User talk:NeilN

Picture of the day Dictyophorus spumans Photograph credit: Charles J. Sharp Archive More featured pictures

Paul Fix (racing driver)

Trying to make changes - postings were in the wrong location. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoeyholley (talk • contribs) 20:19, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

@Zoeyholley: Okay. Please use edit summaries as you have a poor history with this article. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:25, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

My Kiss Edits

Nick Panaseiko is my father , I have proof .. Why were my edits not accepted ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73Minstrel (talk • contribs) 04:06, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi 73Minstrel. Please read our no original research policy. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:11, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Neil , Sorry that was my first Wiki Edit , Nick Panaseiko is My Father and my story is true , I have tons of images and ticket stubs as proof , but I wasnt allowed to upload them ???

73Minstrel (talk) 04:11, 19 March 2017 (UTC) 73minstrel

@73Minstrel: Reading the verifiability policy would also be helpful: "[Wikipedia's] content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it." You need to provide sources like newspaper articles. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:16, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

http://ultimateclassicrock.com/kiss-tour-package-sale/

73Minstrel (talk) 04:23, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

http://www.elektromediagroup.com/producer.html

http://www.kissmonster.com/tourdates/1974/1974-1222.php

73Minstrel (talk) 04:26, 19 March 2017 (UTC) Is this okay ???

@73Minstrel: Below you'll find a copy of your text, with excess trivia removed, and indications what needs sources:

After their first visit as an opening band to Edmonton, Alberta, Canada in 1974. Kiss went back to the US to do a few dates. Where a radio station out of Windsor, Ontario, CJOM now CIMX-FM and a DJ named Ronnie Legge were really getting behind Kiss putting the music in to heavy rotation. They sent Nick Panaseiko a Promoter out of London, Ontario along with Rockin Reggie Vinson , Writer of Alice Cooper's song Billion Dollar Babies (song) to Kiss's show at an arena in Detroit. It is here were Nick Panaseiko first met with Kiss and their then road manager Allan Miller and manager Bill Aucoin to discus bringing Kiss to Canada as Headliners. The first Kiss headlining show would be July 25th 1974 , in London, Ontario at Centennial Hall with a power house Canadian Trio Rush (band) still in their early years with their original drummer John Rutsey to open the show. Centennial Hall has a capacity of 1600 people, Kiss drew 1300.

Kiss liked Rush (band) so much, they decided to take Rush on tour. However John Rutsey original drummer would not be able to handle the tour. Enter Neil Peart.

Kiss would return to the USA to pay some shows to with Rush (band) as opening act and then just a few months later, Once again Kiss would return to London, Ontario to play the London arena on December 22nd 1974 , However this time Rush (band) would not be on the bill. They would use another band by the name of Joe as openers. Sponsored by CJOM/DJ Ronnie Legge and again be promoted by London, Ontario's own Nick Panaseiko. It was the promotion for this tour where Nick Panaseiko would coin the phrase "MERRY KISSMAS !" that is still widely used today by the band. Nick's promotion campaign involved dressing up imposters in Kiss make up and partial costumers to go around to various record stores and do pop ins to create the hype of kiss being in town for as early as 2 weeks before the show. Later Kiss would coin Nick Panaseiko with titles of "The First Canadian Believer' "Canada's Hottest Rock and Roll Promoter" which would be inscribed on 3 platinum records and on gold record presented to Nick for his support.

--NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:33, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you , I just put in some citations .. are they enough? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73Minstrel (talk • contribs) 04:35, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

@73Minstrel: For some of the material. But the text still contains excess trivia and promotional language. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:39, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

NEIL, I provided a newspaper article , that proved every word of my kiss edits and it still has been taken down ? could you please shed some light on this .. I have more than enough proof , why shouldn't the world know a truthful part of Kisses story???

http://www.kissonline.com/news?n_id=49639 Taken straight from kiss's website , http://ultimateclassicrock.com/kiss-tour-package-sale/ - All my stuff http://www.kissmonster.com/tourdates/1974/1974-1222.php - Tour Dates Confirmed

Help a brother out here

73Minstrel (talk) 02:10, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

@73Minstrel: As I said above, the material still contains excess trivia and promotional language. Greg Fasolino removed it here, stating, "This added material is non-encyclopedic and not relevant to this article. It is self-promotional, anecdotal and gives undue weight to a certain tour etc. Does not belong in a Kiss article." If you disagree, please use Talk:Kiss (band) to discuss. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:10, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

