dealt with by another editor. I don't see any speedy delete or prod tagging by you. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 11:51, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Apologies.Calaka (talk) 11:54, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Infobox mystery

Hello, I have a question. In the Presidents Cup info box, do you happen to know why the past year and the next year randomly decide whether they want to appear in the info box? ... If you look at the 2015 Presidents Cup info box, you will see that the year "2013" appears as the past year, but there is no "2017" appearing as the next year. On the other hand, if you look at the 2017 Presidents Cup info box, you will find that the past year "2015" is there, AND the next year "2019" (in red link) is there as well. ... These years appear randomly for some strange reason, and I don't see any way to control it within the info box. Do you know why this is the case, and do you know any way to get it within our control? Johnsmith2116 (talk) 17:26, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

@Johnsmith2116: My guess is that it's the template code but I cannot see what needs fixing. Pinging @Pigsonthewing and Nigej: for some ideas. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:53, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Beyond me; it may be worth asking at WP:VPT. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:06, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

The code for the next year in Template:Infobox team golf tournament is

{{#switch:{{{year}}}|2000=[[2003 {{{name}}}|2003 →]]|{{CURRENTYEAR}}=|{{#expr:{{CURRENTYEAR}}+1}}=|#default=[[{{#expr:{{{year}}}+2}} {{{name}}}|{{#expr:{{{year}}}+2}} →]]}}

Since {{{year}}} equals {{CURRENTYEAR}} on the 2015 page, the {{#switch}} evaluates to nothing, whereas on the 2017 page it uses the #default case (a link to the tournament two years ahead). SiBr₄ (talk) 18:27, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

@SiBr4: Any idea how to fix this? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:31, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

It depends on what the wanted behavior is. Should the 2015 page include a link to the next tournament, or should 2017 not include it? SiBr₄ (talk) 18:37, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

@SiBr4: 2015 should include a link to 2017. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:44, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

@SiBr4: [1] works on User:NQ-Alt/sandbox/new. Is that it? - NQ-Alt (talk) 18:50, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes, those CURRENTYEAR cases are what prevents the link from showing up in this year's tournament. I removed them in the real template (for the Presidents Cup only) before I saw your newer post. SiBr₄ (talk) 18:57, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

@SiBr4: 2015 should include 2013 as the "past" year, and 2017 as the "next" year. And equally, 2017 should include 2015 as the "past" year, and 2019 as the "next" year. Johnsmith2116 (talk) 18:55, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Now I notice that the desired result of having the "2017" show as the "next" year on the 2015 article is there, as of a few minutes ago. How did that happen? Did someone here do something? If so, please tell me so I can know if for future articles. Johnsmith2116 (talk) 19:02, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Johnsmith2116, it was a coding change to the infobox template. [2] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:09, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks @SiBr4: and Neil. It appears to be alright now. I also had the same issue with the Solheim Cup page, so I followed what was done on the Infobox template, and it is now also okay. Johnsmith2116 (talk) 19:20, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

My edits on Satanism

Hello, I'm kind of new to wikipedia. Before my edit on Satanism, I hadn't done any edits before (though I have used wikipedia for research in the past). I didn't change much, I just wanted to add a link I thought would be useful to those looking into Satanism. But it was deemed inappropriate... Could I please know why? Was it the format? I'm not sure how to embed links on wikipedia but I'll read up more on it if needed. Thank You For Your Time! Mrs. Richard Wagner 666 (talk) 19:06, 17 October 2015 (UTC)Mrs. Richard Wagner 666

Mrs. Richard Wagner 666, the site is inappropriate. Please see WP:ELNO #11: "Blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority. (This exception for blogs, etc., controlled by recognized authorities is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities who are individuals always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for people.)" --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:12, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Why is this site not recognized? It provides more information on Satanism than any of the sites listed. It is a good source of information. Perhaps even though it is not recognized it could be considered a primary source :) Thank you for your time :) Mrs. Richard Wagner 666 (talk) 20:12, 17 October 2015 (UTC)Mrs. Richard Wagner 666

Mrs. Richard Wagner 666, what academic sources or experts in the field have covered the site? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:16, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

High Priestess Maxine Dietrich is the founder of Joy of Satan Ministries and the website joyofsatan.org. Being a high priestess, she is very expert on Satanism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrs. Richard Wagner 666 (talk • contribs) 20:28, 17 October 2015 (UTC) Sorry, for got to sign! Mrs. Richard Wagner 666 (talk) 20:34, 17 October 2015 (UTC)Mrs. Richard Wagner 666

Mrs. Richard Wagner 666, Maxine Dietrich has no Wikipedia article. "...as a minimum standard, recognized authorities who are individuals always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for people...". Bottom line, you will need to find a recognized independent expert (by Wikipedia standards) that states Dietrich is a recognized authority. Anyone can claim to be an expert in a subject and editors' opinions on that expertise don't matter. It's what other experts (preferably academics) say that matters. Otherwise, we'd have links to 10,000 blogs about Taylor Swift written by "experts" on Swift. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:57, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

We have an article on Marlene Dietrich. Isn't that good enough? And I didn't know that Taylor Swift was into satanism? Be careful or you'll have hundreds of Swift fans cursing you.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:09, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Bbb23, oh I'm well aware that Swift fans can easily rival soccer fans in terms of crazed devotion. Was with a couple of younger female relatives and their friends a couple weeks ago and made the mistake of opining on Swift's body of work. Oh. My. God. I would have gotten a more gentle reaction if I stuck "He was born in Kenya!" in Obama's article. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:21, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Some relevant reading regarding OP. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:36, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Santacon

Hi Neil, the Santacon page was brought to my attention. After viewing it, it is biased based on sensational media coverage. 1. It is biased to New York. 2. It is biased negatively. Now, the NY event has it's issues. But it is wrong to attribute the NY event to all Santacon events. I have organized the event in LA for almost 10 years, and we have never had these kinds of issues or coverage.

Additionally, the LA Times citation, is a news story about the New York event. It is incorrectly attributed to another city.

I seek to include balanced view of the event. How might I go about doing this without having all my edits changed?

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vsnt777 (talk • contribs) 19:23, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Vsnt777. You'll need to find reliable sources covering the other events and add a summary of what they say to the article. Also, please read our conflict of interest guidelines. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:29, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

There are issues of reliable sources around this event due to its subversive nature. If all "reliable news coverage" is sensationalized media, wikipedia is showing a biased, incorrect view. In lieu of "reliable sources" I request the NY coverage edited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vsnt777 (talk • contribs) 19:31, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Vsnt777, if the event is covered by reliable sources due to its subversive nature, then that's what is going to get highlighted in the article. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:36, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh come on. The NY articles are sensational pieces written to drive eyeballs for advertising revenue. In some ways, wikipedia using these"reliable sources" is furthering the capitalist nature of Xmas. One of the points of Santacon is to challenge capitalism, and give people a fun, festive way to fight the commercialization of life. The way the wikipedia entry is written, one might assume that the NY event is THE only event. I have no issue with the NY coverage. But I have a LOT of issue with that event being the only one covered. Because, based on one of your sources (santarchy.com) there are over 100 santacon events that happen every year. Most are not like NY. So wikipedia covers only the worst actor because it gets "reliable" media attention?

I went back to check the media coverage of past years in LA, and those pages are 404. While you can say I have a conflict of interest, because I am a primary organizer, I am also the best source on what has happened with this event in LA and on the West Coast. I have kept the LA event true to classic cacophony ideals under my steward. And this is exactly why the LA event (and many other events) do not get sensational coverage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vsnt777 (talk • contribs) 19:44, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Vsnt777, sources don't have to be online. You can go to the library and dig up newspaper coverage from archives (either offline or online - they should have accounts to news archive services). And again, Wikipedia summarizes what other sources deem notable. A SantaCon event in Podunk, Nebraka is unlikely to generate much coverage so it's not going to be mentioned. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:52, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello

Hello. I made a comment over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women#WikiProject Men saying that I disagreed with the creation of the Wikiproject and it's principles, and that I didn't see the point of it. In turn, an admin by the name of Rosiestep has made a threatening comment to me accusing me of harassment (despite me just saying that I disagree with the Wikiproject's creation and ideas which is not harassment, I've never even heard of or spoken to her before) by saying to me "I'm an admin and I've never taken someone to task at ANI, but if you continue your harassment-like tone (that's how I perceive it), you'll be my #1." I think it is an abuse of the power given to an admin and it is not something that should be used to attempt to install fear in an editor and an "I'll have you reported" mentality. Saying that I will be her number-one person to report despite not having anything to report me for I think is incredibly poor behaviour from an admin. To me, this is not someone who should be an admin if they are going to make threatening remarks just because you don't share their opinion and use their position to act a cut above the rest.  — Calvin999 19:52, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

@Calvin999: Let me get clarification from the admin. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:01, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Something tells me that you won't be getting a reply anytime soon!  — Calvin999 20:46, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

M1 (Istanbul Metro) issue

Hi, NeilN. I thought I'd run something by you – there's been a IP-shifting editor that's been engaged in what I'd consider to be a low-grade edit war at M1 (Istanbul Metro). The most recent iteration of this has been the IP replacing direct links to the articles on the stations along this rapid transit line to articles... that are not about the stations. I really don't know what to do here – if I revert again, I'm afraid I'll be effectively edit warring as well. And I don't know how to communicate with this IP as they keep shifting (and I'm not even sure communicating with them will be fruitful anyway – I may have even tried that in the past... I can't remember for sure). Anyway, any ideas here? Thanks in advance... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:57, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

IJBall, I've protected for one week. What I usually do in these cases is outline my concerns on the article's talk page. Then, if I'm reverted again with no attempt at communication, I will revert with an edit summary of "per talk page". If I'm re-reverted, I will look for admin help using the appropriate channel. It's easier for admins to take action if they see good-faith attempts at resolving the issue are being ignored. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:13, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

OK, thanks! – I'll hit the article's Talk page, and see what happens. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:21, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Cholesterol 7-alpha-hydroxylase

Hello Nei1N, we are students of Medicine of the University of Barcelona and we are doing a Chemistry project in which we have to improve the information about one topic on Wikipedia. This project was created few years ago by the University itself (here is the information https://ca.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viquiprojecte:Bioqu%C3%ADmica_UB). You have to know that our information is taken from books and we do have references. So PLEASE don't erase every information we are uploading. If you would like to know more let me know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BQUB15-Agarno (talk • contribs) 00:02, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Hopefully resolved. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:51, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Name

Hy User:NeiIN, I hope u are doing well. My request is to change the name of article Nondenominational Muslim to Non-denomenational Muslim. Thanks! Septate (talk) 05:20, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Septate, moved to Non-denominational Muslim. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:41, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

updating article whilst avoiding vandalism

Why did you remove the list of national winners from the EMA article just because a couple of stans of my favourite act of the winners (and the most unexpected of them) seriously vandalized the page? Keep protecting the article though, and Remember to cite using the EMA voting page for regions.Elaych22 (talk) 07:59, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Elaych22, I did not remove anything. I just protected the page to stop the rapid vandalism and unsourced edits. I see you've posted an edit request on the talk page and another editor has responded. If you have a bit of patience, it should all work out. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:45, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

From WP:AIV

I think your warning may not have gone through (reference: your post on AIV), as I don't see your name on the talk page edit history. --JustBerry (talk) 14:39, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

JustBerry, yes, unfortunately there's no "Warned by..." option. In this case the editor was warned by Anthony Bradbury. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:44, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Sounds good, just making sure. P.S. You can use Template:Await and add bold text after it. --JustBerry (talk) 14:46, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, NeilN. You have new messages at IsraphelMac's talk page.
Message added 20:45, 18 October 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

IsraphelMac (talk) 20:45, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Stephen Harper Article

Thank you for putting a tag on the Environmental Policy section of the Stephen Harper article, and for not reverting more than twice. I look forward to discussion specific areas of the article with you on the talk page. I am currently in a discussion with User:Patar knight on the talk page. My inclusion of the Lower Churchill project in the article in particular was thanked by User:Ntb613 on (13 Oct 2015)Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk) 07:49, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Kashmir conflict continued

I guess the RPP got deleted this morning. I don't have a problem with 1RR. In fact, I always edit as if 1RR is in effect. But with a page like Kashmir conflict, you get IP hoppers, off-wiki canvassing and POV pushing. So 1RR is counterproductive. It disadvantages the serious editors while giving a "free reign" to the POV pushers. It won't work unless you are willing to police it. If you are going to police it, I am quite happy with 1RR. - Kautilya3 (talk) 11:28, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Kautilya3, look in the rolling archives for a suggestion. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:07, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Is this what you mean? I believe the argument is centered around what belongs in the lead, correct? This article covers a timeframe of about 70 years so anything in the lead should describe events that have significant historical impact. You might want to ask editors to find sources that provide a historical overview of the conflict (instead of cherrypicking "news of the day" pieces) and see what they mention in the first few paragraphs. This suggestion is patterned on WP:MEDRS where we don't use individual studies but rather meta-studies which review and summarize the available literature.

I am quite ok with that. Should I put it up for discussion citing you as the source of the proposal? - Kautilya3 (talk) 13:47, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: I meant the RFPP rolling archives:

Kautilya3, it's not a free reign for the IP editor. He is bound by the same policies you are. Protection is constantly asked for on these types of articles and we're not going to set a precedent on this board by saying only registered editors are "serious" editors. I do have one suggestion for you. See if there's consensus to implement WP:ARBPIA-style editing restrictions on these articles. "All articles related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, broadly construed, are under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24-hour period). When in doubt, assume it is related. Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Reverts of edits made by anonymous (IP) editors that are not vandalism are exempt from the 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:58, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. The last sentence addresses my concern, which I didn't read carefully earlier. I will mull over that. I think we have been operating essentially under similar norms in the last few days. - Kautilya3 (talk) 14:33, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Neil, here is a question. So, the registered are not limited to 1RR for reverting the IPs. What about the IPs? Are they limited? If not, this doesn't seem to achieve anything. If they are limited but the registered users are not, then the asymmetry is likely to lead to further heartburn. - Kautilya3 (talk) 17:07, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes 1RR should be apply on all major India-Pakistan topics. India-Pakistan war of Indo-Pakistani War of 1947, Indo-Pakistani War of 1965, Indo-Pakistani War of 1971, Kargil war, 2014–15 India–Pakistan border skirmishes,Kashmir conflict, Hafeez Saeed, Siachen conflict, Siachen glacier etc should be included in this. There can be more topics. --Human3015^TALK  02:47, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Kautilya3, IP's are limited to WP:1RR. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:53, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Ok, Human3015 has much more experience with these articles than I do. So I will assume it is useful. I will propose it in the India-Pakistan Cooperation Board and see what the others fee. - Kautilya3 (talk) 08:50, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Dear Neil, there has been absolutely no discussion of the dispute for three full days. This vindicates my statement that there is actually no dispute. Can you cancel the full-protection and apply the ARBPIA-style editing restriction for a limited period, say 1 month? If it works, we can continue it indefinitely. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 10:43, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Dear Neil if you allowed this then trust me people will never visit Indian forign ministry press confrence and will come to wikipedia filled with non nuetral indian point of view. I know a person with responsible head will never allow all this NA122 (talk) 13:31, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

@NA122: Actually what Sockmaster Kautilya3 is proposing is good thing. You are new, and you are not aware about ArbCom sanctions, if such sanctions strictly applied on such pages then all pro-India and pro-Pakistani people will stay away from these articles, there will be no edit warring or POV pushing, all biased people will get blocked soon, this applies to both Pro-Indians and Pro-Pakistanis. --Human3015^TALK  13:51, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

@Kautilya3, NA122, and Human3015: Please see this. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:59, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

IP 166.137.96.x

Hi NeilN. You previously blocked 166.137.96.227 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for vandalism. It seems that even before the block has expired, they have returned vandalizing same articles as before as 166.137.96.165 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Politrukki (talk) 13:43, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

@Politrukki: Let's see if a rangeblock of 166.137.96.128/25 helps. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:52, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Request

Could you delete this redirect page Microsoft Lumia 550? I'm planning to write an article under that name. Thanks. Ayub407^talk 06:04, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

@Ayub407: No need to delete. Just edit. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:06, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Alright. Ayub407^talk 06:07, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Metacritic score?

Hi, so another user has been to removing the metacritic score on the page "Revival" by Selena Gomez. They have also messaged me asking me to not re-add it because the metacritic score is in the review description, therefore the score shouldn't be shown in the top. But I've seen most other album pages have the score at the top and in the review summary. What should I do in this situation? I don't want to get in trouble for edit-warring, but I'm pretty sure they're wrong. Smoore95GAGA (talk) 13:00, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Jugdev

Neil - about 2 weeks ago you blocked User:Jugdev for a week for (recidivist) edit warring at Programmatic media, suggesting that he voluntarily follow a 1RR rule upon his return. He sat out an extra week after his block but this morning has 1) reinserted his preferred version of certain text that is highly questionable - factually - if not demonstrably untrue (this is well-covered on the Talk page); 2) reinserted the text when it was removed; and 3) removed my own Talk page comments in the course of a discussion about this issue. I do not see this round ending up any differently than any of the prior ones - he's quite intractable - and ask for an appropriate administrative response. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 13:44, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

JohnInDC, looking at the talk page edit, the removal of your post was probably accidental. I've given the editor a final warning. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:53, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

It's not the first time he's removed others' comments (he blanked the whole thing three weeks ago), but I'll grit my teeth and AGF. Thank you. JohnInDC (talk) 14:01, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Smoore95GAGA

I see you indefinitely blocked this user for edit warring and making threats. Would something like this warrant revoking talk page access? Just thought you should know the user is still enraged at you and making personal attacks. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:02, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

SNUGGUMS, if those personal attacks were directed at someone else I would probably revoke talk page access, especially if I was asked to do so. But as they're directed at me, and really, I just skip over the insults when I'm reading, I've left talk page access alone so they can blow off steam and eventually request an unblock if they cool off and want to return. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:09, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. Probably worth keeping an eye on, though. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:12, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Selangor FA

Please banned this guy from edit Selangor FA forever-ever (2001:e68:541f:a546:c8ad:5d9c:188c:d578) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.32.70.193 (talk) 23:58, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

The article is semi-protected for three months to stop the recent disruption. This seems like a regular occurrence. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:55, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Please protected page Selangor FA forever-ever from vandalism not add period for three month to stop recent disruption.Please banned this guy from edit Selangor FA forever-ever.this guy is vandalism to delete kit evolution from page Selangor FA :(2001:e68:541f:a546:c8ad:5d9c:188c:d578) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.49.72.236 (talk) 03:46, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but no. Indefinite protection is rare and not warranted in this case. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:16, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Page Fc barcelona boleh jer dilindungi selamanya — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.144.127.91 (talk) 05:36, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Please add fully protection to the page Selangor FA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.144.127.91 (talk) 07:04, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Please remove semi protected i want to add something to shirt sponsor — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.144.127.91 (talk) 13:04, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Edit requests for how to use the talk page to propose your change. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:07, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I do not know how to use it because I was an amateur users — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.144.127.91 (talk) 13:56, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Just propose what you want to change on the talk page. I'll take care of the template. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:59, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Please unblock semi protected tq

Declined. I have activated your edit request. NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:27, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Please Add this to page selangor FA kit manufacturer and Shirt Sponsor. tq