"why shouldn't the world know a truthful part of Kisses story???" because the material you added is not a newsworthy part of the Kiss story, it's your father's story. If we were to add in anecdotal stories about every Kiss tour, every opening band they had, every promoter etc that Kiss has ever worked with, the article would be so large no one could read it. The article must focus on actual relevant facts about Kiss, with consistent weight and emphasis, not long sidebars focused solely on one promoter they once worked with. If you feel your father's story is newsworthy, start a Wikipedia page on him and see how that goes. The Kiss article isn't the place.Greg Fasolino (talk) 18:20, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

A mail

You got one. — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 13:58, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Why did you reject my edit?

Why did you reject my edit under README as RefSpam? I added a reference which was just as good as the other ones, and was just as helpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wildrumpus (talk • contribs) 14:12, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

@Wildrumpus: You're right in that the previous link did not belong in the article either. I've removed it. Please read Links normally to be avoided: "Blogs, personal web pages and most fansites (negative ones included), except those written by a recognized authority." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:19, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Caspar Lee

Hey, just needed to ask something Tanisha 0413 (talk) 18:19, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

@Tanisha 0413: Because a video made in 2016 about one Tinder date does not mean, "He is currently dating..." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:32, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Creation of Previously Deleted Page

I am looking to recreate a page named Prakash Neupane . I found out that the page was previously deleted by you. Looking forward your consensus Bishal revenger (talk) 08:35, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Bishal revenger. What sources do you have to show the subject is notable? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 11:52, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Prakash Neupane is a singer(Rap and R&B artist) in Nepal, who is a band member of G-Unity with Girish Khatiwada (NepHop) and team. I am providing some URL for your reference. You can delete these links after viewing:

• http://neostuffs.com/2016/07/fresh-tunes-lagcha-maya-timro-prakash-neupane-raju-dangal/
• http://neostuffs.com/2016/01/fresh-tunes-prakash-x-aidray-sunana/
• https://www.musixmatch.com/artist/Prakash-Neupane
• https://genius.com/artists/Prakash-neupane
• http://www.femnepal.com/news/lagcha-maya-timro-prakash-neupane-and-raju-dangal/
• http://prakashneupane.com/

User:NeilN

Bishal revenger (talk) 08:46, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Bishal revenger, sorry, I apologize. I did look at this earlier and meant to respond. Neostuffs was already present in the article that was deleted through discussion. Musicmatch, Genius, and PrakashNeupane do not address the notability issue that led to the deletion. Femnepal doesn't work for me. Got any better sources? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:15, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

What about Apple itunes for verifying his works? https://itunes.apple.com/us/artist/prakash-neupane/id1002362886 Bishal revenger (talk) 08:13, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

@Bishal revenger: No, existence does not equal notability. Please read WP:MUSIC to see what is needed. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:47, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

User:90.200.35.182 reported by User:Thomas.W (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

I bet you soiled your pants over this one !! 2.122.31.10 (talk) 15:20, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Does someone really need to stick up for you ? 2.122.31.10 (talk) 15:43, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Yawn. Go away please. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:46, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Feel free to close Winkelvi section.

I closed it because it's devolved into pretty serious personal attacks and leaving it open serves no purpose. Drmies in particular has been subject to some nasty personal attacks that does not need to continue. Ivanvector's comment summed it up perfectly. We aren't discussing any incident on that thread, but rather discussing a future incident that has not occurred and it devolved from there. It can be summed up with "Endorse the block, endorse the blocking policy, endorse the unblocking guidelines." The collateral damage far exceeds any benefit we are getting from it and IAR to shut it down before it devolves further is in the interest of the encyclopedia. --DHeyward (talk) 16:32, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

@DHeyward: I think we're reading different threads. Editors are discussing past history and how to prevent future disruption from occurring, whether by indef blocking, editing restrictions, or something else. Any personal attacks can be removed or redacted. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:39, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

(responding to ping) I agree with NeilN, the discussion is ongoing. There has regrettably been some untoward behaviour from a separate dispute spilling into that thread, but my comment (I assume you mean this one) was meant to try to refocus the discussion so that it could continue, not to end it. Plus, there is no consensus for "do nothing" in the thread so whatever happens will require admin action, making this not a good case for a non-admin close. (Though I know you did so in good faith). Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:00, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