Period	Kit Manufacturers
1978-1979	Admiral
1980	Diadora
1981-1987	Puma
1988-1990	Adidas
1991	Mizuno
1992	Puma
1993-2001	Lotto
2002	Adidas
2003-2004	Kronos
2005-2010	Adidas
2011-2015	Kappa
2016-2019	Nike

Period	Shirt Sponsors
1985-2004	Dunhill
1993	EON
1998	Courts
2004	Talam
2005	Celcom
2006-2007	SYABAS
2006-2008	Gapurna TM
2006-2009	Kumpulan Darul Ehsan Berhad (KDEB)
2010-2012	Datum Corp
2010-2013	Menteri Besar Incorporated (MBI)
2014-2015	Selangor

Per capita of Indian cities wrong information shown, please take action[3]

Hi my name is Sam. I have noticed that the page Indian cities by per capita has to be made right. There is wrong information in that, which is not according to the information provided by authorized agencies. In that page Bangalore cities per capita is shown very less than shown in the reference. The actual per capita of the city is much higher, and the Brooking's report shows this clearly. In this page the per capita of Bangalore is shown as 1380$ in 2014. The real per capita is much higher and is 3590$ in 2012. The Brooking's report shows this clearly. (http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Multimedia/Interactives/2013/tentraits/Bangalore.pdf) I request you to make this correct in the page so that people can view the right information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samforprospe (talk • contribs) 05:38, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Samforprospe, please join the discussion on the article's talk page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:55, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

The problem is no body is serious about it or discussing about it. They just gave wrong information and want to carry on with it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samforprospe (talk • contribs) 20:25, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I know user Flipro has complained against me. That is why you are suspecting me. Please look at the article and decide by yourself that who is giving right information. I have provided right source for my update. I am not giving wrong information on wiki. Please check what is happening. the information in the page is wrong and I am correcting it using very authentic source and some people don't like it because it is against their personal wishes and they are complaining against me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samforprospe (talk • contribs) 01:17, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Samforprospe, I warned both of you not to call each other vandals. If you cannot work out your dispute on the talk page, please see WP:DRR for other options. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:24, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Sir please check by yourself whether the information and source provided by me is correct or not. I am providing the right thing and user Flipro is changing it frequently and he started complaining against me rather than talking. I initiated the talk with him and he is not replying. You can see this on his page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samforprospe (talk • contribs) 01:28, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Samforprospe, you need to take this up with other editors using the channels I linked to above and yes, Filpro needs to use the talk page. I cannot weigh in on who is "right" as I've taken admin action on that page (see WP:INVOLVED). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:36, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

User Flipro vandalizes lots of pages like this and he got many warnings from other admins before and still continuing to do so. He doesn't talk and provide sourse but just update without reason and vandalize.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samforprospe (talk • contribs) 01:45, 27 October 2015 (UTC) 

Thanks for what you have done. Please protect the page fully until an decision has been made by an administrator. Or else further vandalism will occur. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samforprospe (talk • contribs) 01:52, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

IPv6 range contribs

From your recent comment at AIV, I'm guessing you know of a tool to check contribs of IPv6 ranges? Or is this something else I have to make? =P — MusikAnimal ^talk 15:46, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

MusikAnimal, turn on the "Allow /16, /24 and /27 – /32 CIDR ranges on Special:Contributions forms..." gadget and then this works. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:50, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

BTW, do you know who runs this? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:53, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Ah yes, that JS gadget. I will give it another spin. That calculator is by the one and only Mr. User:NativeForeigner. — MusikAnimal ^talk 15:54, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

MusikAnimal I'd be toast without that calculator. Wish the WMF would pick up the ball and provide an integrated calculator/contribs tool. Sometimes you can't check the exact range a calculator spits out. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:00, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Maybe we could combine forces and get the calculator / contribs gadget in the same interface. NativeForeigner if you are interested let me know. Also I'm not able to get WP:POPUPS to work with the gadget (so that I can quickly see the diffs by hovering over "diff"), are you? I think I know how to make that work... For me, having popups would eliminate any desire to use an external service like xtools — MusikAnimal ^talk 16:06, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

@MusikAnimal: On that note, the gadget supports ucstart and ucend parameters to help narrow down the results but you’d have to manually type it in every time which is quite tedious, any easy way to integrate it into the user interface? - NQ-Alt (talk) 16:11, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

MusikAnimal, that's strange. I was going to say popups work for me but then I went back to confirm and the diff popups didn't work. I then went back a second time and now they did... --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:14, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

The working/not-working behavior seems completely random. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:18, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Yep, so it's a timing issue. There's a "hook" available to ensure it always works, I'm looking into that now. NQ, we can look into specifying a date range. If you are comparing it with xtools, I thought that feature was mainly to avoid performance issues. That is if you choose a /16 IPv4 range of all contribs since January it's likely going to lock up the tool and possibly even kill the service. My guess is the gadget just goes off of recent ones, past month or so maybe? I prefer defaulting to recent contribs, but I can see use cases for needing to see only those within a date range — MusikAnimal ^talk 16:29, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

@MusikAnimal: The gadget returns edits from way back 2004 and is amazingly quick at that, see this for instance. Narrowing them down to just the most recent contribs is indeed what I am interested in as they tend to get buried in the mix. - NQ-Alt (talk) 16:44, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

In that case, yes, let's look into adding date range options! Also I just made the change to re-init popups (and other scripts listening to that hook) once everything has loaded. Popups should work every time now :) — MusikAnimal ^talk 16:45, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

So I guess the "From year/month (and earlier)" options are just being ignored by the script. It is semi-respecting other options, such as namespace, but not the "invert selection". Let's try to get it to work just like the normal interface and take into account all options. Hopefully this will be a fun project — MusikAnimal ^talk 16:50, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

@MusikAnimal: No the script works fine there. For Special:Contributions it’s always been results narrowed down to year/month and earlier and not later which would have been much much useful. See phab:T18866 - NQ-Alt (talk) 16:57, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

And it should go without saying how much we all appreciate you taking over these "fun projects". You, Writ Keeper and Mr. Stradivarius are among the very few I've seen around here going out of your way to create useful stuff for editors. NQ-Alt (talk) 17:18, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I think they enjoy it mostly, I know I do. It's only when our scripts/gadgets/tools break that we start to cry. Up until then we're pretty resilient. Anyway, I guess since the contribs are in descending order by time the "earlier" option can make sense, but less so with this gadget. This is a bit tricky. I want to say let's do away with the those date range options and put a "from" and "to" datepicker, but that's going to interfere when normally browsing to Special:Contributions. We'd have to make it work in all cases, not just range contribs — MusikAnimal ^talk 17:22, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I just don't have the time at present to work on integrating the tools. NativeForeigner ^Talk 22:34, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Also the tool is python3/django. I'll further develop it whenever I have time. If @NeilN: or yourself have any suggestions let me know and I'll try to implement them. I plan on moving it to toolserv at some point but it was a pain last time around and I haven't had the time to put it there recently. NativeForeigner ^Talk 10:27, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

More Trolls Vandalizing Tommy Sotomayor Article

Here's two more users that should probably be blocked from Wikipedia, you can see an example of the vandalism from one of them in the first link:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tommy_Sotomayor&diff=686834961&oldid=686771869

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2.30.15.148

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2607:FB90:2275:9A9D:0:48:1260:CD01

Thanks! Neptune's Trident (talk) 18:11, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Neptune's Trident, I blocked 2607:FB90:2275:9A9D:0:48:1260:CD01 for a month. No doubt they'll hop IPs again but if they do, just go to WP:AIV, cite block evasion, and point to this IP. 2.30.15.148 needs a full set of warnings before they can be blocked. If you find yourself reverting every day, let me know and I will upgrade the PC protection to a semi. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:23, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Please fully unprotect Template:retrieved

Your semi-protection is unwarranted. I am reading this: "Administrators may apply indefinite semi-protection to pages that are subject to heavy and persistent vandalism or violations of content policy (such as biographies of living persons, neutral point of view). Semi-protection should not be used as a preemptive measure against vandalism that has not yet occurred, nor should it be used to privilege registered users over unregistered users in (valid) content disputes." (WP:S-P). I removed emphasis and links from the quote. Which of the above is your justification for restricting editing? Considering that this is neither a high risk nor highly visible template. 72.43.99.130 (talk) 18:56, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

First, I reduced the existing template-editor protection to semi-protection. Second, WP:PTPROT reads: "Highly visible templates which are used on an extremely large number of pages or substituted with great frequency are particularly vulnerable to vandalism, as vandalism to the template may introduce vandalism to hundreds of other pages. Therefore, they are frequently semi- or template-protected based on the degree of visibility, type of use, content, and other factors" (emphasis mine). The template in question has 500+ transclusions. Semi-protecting it is not at all unusual. If you browse Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Rolling archive you'll see templates regularly being semi-protected. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:05, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

So you reduced a bad action to a semi-bad one. The excuse is dubious. In my previous comment, I used the section of the policy that specifically applies to semi-protection. This template does not fall under WP:HRT, and had no history of vandalism until an admin vandalized it (prior to protection). Call a spade a spade: this template should not have been protected, period. 72.43.99.130 (talk) 19:14, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

And if you look at most of the template protection requests, they're made not because of vandalism, but because of any potential disruption will affect hundreds of pages. If you want to tighten up WP:PTPROT, the place to suggest that is the policy's talk page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:20, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm sure your time is as valuable as mine. Nothing in WP:PTPROT justifies any kind of protection for this template. This is not a policy issue, therefore there is nothing to talk about at the policy's talk page. I'm in full agreement with the policy. This is a complaint over misapplication of policy. As a first step into resolving this, I will make the request at WP:RFUP. 72.43.99.130 (talk) 19:58, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I see the relevant section has been archived already. Not good. Your rationale is based entirely on the number of transclusions, an insufficient requirement as the pertinent policy shows. You are implying that after some arbitrary number of transclusions, bot-like semi-protection should be (auto-)applied, restricting editing without any other cause. This is facile. Your bringing up similar case history as support makes me think that there is a problem with the way template protection is administered in Wikipedia. It seems there is consistent misinterpretation of policy, possibly because it makes administration easier and lazier. I am looking at this therefore as a dispute, but not over policy. It is over the administration of policy, and I think a proper forum for review will have to be used. 208.87.234.201 (talk) 01:02, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

To paraphrase you, bot-like protection should be (auto-)applied. Well, yes. For example, bot-like template-editor protection is applied if a template is ~>2,500 transclusions. Please do let GiantSnowman and me know when you've posted your request for review. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:11, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

So there is a bot that, without any prior disruption or incident, auto-denies editing rights to the historical majority of users of the encyclopedia "that anyone can edit", in order to make life easier for clerks performing administrative functions. Interesting. It may be the only institution whose main reason for existence is openly contravened by "assistants", whose argument is, "well we've been doing this often". You will be notified of any further action.184.75.21.30 (talk) 22:54, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Moula Ali Hill

Sarvagyana guru proposed my article, Moula Ali hill, for merge. The reason he gave on talk page for merge is not correct. My article is new, only few months old, so it's obvious that people will write about it in another article before that. This hill is in Moula Ali, so people wrote about the hill in this article. Hill is notable and deserves a standalone article that's why I created it. I researched about this hill for two days and I gathered information about it from several sources. I think correct thing to do is to remove things about hill in Moula Ali aricle. Please tell me what to do. Thanks Supdiop (T🔹C) 01:32, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

@Supdiop: Can you expand Moula Ali hill with more information? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:30, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but the hill article is notable. I will certainly expand it and add more sources but is merge necessary? I didn't copy it from anything, but I did took some bits of info from Moula Ali article. I wrote it on my own on my sandbox. It even got a DYK. The reason for proposal is not correct. Thank you Supdiop (T🔹C) 02:49, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

@Supdiop: I agree it should not be merged. Expanding it is the easiest way to make that point really clear to everyone. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:54, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I will expand it in two days, maybe even before. Supdiop (T🔹C) 03:18, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

It's not very urgent, so I will expand it later. Thanks - Supdiop (T🔹C) 06:16, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

With this ever dramatic world and winter coming, here's a cup of tea to alleviate your day! This e-tea's remains have been e-composted SwisterTwister talk 04:53, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

User talk:Playnot

On behavioral ground, User talk:Playnot is clearly another sock of User:Simpleabd‎. See this. Thanks. -AsceticRosé 04:57, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

@AsceticRose: I thought so but can you expand a bit on behavior (email me if you want)? I'll open a SPI tomorrow and see if we can block the underlying IP range. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:02, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for prompt response. As for the user's behavior, I see that User:Playnot is advocating the same point and is deleting exactly the same text as did User:Simpleabd. This time the user slightly changed the wording of his arguments (in edit summaries) in an attempt to appear as a new user. Another point is that the account was created on 21 October 2015 at 22:34, and made the first edit at 22:37 which was a very contentious edit. It appears to be a simgle-purpose account. Even further, both User:Playnot and User:Simpleabd displayed the edit-warring tendency. These are unlikely for a good-faith brand-new user.

It might also be possible that it is a meat-puppet. But the first chance has a better claim, I think. -AsceticRosé 05:21, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

PC-protection expiring this month

Royal Brunei Armed Forces, Names of the days of the week, Irene Zisblatt, List of Beast Quest novels, The Island of Doctor Moreau and Natasha Lyonne? --George Ho (talk) 06:18, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Page protection request

Hello. I'm not an expert user, and I wish to request a page protection due to vandalism. Allianz Parque has been vandalized by an unregistered user for days. Can you help me in this lock application? Thanks. Montolive 20:21, 23 October 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Montolive (talk • contribs)

Hi Montolive. There's not quite enough disruption to merit protection of the article but I will keep an eye on it. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:30, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Europa Universalis IV

There's no vandalism in there m8 BenGarrison1488 (talk) 23:11, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Uh-huh. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:17, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Malaysia Super League

Please banned this guy(Drmies) from edit page club league malaysia this guy (Drmies) is vandalism tahap bangsat.tq — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.49.75.42 (talk) 23:12, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Hey Drmies, you've annoyed someone for the 5,986th time. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:26, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Please banned this guy (Drmies) from edit perlis FA this guy is vandalism tahap bangsat tq — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.49.75.42 (talk) 23:30, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

See WP:NOTVAND. And please write in English. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:27, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

More Trolls On Tommy Sotomayor Article

Here is another user, who appears to have registered with Wikipedia, who is blanking out information on the Tommy Sotomayor article, and then adding badly sourced rumors, you can see what they've been up to here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tommy_Sotomayor&diff=687184905&oldid=687183891

Thanks. Neptune's Trident (talk) 05:40, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Sock-puppet

I think our friend, Smoore95GAGA, is back in full bloom action. Check out the investigation and the new account's edits. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 12:51, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Sock put away by the ever-efficient Bbb23. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:31, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

A brownie for you!

Have it ... Editor Master Abiyarajan77 (talk) 16:36, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Sofia

The issue about Sofia is escalating: the spin-off article was recreated, justified by bogus consensus (RfC still ongoing of course, so, no), the section from the main article removed, and I'm getting things like [4] and [5]. If I may express my personal suspicion, I believe these two people are actively trying to suppress any potentially negative information about their beautiful city - and that's not very encyclopedic in my book. LjL (talk) 17:49, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

LjL, I've warned the IP and joined the discussion on the talk page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:28, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. LjL (talk) 19:15, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

This user use absurd sources and present one ugly nationalistic view and censored the article. May be you must renamed wikipedia to fantasypedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.118.68.169 (talk)

I am not a nationalist and I wonder what nation I would be representing here if I were one. I also note that censorship is about the suppression of information, not the addition or inclusion. I am championing the latter, so I suspect you misunderstand the meaning of this word. LjL (talk) 19:15, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks

Take care Neil. Dr.K. (talk) 20:02, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Disruption on List of languages by number of native speakers

Hello. FYI Rajatbindalbly (talk · contribs · count) (AN-thread here) is continuing his disruption, both on that talk page and elsewhere on en-WP. Thomas.W ^talk 14:53, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Thomas.W, I cannot see anything that warrants a block. Did you have a specific diff in mind? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:58, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

It's his refusal to listen and constant abuse of the edit-request function that I see as disruptive. But I might overreact since I'm very upset by the desysop of Yngvadottir, one of the best editors and admins on en-WP, and the obvious abuse of the ArbCom and AE-system. I thought we were all here to build an encyclopaedia, but what I see is people who try to hijack the system to further off-wiki causes, and use imagined wrongs on Wikipedia to get off-wiki publicity for those causes. So disregard this if you wish. Rajatbindalbly isn't going to irritate me much for the foreseeable future even if he continues, since I intend to reduce my presence here. Thomas.W ^talk 15:15, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Thomas.W, I am keeping an eye on him. As for Yngvadottir, although brief, I made my thoughts known in the Arbcom case request. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:19, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection

I see that you're also filling in requests; I'll step down for now. Samsara 15:43, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Samsara. I'm done. There's one left I can't decide what to do with. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:46, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I'll take a look. Cheers. Samsara 15:46, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Return of a user you blocked

A user you blocked for 48 hours on October 15, User:Amazing to you, has returned as User:Karah kenze (began editing on the 17th), and today as User:Iloveyoooou after I filed this report about Kk on AN/I. They're very obviously the same editor: same suite of articles, same derogatory tone in the edit summaries. An SPI has been filed, but I haven't looked at it yet, going there now. BMK (talk) 00:05, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

A cup of matcha for you!

With this ever dramatic world and winter coming, here's a cup of matcha to alleviate your day! Gizmocorot (talk) 10:51, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Block evasion

Hi, Neil. I thought you'd want to know that 42.115.140.239, whom you blocked yesterday for his extensive history of non-constructive edits at the Mission: Impossible film articles, is committing block evasion as 42.115.140.141.

Another editor has reverted him at Mission: Impossible – Rogue Nation today, and yet another editor has done so at Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol. After several warnings, his by-now vandal edits are taking up multiple editors' time. I'm sorry to ask you to take additional time as well, after you helped out so quickly yesterday; I'm wondering if, given his unrelenting pattern under those two "42.115" IP addresses and others (42.115.139.245, 42.115.140.131, 42.115.141.67, 42.115.141.34, 42.115.142.107) whether a range block might be in order? --Tenebrae (talk) 22:53, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Tenebrae. I looked at a rangeblock yesterday and concluded it had too much collateral damage. I've done a smaller two week rangeblock of 42.115.140.128/25. If other IPs show up, please let me know. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:52, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely. I didn't realize the potential for collateral damage, but I'll always keep that in mind going forward. Thank you for helping and, in retrospect, for proceeding in a properly cautions way. With regards, --Tenebrae (talk) 03:18, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Vandalism Being Ignored

Hello Neil. This is regarding the Andre Marin article, A living person. The article has been vandalized and verified content removed prior to my recent edits, in which I ADDED content which was valid, contributed by other editors and deliberately deleted. Interesting no other edits have been made. Many people are out campaigning on this page it has been an ongoing problem. I had to reinsert content and much of the content recently added belongs on the Ontario Ombudsman page, not this one. In addition someone is adding non-NPOV. . Please check the edit history and you will see the problem. The individual the article is about has been deliberatrly remade to ignore all of his achievements with the exception of one position which yet again has become a target for WP:ADVOCACY. I believe the article needs to be stubbed and the COI removal was not appropriate as the individuals in question were members of the man's PR team and government paid. Please get back to me whenever you can, I appreciate your time. CheckersBoard (talk) 00:03, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