No, that discussion already happened on the 3RR noticeboard and resulted in a 3 month block. The result has not been overturned and its rather nebulous as to whether ANI would change that or what exactly is being discussed. The "incident" is spillover from an unblock request on the users talk page where the unblock was denied. No additional remedy is being sought at ANI and until someone acts to change the status quo, it's a pointless discussion. If and when someone changes the status quo and alters the block, it would undoubtedly be a new ANI thread or even a different forum if an editor challenges the change because the focus would then be on an admins decision to change the block. The ANI thread titled "Winkelvi" is not about Winkelvi and has never been presented as such. It is a discussion on whether the admin action was warranted and is why Coffee brought it there as the discussion on the talk page had many admins weighing in advocating various alternatives to the straight block. It's already devolved into rather acrimonius name calling and redaction of the word "cunt" does little to soften the animosity it creates. It serves no purpose except drama to keep it open because nothing is being reviewed or asked for. @Ivanvector: I am not sure what you mean. "Do nothing" means keeping the already in place 3 month block. ANI won't force an admin to mentor anyone so "Do nothing" is really the only thing that will happen in that forum. The block has already been levied. --DHeyward (talk) 17:34, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

@DHeyward: Well, you're wrong about how things like this are discussed around here. The community can certainly ask for additional sanctions after any block has been levied. "No additional remedy is being sought at ANI" - I don't know how you can write that with a straight face. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:40, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

The blocking admin, Coffee started the thread. What remedy was he asking for except for endorsing the status quo? With a very straight face, I can say his only request was to leave his block unchanged. What did you think he was asking for? --DHeyward (talk) 18:35, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

@DHeyward: An ANI discussion quite often evolves into something other than what it started out as. If you don't know this then you shouldn't be closing discussions. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:40, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

@DHeyward: (edit conflict) I mean, I just don't know where to start with this. The thread is a review of Coffee's block of Winkelvi, and there are various proposals to endorse the block, reduce or overturn it, or impose additional sanctions. I don't know how you look at a thread like that and say "no additional remedy is being sought". The consensus of the community determined at the noticeboards supersedes the consensus of one admin at AN3 or several at a user talk page. Let it happen. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:42, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

What is being asked for at ANI that hasn't already been done? Since the block has been enabled already, the ANI discussion becomes a Hobson's choice. No one is questioning the validity of the block or its length. The talk page discussion that triggered the ANI was actually about a conditional unblock. "Conditions for unblocking Winkelvi" might have been a useful discussion at ANI but that's not how it was posited. The conditional unblock discussion was viewed as questioning the legitimacy of the block which is where it fell apart as the legitimacy was not questioned. I'll bow out now. --DHeyward (talk) 18:35, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

• I came by to drop a line with Neil and noticed this discussion, so I guess I'll put it here. Neil, I notice that you framed the alternatives as being 1) Indefinite block and 2) unblocking (immediately I imagine?) with a 0RR or 1RR restriction. May I suggest broadening it to include other alternatives? For instance, affirming the three-month block and imposing other restrictions at the conclusion thereof? Softlavender suggested an article talk page restriction. That hadn't occurred to me and makes sense, if there is an unblock. Coretheapple (talk) 13:53, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

• Hi Coretheapple. My goal was not to offer options but rather to (hopefully fairly and accurately) sum up what the majority of editors were proposing in the above two sections and to see if one option could be deemed at least acceptable by those involved. I don't know how the closer is going to find consensus if everyone is proposing different restrictions. It's clear editors want "something" done but are not in agreement about what that something is. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:05, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

• OK. The sense I get is that it is being interpreted as "these are our remaining choices." Coretheapple (talk) 14:11, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

• @Coretheapple: I was originally mulling over writing "An unblock or block expiration with an indefinite 0RR or 1RR editing restriction" as the second point but that gives four options for editors to discuss and I don't know how useful that would have been. Editors are certainly free to propose other options and see if there's widespread support, hopefully achieving better success than I seem to have. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:23, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

• Or something in between indefinite and immediate unblock, such as the original three-month block. Coretheapple (talk) 14:35, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Religion Demographics of New Delhi

Hi. Since you are a frequent editor on page New Delhi, I am here to tell you that the religion demographics of New Delhi are in contrast with that of whole NCT of Delhi. New Delhi's population is overwhelmingly Hindu (89.82%, not 79.8% as it has been mentioning till now) as per census 2011. You can check the row number 56 (NDMC) in this excel document downloaded from site of Census of India. Other religions are Islam (4.5%), Christianity (2.9%) and Sikhism (2.0%). These percentages should have been updated much before. I updated all this. Though I know there is nothing wrong in my edits (when there are separate articles on Delhi and New Delhi, their religious demographics also must be separately mentioned), I still want to know your viewpoint as an administrator. Regards. Vibhss (talk) 19:22, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Vibhss. Not sure why you posted here instead of at Talk:New Delhi as admins have no special say over content. My only edits have been to revert spam. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:53, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Why should not I have the right to correct all the mistakes and misinformation of Taslima Nasrin wikipedia ?

I have not been allowed to correct the misinformation on Taslima Nasrin wikipedia for decades. Whenever I edit, wikipedia authority prevents me from editing. Why does wikipedia authority like to keep wrong information about me? Very weird. I was editing today, and as usual my text was removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taslima Nasrin (talk • contribs) 20:50, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello Ms. Nasrin. You can correct obvious errors of fact. But changing

"Taslima Nasrin (also Taslima Nasreen, born 25 August 1962) is a Bangladeshi author and former physician who has been living in exile since 1994."

to

"Taslima Nasreen/Nasrin an award-winning writer, physician, secular humanist and human rights defender, is known for her powerful writings on women oppression and unflinching criticism of religion, despite forced exile and multiple fatwas calling for her death."

is something else entirely. Please read our neutral point of view policy and our conflict of interest guidelines. In short, you should be using the article's talk page to make suggestions about content. Also, please log in when you edit. Thank you. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:00, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Temple & Webster article

Just thinking about this. I was wondering if it actually is the same text on the ad agency Temple & Webster articles that got deleted as the Temple and Webster article that just got posted. I can't see the old text so all I have to go on is memory - are they basically the same, or enough that the author seems to have started from the deleted article's text? If yes, I'll consider moving to ANI etc. Blythwood (talk) 01:15, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Blythwood. I looked at the deleted article before responding at AIV and while the details are similar (not surprising) the wording is different and the old article had "Board & Management" and "Awards" sections. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:22, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

• OK. Have to say I thought some of the content was the same, in particular the sentence "The IPO was oversubscribed, but shares fell over 30% on opening". Since the author does say they work in the retail industry, I've put a COI message on their talk page and will see how they respond. Sorry to bother you with this, but the last set of COI accounts doing this were really behaving pretty shabbily. Blythwood (talk) 01:31, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

• @Blythwood: No bother. The old sentence was, "While the IPO was oversubscribed, the share price dropped rapidly to make it one of the poorest performing Australian floats of 2016". --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:33, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

How did I make a disruptive remark on Mark Dice's page?

All I did was change "conspiracy theorist" to "conservative media analyst". Any clarification would be great. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KillThad (talk • contribs) 02:15, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

@KillThad: See WP:MEAT. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:17, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Per the wikipedia rules, I am cleared for editing this page. I cannot edit the header. I have references to fill any question that may arise. meatclerk (talk) 03:17, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

@Jessemonroy650: Any reason why you've suddenly changed the name in your signature? And you should not be proxy editing for anybody. [1] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:42, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

See this is what I am talking about. Disrespect. Check the IP logs, you will see I am in El Paso TX. I have no idea who killThat is, nor do I care. Mr Dice asked that the reference be fixed. I abliged per the wikipedia rules. SEE MY RECORD. I have had this account for almost 10 years. Enough nonsense. meatclerk (talk) 04:02, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

@Jessemonroy650: I was referring to changing Jessemonroy650 to "meatclerk" less than a couple hours ago. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:09, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

That you "abliged" for Mr Dice is why you are a meat puppet -- you are a meat puppet for him. We don't care how long you've had this account, so quit acting like that gives you some sort of right. If your primary purpose is not helping the site, then you should leave. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:12, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

EVIL EVIL LIBERALS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.180.72.162 (talk) 04:45, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I think the "liberal denialist spinbot" I got a few years ago had more flair. Although I did get accused of being a Republican hack for the same set of edits... --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:01, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protect request

Can you semi-protect Nothin' on You and Hymn for the Weekend to persistent long-term abuse (Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Wikidesctruction vandal) 115.164.91.202 (talk) 14:11, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Two weeks each to start. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:17, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