No Conflict of Interest

Sorry Neil, forgot to add that the other admin passive aggressively accused me of COI. This was already resolved in the past when it came to light that it was in fact Andre Marin's PR team, a Bursy and Williams I believe. So no, the COI had nothing to do with me. From the history edits it's quite obvious it is the reverse going on now, and the other admin is COI as they have been eliminating non-NPOV, huge amounts of content, using spin and ruining the balance of the article. I will not be attacked by someone who is clearly WP:ADVOCACY and possibly more. Thank-you, and please don't become this person's bully. Heads up and cheers. Keeping this article neutral and organized has been challenging, I didn't think it would be like this. CheckersBoard (talk) 00:13, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

• André Marin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Here is a link to make it easier for you to check on this N. MarnetteD|Talk 00:14, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

CheckersBoard, rather than reverting vandalism, your edits left the article a mess. Also, your statement above is self-contradictory. "has been deliberatrly remade to ignore all of his achievements with the exception of one position" or "individuals in question were members of the man's PR team and government paid" - which is it? I pointed you to three places where you can ask for help from other editors. You can also post to WP:COIN if you think conflict of interest editing is going on but you will need to provide diffs to back up your claim. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:19, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

If I can chime in here, I recently came across the Andre Marin page and saw it was a mess of COI and POV editing. I tried removing some of the the COI content (and toning down the language to make it more appropriate for WP) and adding a significant amount of content to make it more balanced. It honestly took me hours to do. Unfortunately CheckerBoard over here has some sort of personal interest in this page and tried editing the page back to its previous non-NPOV status, while failing to use proper wiki formatting (as you saw yourself). NeilN, perhaps you can suggest what is the proper route here, because repeated warning on CB's talk page doesn't seem to prevent this person from editing the page in a non-neutral manner (and which appears to be straight vandalism). FuriouslySerene (talk) 14:29, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

FuriouslySerene, I think CheckersBoard is aware by now that they'll be blocked for disruptive editing if they continue this kind of behavior. I strongly urge them to use the article's talk page in order to avoid making a hash of the article itself. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:41, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Regarding confusion for article edits for living person, article A.M.

Hello again Neil. I apologize for the confusion, for some reason I am unable to scroll back/up in the comment box while using a mobile and this is the reason for the mix up, I couldn't delete it/fix it. The pop -up keyboard also covers half the screen and I am unable to scroll. This has happened to me many times and has also had a poor effect on editing for me. To clarify, the article previously stated the individuals positions without out givng prominence to any single one in particular. It has been changed now to ombudsman as a highlight. It is interesting that content added referred to a *specific* policy manual or such, a report of sorts, that was one among many put out by Mr. Marin and his office, which leads one to view the recent edits as influenced by advocacy. It also seems to make a point to highlight the names of media outletls, but only when unfavorable circumstances or coverage was involved. In addition, the editor has now madeit a point to subtley change the article by glossing over unfavourable facts or errors made by Mr. Marin, which turns the editor into a narrator or reporter and detracts from the role and purpose of editing. These additions were neither made by Mr. Marin or the authors of the articles involved. In other words, spin. They are inserting an opinion not based on availalbe evidence presented by these reputable media outlets. This does not meet wiki requirements and is creating an unbalanced article. CheckersBoard (talk) 04:41, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Thank you for continuing to challenge your fellow administrators when they make careless judgements. Burninthruthesky (talk) 08:47, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Burninthruthesky, I think this is either for the Cassianto block or the block/unblock of Eric Corbett? Thanks. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:36, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I happened to see your comments on Cassianto's page, and very much agreed with them. We seem to be losing a lot of established editors at the moment. Burninthruthesky (talk) 15:00, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

universe sandbox²

i was trying to create my article about this new software. how is that copyright infringement? the article seems perfectly fine to me. G-dac (talk) 19:26, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

G-dac, I would stay away from that article. Right now, I'm undecided as to whether or not to block you for sockpuppetry. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:29, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Last time I got banned and they blocked my talk page access, so I couldn't even defend myself or request another unblock request. I don't like to be treated like trash, like I've always been. My article is fine and I just wanted to keep in there. I'm not contagious or anything. I don't see why not leave the article there G-dac (talk) 19:33, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for making it easy. As a matter of fact, I do sympathize with your point of view but you really need to stop socking for about six months and then request an unblock from your original account. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:37, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi?

Do you still rest? This is not your job. This should be job of who develop this website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Usertofix (talk • contribs) 23:09, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

@Usertofix: Actually, you have that backwards. The Wikimedia Foundation only develops and maintains the software and hardware. They do not develop or maintain content in any official capacity - volunteers do. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:25, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Some link provided is not blue, may i revert? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Usertofix (talk • contribs) 23:24, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

@Usertofix: Every example in that list is a bluelink as far as I can see. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:27, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

no bluelink for expired domain, can i list one since i have added expired website in the category?

@Usertofix: Lots of items don't have examples. The ones that do, have bluelinked examples to show they're notable. NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:32, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

It is a request i have made. i have added a category, can i request to add expired domain in the category i have added? thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Usertofix (talk • contribs) 23:37, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

FYI, blocked as sock. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 00:24, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

AfD List of Pakistani photographers?

List of Pakistani photographers was nominated for deletion. I saw no comments other than one user who may have had a history of bias. The originator of the article then deleted the AfD tag, see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Pakistani_photographers&oldid=687593526, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Pakistani_phou. Would you explicate the rationale for the survival of the article, which is unsourced and is redundant with existing articles, as you have suggested that I not interact with the user. N0TABENE (talk) 00:04, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

N0TABENE, a few important corrections. The article was not put up for AFD. It was tagged for speedy deletion by the creator of the article. The tag was properly removed by another editor (an admin, in fact) because the speedy delete reason was invalid (there was more than one contributor to the article). To get the article deleted you will have to go through the WP:AFD process (detailed on the linked paged) keeping in mind WP:NLIST. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:22, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

The rational for deletion had nothing to do with a single contributor. The article was (a) redundant with a pre-existing list, (b)the entire article was unsourced, (c)in the 5 months since additional references were requested, only a directory of photographers was provided, not indicating WP:Notability, and (d)did not follow the WP:MOS for lists. The creator of the article changed the rationale for deletion and substituted the "single contributor" straw man argument. I used the XFD tab on my editorial page to nominate the article, not the WP:CSD. N0TABENE (talk) 23:42, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

N0TABENE, okay there was some confusion here. Musa Raza replaced your PROD tag (which is still not an AFD by the way) with a CSD tag, probably thinking it would get the article deleted quicker. The admin reviewing the speedy delete request properly declined it. Musa Raza do you have any objection to restoring the PROD tag? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:01, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

@NeilN: Hello!
I request you as the author of the article to delete it if you have the right or restore the tag. I don't have any objections. And please checkout Talk:Faisal Qureshi as well.
Thank You--Musa Talk  02:17, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

This user needs a block for disruptive editing

User:Tobibln

All this user does is remove content without references or anything, he's been doing it for the past 5 years and never stopped! Please deal with this user as soon as possible before he disrupts more articles. Thanks. 81.174.186.5 (talk) 05:16, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Looks like they're updating articles and their edits have not been reverted. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 11:20, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

On his talk page, he never responds to messages left by other users for his editing. The edit summary "update" is just a way to get out of his behaviour. Please stop him as soon as possible, thanks. 80.189.105.71 (talk) 20:38, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

User:TheFeralCat is back for more nonsense :/

Sorry to bother you again with this. After standing off for a couple weeks, User:TheFeralCat is resuming their attempts to get their obsession with cats being some kind of magic apex predator into articles - [6], [7]. Apparently they spent that time posing a leading question on Yahoo Answers so they could use it as a reference [8]... yeah. Previous appeals to reason having failed, might I suggest you impose a block right away to avoid another few days of edit-warring? The warning from last time would seem unambiguous enough. Cheers -- Elmidae (talk) 11:14, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Elmidae, blocked for three months. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 11:18, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely with talk page privileges removed. Mkdw^talk 13:56, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

@Mkdw: Yeah, I could see that coming. Thanks for the note. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:16, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Staffing

Hi! This is a part of my assignment in my university and i will be adding all the references today. Please don't make any changes for a week. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nimishabothra (talk • contribs) 11:19, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Nimishabothra, thank you for finally starting to communicate. I know this is part of your coursework. That's the only reason why you haven't been warned more severely. However even if you do add references, the tone of the article is still unencyclopedic. I pointed you towards WP:NOTESSAY and WP:NOTHOWTO four days ago. NeilN ^{talk to me} 11:27, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Okay. Do you want to suggest me a few changes in that case? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nimishabothra (talk • contribs) 13:50, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Nimishabothra, it's not just a few things - your entire change is problematic. It reads as if it should be in a business magazine, not an encyclopedia. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:35, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Quicky

Hi Neil, could I trouble you to take a look at this guy Sa95. The user has created a few "glorified plot summary" articles on individual Thomas & Friends episodes, with no indication that any of them are notable in any way. To save you time, I'll provide the narrative, picking one article as an example, though he has created several.

He creates Thomas and the Missing Christmas Tree, it is turned into a redirect by ACase0000. ACase0000 leaves a comment on Sa95's talk page asking him not to create unnecessary articles. Sa95 restores the article. SummerPhDv2.0 flags it for notability concerns. I turn it into a redirect. I open a talk page discussion to explain my redirect. Sa95 restores the article without discussion. I redirect and make contact on his talk page. He silently restores the article.