The Pentecostal Mission

Hi,

I would like to thank you for cleaning up the page "The Pentecostal Mission". I understand wiki doesn't allow primary sources in certain places. But there is no other way to cite the statement of beliefs of a church without citing a primary source. For example, this particular church doesn't allow members to get married in a different denomination than their own, so the citation I gave was to a link that had the circular from this church announcing the ban of inter-denominational marriage. Could you please let me know the alternative for similar citations? Patricksrichard (talk) 17:02, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

@Patricksrichard: You can use the church's website or an academic book published by a reputable publisher that covers the church's teachings. What you cannot use is a blog devoted to "exposing" the church. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:09, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I hear ya. Since this church doesn't have a website and bans any sharing of church teachings online, it's literally impossible to find information anywhere else, but I'm trying. Thanks for the response! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patricksrichard (talk • contribs) 17:14, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

@Patricksrichard: Documents you post on Scribd are no better than a personal blog. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:22, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

The scribd link contains the pdf that is a scanned copy of the circular read in the church that confirms the point I made. THe point I made was the church bans members from getting married in another denomination and I linked it to the circular of the church. Patricksrichard (talk) 14:32, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

@Patricksrichard: Anyone can put anything on Scribd and make claims about it. We don't accept this type of source or else we'd have to accept someone scanning in and putting up Obama's "Kenyan birth certificate". --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:38, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Editing Beauty and the Beast (2017) page

Upon adding information regarding the marketing budget of the 2017 film Beauty and the Beast to its Wikipedia article, I find the information has been removed. This is confusing because (1) I obtained the information from multiple reliable sources, which I cite (2) the information is restated and explained further later in the article. Still the information has been removed and now the article is temporarily locked without the information. I believe it is a necessary addition because the information gives readers a better understanding of the profit gained by the film thus far. The production budget was about $140 million and the box office thus far is ~$400 million. Based on this information alone it you would assume the film made a whopping ~$260 million in profit; however, marketing cost $160 million totaling ~$300 million total spent. Thus, profit is really ~$100 million (though growing).

What can I do? I am very new to Wikipedia and any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks, Samantha Californialuck (talk) 19:14, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Californialuck, welcome to Wikipedia. Is this the change you're asking about? If so, TropicAces gave a reason: "just put production budget up top, full marketing is in detail below". --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:26, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Californialuck NeilN my reasoning is so much goes into a film's overall budget it's somewhat misleading to put it up top. It goes into detail in Box office and Marketing sections below, and only the Production budget is fronted by the production companies, so it should be clarified as such. A film needs to make about 4x it's production budget to be deemed successful, so it's all convoluted. I personally think saying "a total combined budget of ($300) million" in the opening is just a little broad and doesn't tell full story. But I don't think any of us are going to lose sleep over the wording of a Beauty and the Beast article haha... TropicAces (talk) 19:32, 22 March 2017 (UTC)tropicAces

Thank you so much for the reply NeilN! I'm really new to this so thanks for explaining. Overall the reasoning makes sense, I just didn't see the reply (I don't know how to). I think I was taking the revision of my edit too personally haha and I really appreciate your politeness :)

Samantha Californialuck (talk) 19:44, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

@Californialuck: Glad to help. Hope you stick around and if you have any more questions feel free to post here or use our Help Desk. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:53, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

What is with admins today?

Everyone is on the offensive! I questioned an admin who refused to respond to me, I fact checked the citations and under wiki policy felt they were fine. He restored a citation behind a paywall twice. People can't get to that citation to review it, it shouldn't be on wikipedia. If you can't find more solid citations why are you removing the ones which support the information on the page? The other admin removed the other citation I added to support the information on the page. If you take it away you have to take all the information away. This is the negativity of wikipedia, admins removing content are they even fact checking the citations or removing them because they feel like it? You please lack explanation. Govvy (talk) 22:34, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Govvy, it has nothing do with Bbb23 being an admin. You've been here since 2005 and you jump straight to ANI implying a long-standing editor is antisemitic instead of using the article talk page? Why in the world would you do that? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:41, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Probably because I am Jewish and so is Will and it felt like Bbb23 is attacking my family, feels like denying we are Jewish. I found that offensive. Govvy (talk) 22:46, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

@Govvy: I suggest you drop that line of thinking ASAP. In a way, you're lucky that Bbb23 is an admin as we are used to taking some abuse. Accuse a regular editor of antisemitism and they just might call for you to be blocked. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:54, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

If anything, you got off easy because he's an admin. Casting aspersions like that is, frankly, beyond the pale. El_C 22:57, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

And please see WP:PAYWALL: "Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:43, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Paywall's are unreliable, you can't access the information if you don't want to pay for it, making it void. Govvy (talk) 22:46, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

@Govvy: Use some common sense here. Many academic books, journals, and papers require payment for access. Yet these are some of our most reliable sources. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:50, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia has articles on my Uncle, two great Uncles and seven cousins at last count, I will always make sure that they are treated fairly. I don't care who you are, admin or not. I really don't want people messing with those articles, But when it had citations and someone removes a citation with lack of reason. well... I will question that. The lack of response on his talk page I felt offended. Govvy (talk) 23:20, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

@Govvy: An edit summary of "precisely same 2 unreliable sources as before, also violates WP:BLPCAT, take it to Talk or WP:BLPN" does not entitle you fling about accusations of racism. And do you understand our WP:PAYWALL policy now? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:37, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

The source doesn't mention anything about Willie Garson know! Govvy (talk) 23:40, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

@Govvy: You've purchased the article? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:47, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

actually, from the small portion that's freely visible....isn't it pretty unlikely that the article talks about Garson's summer camp habits? Also, isn't that little tidbit fairly ridiculous to include in an encyclopedia article? -Floquenbeam (talk) 01:26, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam: It was first inserted here by an editor who focused on Camp Wekeela. Looking at their talk page, I see no indication of problems with sourcing. I agree the bit it's sourcing is trivia - it can stay or go, doesn't matter to me. What I am concerned about is Govvy's assertion that "Paywall's are unreliable, you can't access the information if you don't want to pay for it, making it void." If they try that with a different article, they're going to run into trouble. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:12, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that reference is messed up somehow; it just doesn't make sense it would veer so far off topic. I did find it in another location (RS and non-paywall), so I expect it was some kind of mistake rather than intentional. But I'm not sure whether to change the reference or delete as trivia. I'll sleep on it, I suppose. Understand your desire to emphasize WP:PAYWALL to Govvy, just thinking they might not be in the frame of mind to hear it right now. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:59, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam: This bothered me enough to buy a one month subscription to the archives. The archive format is different from the linked web page but I can fairly certainly say the article under "Celebrity News" is broken out into subsections, "Tee time for 'Entourage'" being the first. One subsection is titled "Latest role is true camp" and is about Garson and has "For the record, Garson is no stranger to camp life. He attended Camp Wekeela in Maine for 11 years." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:46, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Well that's certainly dedication to the encyclopedia! But tell the truth: you just really needed to find out how the Tom Brady story ended... :) Anyway, it makes more sense now, although then I think calling the reference title "Tee time for 'Entourage'" is confusing. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:56, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Yo NeilN, couldn't our very own WP:RX help out? There's not much that can't be found there, it seems. — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 14:42, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: I was impatient :-) And in this case, a casual search might not have found what I discovered. The archive link present on the web page goes to a totally different story, involving neither Brady or Garson. But doing some digging revealed that single "Celebrity News" pieces are split into multiple pieces in the archive. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:51, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Wanklyn

Appreciate protection of the article. But now it has deleted sources and info attached that do not reflect the sources see here. 15:58, 23 March 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dapi89 (talk • contribs) 15:58, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

@Dapi89: See WP:WRONGVERSION. Please use the edit request template to request changes that have consensus. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:06, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I am sorry, really. I tried to keep things civil. But there is no use... --Olonia (talk) 17:09, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @Olonia: Your last five edit summaries have been along the lines of, 'You are insane', 'insanely reverting' you, 'jerking' you around, 'delirious', 'if you don't behave like an adult'. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the dispute, that's stretching the definition of WP:CIVIL a tad. Just a thought. — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 17:46, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Have you taken a look at what he said about me and my contributions while I commented so (Wanklyn talk page, edit war report, etc.)? And looked at his attitude throughout the entire incident? Patience has a limit...--Olonia (talk) 17:51, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Ah yes, the talk page: where you call him 'ignorant' :) Anyway, in the context of your discussion, you need to man your posts at the mouth of the Straits ;) and no depthcharges please. Or the courtmartial might happen! — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 18:05, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Azteca (multimedia conglomerate)

Could you take another look at Talk:Azteca (multimedia conglomerate)?

I've relisted the RM because I think it might be a goer, but I'm not convinced. We don't of course necessarily follow the official names.