Clearly disruptive, and I was going to block him myself, but I'm still a little sensitive about WP:INVOLVED, which is why I was hoping to get your input. Please note that for each redirect I initially performed, I left a message on each article's talk page. Something like eight in total. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:58, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Update: Looks like Electricburst reverted all the restorations. That makes four editors who don't think the article should be a standalone. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:38, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Cyphoidbomb, blocked 48 hours with a note to start communicating. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:28, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks boss. Opinion on whether this is or isn't "involved"? Seems like any reasonable admin would have come to the same conclusion. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:40, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Cyphoidbomb, I would see this as involved. If I have an opinion on content and editing the article, then I'm not using my tools. See the Staffing section above as an example. Clearly problematic changes but I'm not the one who'll be blocking if it comes down to that. There are narrow exceptions like BLP or reverting a mess like this. If I am asked about content, I will frame my answer in general terms about how Wikipedia's policies and guidelines could apply and encouraging the editor to engage with other editors (see User_talk:NeilN#dogs_again for an example). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:57, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:11, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Ghouta

Erlabeko is censoring free discussion on the bleeding talk page now. Why are you colluding with such a scumbag? Free discussion is to be welcomed and you are helping suppress it. Good work Neil — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.3.28.156 (talk)

Blocked for block evasion. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:30, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

an ad hominem - meanwhile what about the point of allowing free discussion on a talk page when the material is in good faith and has a point? is it just 'take the player out and ignore the football' kind of thing with you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.3.13.248 (talk) 20:00, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

As your master account has been blocked indefinitely, it should be clear that you are not welcome to post anywhere on Wikipedia. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:09, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

On Ed Johnson's counsel

See here. I always try to keep out of AE or Edit-warring complaints, hoping things can be worked out on a page. The problem here is chronic. Perhaps I have misread, I am not an 1R expert, but would appreciate if you could make a call on the issue outlined on Ed and Debresser's page. Sorry for the bother, but these things should be simple either way, and ironed out amicably, even if bad blood is in the air, by the looks of it. Thanks. Nishidani (talk) 17:50, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Nishidani, posted here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:13, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you.Nishidani (talk) 21:11, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Vested contributors arbitration case opened

You may opt-out of future notifications related to this case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Vested contributors/Notification list. You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Vested contributors. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Vested contributors/Evidence. Please add your evidence by November 5, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Vested contributors/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 01:19, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Involved again

Hi Neil, I risk that you will become annoyed with me, which is totally not my goal, but I'm an experiential learner, so the best way for me to learn appropriate usage of a rule is to get multiple examples of input so I can gauge what the absolute rule is, and what the not-so-absolute rule is and then find the workable middle ground. If I'm enforcing community consensus, is that "involved"? Case: here, the removal of "-gonist" labels per WP:ANTAGONIST. Here at the same article I remove it again, though I'm not conscious of having removed it before. Here a user resubmits it again.

I have no particular interest in this telenovela article or its contents, but where I see an edit against established consensus, would you consider it involved to protect the article or to issue sanctions? I did read your statement If I have an opinion on content and editing the article, then I'm not using my tools. I get that, and I don't particularly have an opinion on the content other than existing standards. In the earlier example of having an opinion about whether or not an article was notable, I can see that my opinion about "notable" is a factor, so avoiding sanctions there was the right call. This, however, isn't so much my opinion, rather the enforcement of existing standards. If, for instance, a user keeps submitting unsourced content to an article and I keep reverting them, am I prohibited from protecting the article or blocking the user? In the world of Indian cinema, when people submit fabricated box office values or unsourced this-and-thats, or promotional content, should I not admin in those cases?

These seem like things that would fall under the 'any admin would have arrived at the same conclusion' guideline. And it seems there needs to be some latitude, otherwise, what's the point of having the mop? So I can continue to report irritating crap to ANI? Again, I'm sorry to bug you, but I'm still an admin n00b and I want to be sure I'm doing shit correctly so as not to create headaches for the community. Thanks, and of course if you'd prefer I go elsewhere for advice, I'm happy to do that with no hard feelings. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:45, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Cyphoidbomb, I don't mind you coming here as long as you realize I may tend to be conservative when it comes to WP:INVOLVED. Another rule of thumb you can use is to ask yourself, "Would I be blocked for WP:3RR if I repeatedly made that edit?" In most MOS cases, yes you would, as enforcing MOS is not exempt from WP:3RR and so reverting is not an admin action. If you brought that "-gonist" case to AIV, I'm not blocking as editing against consensus is not vandalism. Saying that, I would block if the editor broke WP:3RR or is edit warring against multiple users over a period of time or is making the same edit across multiple articles without heeding the objections of multiple editors. You also need to use some common sense. If the user is disruptively editing against MOS (e.g., turning bold text red, using big tags, etc.), revert and block.

Moving to your telenovela example, if people are adding fabricated information, revert and block as that's vandalism. I did that here. Adding unsourced info is not so that requires a more detailed look. Blatant BLP violation? Revert and block. Not so blatant? Hold off. For example, actor X may be rumored to star in film Y. As long as film Y isn't a porno, I'm not reverting and blocking/protecting. A couple of exceptions to this. If I've protected the article because of a request, and unsourced info starts being added when protection expires, I will feel free to revert and take whatever admin action I deem appropriate. The same goes if another admin's protection has recently expired. I think there's a reason why there's only one exception explicitly listed for INVOLVED (blatant vandalism) and I respect that. I've seen admins and even arbs posting at RFPP and AIV because of this. Now, if push came to shove, I doubt the community would care if you reverted and blocked an IP for repeatedly adding an unsourced "Movie X was considered the superhit of 2014" but like I said at the beginning, I'm conservative when it comes to this and prefer that any INVOLVED accusations that might come up be easily dismissed, not relying on the sometimes shaky "any admin would have done the same". Hope this helps somewhat. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:50, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the thoughtfully detailed response, Neil, very much appreciated ¡ Cyphoidbomb (talk) 13:59, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Vested contributors retitled Arbitration enforcement 2

You may opt-out of future notifications related to this case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement 2/Notification list. You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement 2. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement 2/Evidence. Please add your evidence by November 5, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. For this case, there will be no Workshop phase. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 12:35, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Maria Gheorghiu page

Hey! I did everything the best I could and tried to respect the rules. I do not understand why everything is deleted page. Instead delete it all the time, you could help me to correct mistakes. Maybe not quite so big ... I reserved a lot of time to write page as well and it's bothering me all the time ... I'd rather faded a little help, a message of encouragement, not only "your page has been deleted." Especially as Maria Gheorghiu deserves a page in English. Thank you in advance! Anda — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndaVeronica29 (talk • contribs) 14:34, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi AndaVeronica29. I realize having your work deleted is discouraging and that's why I didn't delete it but moved it to Draft:Maria Gheorghiu. Did you read the note I left on your talk page? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:40, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi! Thank you! I read your message and I'll try to do my best... I hope my page will be ok... — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndaVeronica29 (talk • contribs) 14:45, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Help with submitting an article for a review

Hi, I couldn't find any entry on this, and since we spoke "recently" I thought maybe I should ask you. There's a specific article I would like to put up for review (namely, cryotherapy) as most of its content is well, dubious. A lot of it sounds like either pseudoscience or a sales pitch and the sources are less than appropriate. The issue here is that I know very little of the topic myself and so find myself unable to fix the article. Hence, I would like to know if there is a way to put the article up for some sort of review, as a way to bring attention to it and maybe have people more knowledgeable than I about the topic to fix it. Akesgeroth (talk) 14:44, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Akesgeroth. The folks at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine are excellent at this sort of thing. I've posted there a few times myself with the same type of query. Just list the article and your concerns. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:51, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Submitted it at the page you linked. Akesgeroth (talk) 14:59, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Sharabha/User:Correcterminator

Neil, thanks for blocking that editor. Was going to report the edit warring, and when I went to their talk page to post the notice, I saw you had already taken care of it. I hate reporting 3RR stuff. But his last comment in his revert "... we will correct it always be sure", made me feel like they were simply going to continue. One thing, I'm going to open an SPI on this editor, along with user:Devasdp and user:Sdpdev, who have all made similar edits. However, I noticed you declined the RPP, and I am simply concerned that this page will continue to be vandalised by newly minted SPA accounts. Just a thought. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:02, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi onel5969. If sock/meat puppets do show up just post here and I will protect the page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:05, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Paradox

As soon as the Johan Anderson and paradox interactive pages unlock on day 30, the same vandals are planning to vandalize again. Can't sign or stop it since I'm on a phone. Keep an eye out please — Preceding unsigned comment added by Podcat (talk • contribs) 17:30, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

@Podcat: Thanks for the note. As a precautionary measure I've added pending changes protection to Johan Andersson (game programmer) which will take over when semi protection expires. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:17, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Removal of message

Hello NeilN,

In the section of the article, proper citations have been added supporting the content. Since i am only a auto-confirmed user, not sure if i am authorized to remove the "clarification needed" messages, so please do the needful.

Thanks Work2win (talk) 18:11, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Work2win. If the issue is resolved, any type of editor can remove any tag. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:14, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

blocked IP socking

FYI, as you blocked 74.101.51.221 (talk), that person is back as 100.33.126.2 (talk). nableezy - 19:19, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

@Nableezy: Blocked, page protected. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:26, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

PP assist - Dedham, Massachusetts - Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles characters

Hi Neil, would you please consider 1-month semi-ing List of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2012 TV series) characters on my behalf? Drmies was my go-to for stuff related to this article, but I'm not sure what's going on with him.

Basically:

An IP-hopper from Dedham, Massachusetts continues to restore cruft walls with no effort to discuss. Some IPs: 108.49.185.106, 108.26.174.18, etc.

I raised questions a few years back about the suitability of the article because it was so frickin' long and overly-detailed. On editor in particular, Rtkat3, seemed incapable of distinguishing between useful facts and detailing every single plot detail for every single character, and numerous attempts to discuss felt like peeling off my eyelids. I think a WP:CIR situation. Fast forward to 2015, after continuously running into Rtkat3 adding walls of useless content (see this version of the article,) I bring this up to Drmies, who skeletalizes the article in August. Since then, if you check the edit history, you'll notice a slew of 108.* IPs adding back the content over and over like 108.49.185.106 here. Never an attempt to discuss, although Drmies and I have comments on the talk page. And, each time I made contact with the IP to say, "seek consensus" or "cruft walls may be considered 'derivative works'". No reply, so clearly disruptive POV shit.