But the RM seems open and the survey closed. You seem to be already up to speed on the rather convoluted story so far. Or just pass it back to me and I'll try to fix it... but I think I'd prefer to remain out of it in an admin capacity, and contribute to the discussion instead. Andrewa (talk) 19:04, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

@Andrewa: What I would do is move all the legit-editor comments out of the closed section, into the discussion section, and collapse (instead of close) the sock section. Let me know if you want me to do this. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:11, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes please. That sounds a good solution to me, and we can move forward. Andrewa (talk) 19:20, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

@Andrewa: Done. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:27, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

You should remove your name from that "Admins willing to RevDel" list

Because then I'll have to find someone else to pester. In the meantime, help? CityOfSilver 19:12, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

@CityOfSilver: I'm supposedly in one of my famous happy moods (??!) today, so done. :) Thanks for reporting. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:17, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

And thank you for being in a happy mood. CityOfSilver 19:20, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Deletions to Talk:United States Merit Systems Protection Board

Talk:United States Merit Systems Protection Board is NOT a biography of a living person (BLP), which you cited for reverting my reversion. It's a talk page. Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines say you should not edit or delete the comments of other editors without their permission.

If I remember correctly, the material you deleted were all old comments by someone using an IP address, so it's probably not a big deal. I thought the comments pushed the limits of acceptable discourse, but I also felt a need in my reply to them years ago to Wikipedia:Assume good faith. DavidMCEddy (talk) 19:27, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi DavidMCEddy. WP:BLP applies everywhere on Wikipedia, including talk pages of any article. "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page." There's not much left of the talk page after you take out all the unsubstantiated accusations and your replies would have made little sense. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:32, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi, User:NeilN: Thanks. We don't want Wikipedia to become an echo chamber for hate speech, especially in the current post-truth environment. Hate crimes seem to have increased, I think, since Trump began his presidential campaign in earnest in 2015. (Unfortunately, I don't have a solid source for this nor time to search for such. I just added a comment to Talk:Hate crime encouraging someone to improve the discussion of Hate crime#Victims in the United States, because it seems not to have been updated since 2010.)

I will use "WP:BLP applies everywhere" myself in the future in responding to material like what you just deleted.

Thanks again. DavidMCEddy (talk) 15:16, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks DavidMCEddy. Teen Vogue, of all places, has this piece on the rise in hate crimes. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:22, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Note

Hello, i have a question ... why did you put that note into my page :$ .. it would be nice if you can tell me. Best of luck! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iaof2017 (talk • contribs) 17:01, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Iaof2017. You are editing topics covered by discretionary sanctions so you need to edit a little more carefully. That is, minimize edit warring, politely discuss changes when someone asks, etc. Just be aware you are editing in a controversial area and act accordingly. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:09, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for informing me NeilN. I will definitely be carefull now, thanks again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iaof2017 (talk • contribs) 17:15, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Wanklyn, 2

The protection on the page Malcolm David Wanklyn expires tomorrow, and as of now an agreement with Dapi89 has not been reached yet (see here and here). May you consider prolonging the protection on the page (if possible), until an agreement is reached, as to avoid risk of further edit war?--Olonia (talk) 17:52, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

@Olonia and Dapi89: There shouldn't really be any wholesale reverts from either of you when protection expires. I am disinclined to prevent other editors from improving the article so blocks may occur instead of re-protection. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:54, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Block evasion "Human like you"

You recently blocked [2] and [3] for block evasion of indef blocked user "Human like you" who is a notorious for using multiple sock puppets. Now the same user is active again as [4] (edits similar to recently blocked [5]). The user [6] editing on the same page with the same agenda is most likely another sock puppet (their edits were reinstated by 176.33.54.33, again edits similar to [7], also adding material sourced to 'Daily Sabah' like "Human like you" used to do [8]). 84.187.147.161 (talk) 21:49, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Blocked as socks. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:45, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

@NeilN: It seems the same user is now active again as [9] in the same section of the same page [10] pushing the same POV: (the insistance that the police was mounted, the picture caption [11] and at the categories [12] (taken from Turkish pro-Erdogan pro-AKP propaganda) of the uploaded file [13]). 84.187.151.87 (talk) 10:18, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

@NeilN: Same again, now here. Thanks for your efforts. 84.187.153.169 (talk) 14:21, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

@NeilN and Black Kite: And again, now here and here. 84.187.144.76 (talk) 10:48, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

@NeilN and Black Kite: Again here. 84.187.149.64 (talk) 10:55, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Edits regarding Muhammad's Appearance