Please note my talk page comment today and their silent reversion ten or so minutes later.

I'm starting to think this user is Rtkat3 editing while logged out, since 3 years ago when I was editing that article regularly, he was the only person I ever had to battle with about the ridiculous use of wikilinks for "rat" and other common words, and for speculation about certain characters' species, which I note here from an IP that geolocates to Connecticut, where Rtkat3 acknowledges he is from (see his user page). Connecticut and Massachusetts are next to each other. It's not unfathomable that this is Rtkat3 editing while logged out and using two different methods for editing.

Thanks, and sorry to bug you again. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:32, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Protected 1 month to force discussion. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:47, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks mate. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:50, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Mentoring

Hi NeilN, would you consider adopting me as a semi-experienced editor? I feel that although I have a firm grasp of the basics and a number of policies, I definitely have room for improvement. I understand you're pretty busy, so if not, is there another administrator you could recommend bothering asking? samtar ^{t} 22:26, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi samtar. Subject to availability, I answer all good-faith questions posted here to the best of my ability. If that's all you're looking for, ask away. If you're looking for something more formal, I think Swarm is accepting adoptees. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:37, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I'll drop Swarm a message in a mo - though I'm sure I'll keep pestering you in the future, you've always been very helpful. Thank you samtar ^{t} 22:40, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

samtar I'm happy to help answer questions as well, paying forward Neil's kind assistance to my n00b admin questions above. I'm not quite in the market for mentorship, because my mop-wielding is already very demanding and I don't think I have the best personality for it. But help I am happy to assist where I can. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:56, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you as well Cyphoidbomb, I'll have to remember to alternate my glaringly obvious questions between you.. samtar ^{t} 23:00, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Frozen

Trust me, it's not just my opinion. I've seen several opinions from people saying that it's not a good movie. I do hate the movie, but I also hate Wall-e (in fact, I hate it more than Frozen) and I didn't remove it because I know that almost everyone loves it to death. Try checking out some youtube videos and articles where Frozen gets TONS of hate and is considered to be overrated as hell! --DisneyFan3 (talk) 00:58, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

DisneyFan3, and you can say the same thing about almost any film. Citizen Kane? Called boring. Gone with the Wind? Too long and melodramatic. So please re-read the article's introduction, specifically: "Each film listed here has been mentioned in a notable survey, whether a popular poll, or a poll among film reviewers." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:17, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

List of cities with the most high-rise buildings

Why you protected Cities Most Highrise article ? This article based in Emporis sources which is neutral sources and in English. But somebody had edited the article and put Shanghai highrise more than 14.000 based on local sources which is not neutral sources. Its impossible Shanghai highrise : Hongkong highrise + New York highrise — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.246.61.213 (talk) 04:04, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Because you and the other IP were edit warring. Work out your dispute using the article's talk page, please. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:09, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Renew PC-protection for...

Mumbai, Greenwich, New South Wales, Rajdeep Sardesai, Nikki Reed, Firehouse Tales, Paulina Vega

Thank you - from Morinville Community High School

Thanks for protecting the page. I was trying to teach a group of students how to become editors / how to use Wikipedia and things got out of control! I didn't realize you could edit the page without having an account. - Neil Korotash (teacher) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nkorotash (talk • contribs) 16:22, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Nkorotash. I understand. 99% of Wikipedia pages can be edited without an account. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:26, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Aha, now I see what I did

Hello again Neil. It seems there was an update that has made notifications easier to find/access as well as messages on talk pages. I realize there has been a lot of valuable input and information I have missed. I should also always check all notifications before I edit. I can see now that failure to do so is bad practice. I went to backtrack and can now see how some important problems have developed and how some good direction was either forgotten or missed entirely. I've only been able tp locate tge sandbox once and have never been able to find it again, so I became impatient and careless. Also there seems to be no way to access edit history so I can't check anything or get a better sense of what direction the article is taking. I understand how editors new to wiki can be frustrating to admins but rest assured I am not incomptent (a tad impetulant at times but not incompetent).

I need two things the most: how to access my personal sandbox and how to access edit history. I once helped do a "reverse edit" but it was copy paste with no wiki-mark-up which is a big problem, and it's a needlessly lengthy process if I can't get the mark-up and no just the text. I keep losing links and references this way and it's frustrating.

I appreciate your time, thank-you in advance. I am working out how to do this via mobile. I apologize for the trouble, but in the future please avoid ad hominem attacks because it can the derail editing process. I have bad days too. CheckersBoard (talk) 17:35, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

CheckersBoard, here's a link to the article history: link. You can access history by clicking/tapping the "history" tab at the top of any page. Here is your sandbox: User:CheckersBoard/sandbox. You will have to click/tap the "create" tab. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:46, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Persistent IP vandalism of Foundation for Economic Education

Went to dispute resolution where it tells me to discuss with the other party. That is not possible with a bunch of random ip addresses with no talk pages. Abel (talk) 21:49, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

@Id4abel: You can use the article's talk page. Plus it looks to me as SPECIFICO also has issue with your changes. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:32, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Why would a vandal care in the slightest about an article's talk page? What would someone even put there? "Please stop vandalizing the page whoever you are?" This has noting in the slightest to do with SPECIFICO, it has to do with vandalism from random IP addresses. Abel (talk) 01:24, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

@Id4abel: It's one editor and it looks like they have an issue with your changes. Not vandalism. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:30, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

@NeilN:How on Earth are you able to declare 107.107.61.236, 166.171.186.88, 107.107.61.10, 107.107.63.201, 71.101.47.122, and 107.107.59.153 as one editor? How can you even do more than just assume that they are one person?Abel (talk) 01:55, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

@Id4abel: The IPs doing this edit are probably one editor because of the similar edit summaries. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:04, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

@NeilN:Maybe, yet so what? Even if that assumption is valid, that is one edit out of the plethora of vandalism edits over the past week and a half, hence "persistent IP vandalism."Abel (talk) 02:27, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

@Id4abel: Please read WP:NOTVAND. Disagreeing with your changes is not vandalism. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:30, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

@NeilN:Has nothing to do with my changes. 71.101.47.122 removed the Good article code and replaced it with TAKE A LOOK! then replaced TAKE A LOOK!with (lo-c5)89[]/:-+. 107.107.61.10 attempted to manually revert numerous edits by several editors and broke much of the code while doing that with the edit description "Conflict of interest editer blanking and fanboy." 166.171.186.88 did the same thing with the edit description "promoter fanbuoy." 107.107.61.236 decided that one of the locations of the organization should be erased from human memory according to the edit description "hillside doesnt matter." All of these edits changed large portions of the article and broke lots of the code far beyond what the edit description suggests. Each was a deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia, hence vandalism.Abel (talk) 02:51, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

@NeilN:Should I expect a reply?

@Id4abel: I took a second look. I won't be semi-protecting. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:29, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

@NeilN:The reason being?Abel (talk) 13:38, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

@Id4abel: There is disagreement, not persistent vandalism. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:19, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

@NeilN:Arbitrarily reverting many people's edits, breaking most of the code in the article while doing it, is not disagreement. It is intentional disruption. Disagreement would be editing a portion of an article that is disliked or starting a new talk page section. Abel (talk) 21:52, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello. I saw this due to your ping, Neil. Thank you. I have walked away from that article because Abel has repeatedly denigrated me in the past and made wild exaggerated and unsupported attacks on me. More recently he threatened me by stating, falsely, that I am topic-banned from editing that FEE page. He's wrong, but I have no interest in defending myself against whatever accusations he might made at a spurious AE complaint. At any rate, my impression is that Abel seems to have "ownership" issues with that FEE article and that he has undone a lot of good, RS content that was added over an extended period of time by many editors. In particular, whereas the article was formerly an encylopedic presentation of the origin, history and program of this significant libertarian advocacy group, he's turned it into something much more limited. To be frank, I get the feeling he was a student there and has too limited and personal a perspective to edit the article objectively. I don't plan to re-engage there, so this is likely the last I'll have to say about that article. Sad to say, this is one of those articles that are not widely followed so that a single passionate editor such as Abel can do a lot of damage without any pushback or guidance from other editors. Thanks again for your ping. SPECIFICO talk 02:22, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Stating that you have a topic ban, which you do, is in no way a threat. My editing is a function of the project asking for more articles to reach good article status, which I was able to do with this article thanks to the organization being old enough to have plenty written about it over the years. Keep pushing that ownership idea, that will probably work out just as well as when you called me sexist. So for the I-don't-know-how-manyeth-time, this has nothing to do with SPECIFICO, it has to do with the multiple vandalism edits from random IP addresses, hence "persistent IP vandalism."Abel (talk) 02:35, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

User 96.255.79.37 has violated the 3-revert rule

Hello. I just wanted to let you know that the anonymous user 96.255.79.37 has violated the 3-revert rule on the page "Focus (song). If you could ask them to stop of ban them for a little while, it would be appreciated. TswiftARTPOP (talk) 23:00, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

TswiftARTPOP, editors cannot be blocked for WP:3RR without being first properly warned about it. I've done so now. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:37, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

They have been warned numerous times, but ok. TswiftARTPOP (talk) 02:41, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

TswiftARTPOP, at the time I looked into this, they had not reverted after being warned. They have now done so and earned a block. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:25, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Staffing

Hello, please give the student who's editing Staffing a chance. I have met with them and I anticipate that the changes to the article to follow will be encyclopaedic. --Raya 01:15, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

@Raya.sharbain: Your first sentence is a bit odd. If their changes are encyclopedic then of course I won't have a problem with that. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:21, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

@NeilN: Ok, but please give the student an opportunity to learn. Instead of reverting an edit, perhaps you can post on the article's talk page suggesting a possible "fix" (for lack of a better word)? I will keep in touch with the student to ensure that they work on the tone of voice used, but I simply don't want them to get discouraged.--Raya 01:53, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

@Raya.sharbain: Have you read the first "Staffing" section on this page? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:57, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

@NeilN: Yes I have. (edit: forgot to sign... but it's still Raya with a new username)

@Raya.sharbain: Another editor who I blocked after processing a report at WP:AIV. Whoever is running this course needs to keep better track of their students. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:50, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Another editor that needs guidance. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:58, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

@NeilN: Thank you for letting me know. I just want to say that I do in fact appreciate the work you're doing, it's just that the students are given little support in this assignment. But we will use your contributions as means to feedback into how the assignment is run. So, thank you :) --Flycatchr 16:40, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

NQ

Hi Neil, do you know anything about Nathan's absence? He hasn't edited since mid-August, and recently blanked his user and talk pages. I sent an email to the wiki-email I have for him, but got an auto-responder message that he is no longer monitoring that email. I don't know who he was close to on Wikipedia to ask, but I had noticed the two of you communicate occasionally. I just hope everything is OK with him; also it would be nice if he returned someday .... Softlavender (talk) 01:45, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

@Softlavender: Nathan is thankfully still around as NQ-Alt. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:59, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Actually he isn't. That account is blanked too and redirected to NQ, and he stopped editing from that account a day before he stopped editing from NQ. (So I'm guessing you have no info on his disappearance? That's too bad, I wish he had given some notice or explanation.... I hope he's OK.) Softlavender (talk) 02:05, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

@Softlavender: ???. That account was regularly editing up to a week ago, not mid-August. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:07, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I see what you're saying, but he's still clearly totally gone now and also inaccessible even via email. (His last message on his own talk page a week ago was "On an extended wiki-break", which he then blanked the next day when he cleared the pages of both accounts.) Unless you have an email address other than his standard wiki email. Do you? Softlavender (talk) 02:26, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

@Softlavender:, I don't, sorry. But I'll keep an eye out. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:34, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protecting List of current heads of state and government

Hi there; the IP has just been banned, although there is another user (Jerus82) who has vandalized additionally. My specific reasoning for the semi-protection is this article: List of current state leaders by date of assumption of office—which has been semi-protected since 2010. I honestly do not see any reason not to do the same with the requested article in question, with a similar subject. It would be tireless to warn every single IP / non-autoconfirmed user; the article is, I must repeat, regularly updated by autoconfirmed users. Thanks. Neve-selbert (talk) 02:00, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Neve-selbert, that indefinite semi-protection of List of current state leaders by date of assumption of office seems dubious at best, given the protecting admin was also heavily involved in editing the article. Also, sports-related articles (for example) are regularly updated by autoconfirmed editors. This does not mean we lock out IPs - they are not second-class editors. However, I have applied two months pending changes protection to the article - let's see what that does. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:40, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I totally understand where you are coming from. Neve-selbert (talk) 03:42, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

My correction is not a vandalism! The correct name of that Vatican office is GovernATorate, not Governorate! See President of the Pontifical Commission for Vatican City State --Jerus82 (talk) 05:16, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Neve-selbert? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:22, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Per the Vatican, "Governorate" is the correct term for that office. I've updated the article cited by Jerus82. General Ization ^Talk 05:29, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Ok. I updated Template:Politics of Vatican City. --Jerus82 (talk) 06:12, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Vandalism in Cities Most Highrise

Vandalism in Cities Most Highrise article. This article based in Emporis sources which is neutral sources and in English. But somebody had edited the article and put Shanghai highrise more than 14.000 based on local sources which is not neutral sources. Its impossible Shanghai highrise : Hongkong highrise + New York highrise

In this source Shanghai only had 1,232 building. Emporis data completed with list the name of the highrise so we can verified not just city claimed. There is a pattern for building more than 180 metre : Hongkong had 143, New York had 100, Chicago had 50, Shanghai only had 70. For the city without height restriction there is impossible Shanghai only had 70 buildings more than 180 metre but had more than 14.000 highrise building. New York had 100 building more than 180 metre but New York only had 6.000 highrise building. Except city with height restriction such as Sao Paulo. http://www.emporis.com/statistics/skyline-ranking — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mirandajovi (talk • contribs) 03:28, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Mirandajovi, as I told your IP, use the article's talk page to discuss. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:32, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Oke but please change the article its a vandalism Shanghai had 14.000 buildings. Shanghai is international city why no single foreigner report it to Emporis ?? For example in the year 2014 Emporis count the highrise in Moscow only 3000 buildings. But there is a report completed with the name of the building. So Emporis change highrise count for Moscow more than 10.000 highrise.--Mirandajovi (talk) 03:35, 31 October 2015 (UTC)--Mirandajovi (talk) 03:35, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Mirandajovi, I don't think you're listening to me. You were edit warring with another IP. Right now, you have three options to change the article. 1) Best option - Post to the talk page and get agreement for your edit. 2) Wait until protection expires and edit the article yourself. 3) Get autoconfirmed and edit the article yourself. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:45, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

'Dictionary' articles

Hi NeilN, quick question - came across Staffing as I have your talk page watched and sometimes stalk it. In my opinion the article is just a glorified dictionary definition, and although I'm not claiming any 'violation' of Wipedia is not a dictionary, I'm curious as to why it does exist samtar ^{t} 11:13, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) The talk page reveals all: Talk:Staffing. See the banner at the top; the article was created as a homework assignment, and was consequently bloated and non-encyclopedic. Now that it's been trimmed down it really is little more than a dictionary definition. Softlavender (talk) 11:40, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I did have a quick look at that Softlavender, unfortunately it makes me torn between AfDing it as almost solely a dictionary entry or leaving it be as someone's assignment... samtar ^{t} 12:44, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

samtar, you're right in that right now it's little more than a dicdef but a AFD probably would (and should) result in a keep or redirect. It would be redirected if the AFD participants decided to TNT it. However since it's going to be worked on, it would probably be kept. If done properly, the AFD should not only look at the current state, but also if the article has the potential to become more than a dicdef. If you nominated the article for deletion, you would be responsible for doing a WP:BEFORE. Do you think you could find sources that would allow you to expand the article beyond a dicdef? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:33, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Halloween cheer!

Happy Halloween!

---

Hello NeilN:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!
    – --I am k6ka ^{Talk to me!} _{See what I have done} 15:46, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Speedy deletion request by blocked user

Hello Neil, as I was going through speedy deletion requests, I found this one which was tagged by User:Supdiop 2. When I wanted to ask that user about it, I noticed that they were just blocked by you for disruptive editing. What was the nature of the disruption? Does it warrant checking this user's other speedy deletion requests? — Sebastian 08:09, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

@SebastianHelm: The main account Supdiop went off the rails for a bit after their unsuccessful RFA and had to be temporarily blocked for disruptive editing. They then switched to their alternate account which I also blocked for the same thing (basically refusing to drop the stick). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:08, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Chris Oyakhilome

Hi Neil, this is Glory (Life-Giving Spirit), I got a message to talk to you about edit-warring, which is what I never wanted.

I just thought that assuming Oyakhilome has the monetary value listed on his page, it doesn't add up. However, instead of causing a way, I won't make the correction again. I'll leave the page as it is.

Thanks for your time Life-giving Spirit (talk) 14:14, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Life-giving Spirit. If you think your change is correct, you should talk to the other editor (Edwardx) using their talk page or the article's talk page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:03, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Halloween cheer!

Happy Halloween!

---

Hello NeilN:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!
    – North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:04, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.
Sent to users on my mailing list. To opt-out forever, just remove your name.

• Happy (belated) Halloween! North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:04, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Block evasion

Hello. A couple of days ago you rangeblocked 2600:1005:b040::/42 and protected a couple of aircraft articles (F-16, UH-60 and possibly more) because of repeated disruptive editing by an IP-hopper (Verizon, NYC). Well, he's at it again, now using Special:Contributions/2600:1005:B027:8D8F:AC93:246E:D66D:89AB and Special:Contributions/2600:1005:B015:551B:D102:A5B9:8A01:370E, and several other IPs in those ranges too... Thomas.W ^talk 18:48, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

• This user has also created Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations/Bilcat, which is misplaced and lists the wrong username anyway. I've tagged it as G3 for speedy deletion, as that's the most appropriate DB I could find. Thanks for anything you can do in this situation. - BilCat (talk) 19:42, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

@Thomas.W: Blocked that IP range. A lot of articles were edited so holding off on protection unless the disruption resumes. @BilCat: Deleted as a WP:G5. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:55, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much. - BilCat (talk) 20:55, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Dankyhashpants

Hello Neil,

You warned this editor about their conduct at Bill Cosby last December. They just added a BLP violation to the article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:36, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

@Cullen328: And it's the same violation they were warned about. Blocked 72 hours. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:43, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. It seems they are adding unreferenced musical genres as well. Though far less serious, this does not bode well for their success as an editor. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:46, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

@Cullen328: And you were right. Their second attempt at an unblock request earned them an indefinite with talk page access removed. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:16, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Wowzers! No "Editor of the Month" award for them. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:25, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Which blocked or banned user previously created the Sexual aggression article?

Neil, the following log by MuZemike states: "19:08, 9 July 2012 MuZemike (talk | contribs) deleted page Sexual aggression (G5: Creation by a blocked or banned user in violation of block or ban)."

So which blocked or banned user previously created that article? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:58, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Leucosticte. It was just a redirect to Sexual assault. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:14, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

By the way

Please reply to my message on my talk page. Was I like harassing? I am totally upset because my Packers were terrible. --74.130.133.1 (talk) 04:46, 2 November 2015 (UTC)