Hi NeilN, I would just like to talk to you about my edits on Muhammad which were regarding his appearance. I believe it is not properly describing Muhammad according to the authentic historical sources. I deemed the source as unreliable, as it went against the established primary sources passed down from history, the 2 most authentic books of Islamic tradition, or hadith, Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim. I have explained myself fully in the talk page which you can read. It also contradicts itself, where it says "not fat" in the beginning, and then "stout" afterwards. Add to all of that, the author actually changed it after I first presented a flaw in the statement, which you can view between the edit history from when I first presented the topic on March 2, if I am correct. Look at how it has changed from an edit in it after the date regarding the flaw I presented. This is really important because this is the leader of Islam, with over 1.7 million followers, and the fastest growing religion, and wikipedia is an easy to use site which everyone reads, so it will give an inaccurate description to many people. I hope you see my reasoning and allow my edit to be set as you are an administrator. Thank you for reading this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AbdullahwaMuhsin (talk • contribs) 00:27, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi AbdullahwaMuhsin. First, and most important, I am editing that article as a regular editor, just like you. You have much say over article content as I do. Second, you should be making this argument on the article talk page where other interested editors can see it. I see your subsequent post has been replied to by Eperoton. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:34, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

What is the point of a sandbox?

Why can we not have a place where new users can try stuff out! Its crazy to think that they will understand a deletion of their first try at work on wikipedia. Surely if it isn't actually illegal then they should be allowed some latitude in a sandbox. Victuallers (talk) 16:17, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

@Victuallers: They're allowed a fair amount of latitude. But that does not include keeping spam, advertising, attack pages, BLP violations, copyvios, etc. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:20, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Obscenity, WP:Soapbox too. And if they create an account, they will have their own personal sandbox, which by and large are ignored. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:25, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

OK I think its unreasonable. But lets pretend this makes sense in this case. Can you restore the page and I will paraphrase the thirty or so words as I care about new users for Wikipedia. Sure if they had copied something that was more than "fair use" then it might make some point. However I suspect we are not going to agree on this one so as I say let me paraphrase the thirty words. Victuallers (talk) 16:28, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

@Victuallers: First, please refrain from removing properly placed warnings from talk pages. Second, no, I'm not going to re-restore the copyright violation you restored. You really do need to brush up on our admin policies and guidelines if you think that's acceptable. You can get the text which was entirely copied from here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:35, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Vandalism by Hyilix (me)

Hey, I was just trying to help Wikipedia by doing a study on how long it takes for vandalism to be fixed. If you wish to block me you may, but I was trying to help Wikipedia, not harm it. Hyilix (talk) 20:56, 26 March 2017 (UTC) Hyilix

John Sculley

Hi NeilN. The page protection on John Sculley has expired and Diane0524 is back at it again. I was going to revert, but is seems to involve BLP stuff, so I'd figured it would be best to check before re-adding it. You blocked the account before, so maybe you wouldn't mind taking a look at seeing if there's anything to the claim she's making. If this is just continued disruption, then maybe NOTHERE is becoming more trouble than it's worth, especially since the articke was protected to stop socking. Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:48, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: It's editor's discretion but it was me, I would probably leave the material out unless I could find sources that indicated the lawsuit succeeded, the lawsuit had unique notability, or that it was a notable event in Sculley's life. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:57, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for taking a peek. I'll pass this on the BLPN to see if others feel the same way. She is claiming to be his wife, which may or may not be true, but even COI editors can remove BLP violations per WP:COIADVICE. Even though she's been blocked and reverted before, it might be better to play it safe to see what the community has to say. I'll post a Template:Please see on her user talk to let her know. If a consensus is reached that she disagrees with and she continues the disruption, then she can't claim she wasn't informed of the consequences. How does that sound? -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:19, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Just remembered WP:COIN#John Sculley, so apparently you have advised her of proper process before. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:21, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Marchjuly, it's not a BLP violation per se but a matter of editor opinion as to whether or not the important enough to be in the article. If you think it is, posting to BLPN to get more opinions is a good idea. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:30, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

The only reason I feel might be a BLP violation is because the edit sums being left when the content is removed. They say claim the information is "contentious", "hurtful" and "false". It really may be more of a case of "I don't like" than a BLP violation, but the editor (editors?) removing the info seem to feel differently. Personally, I don't think it is, but I also think the content will continue to be removed every time it is re-added. Maybe BLP is premature at this point, so I'll try the talk page first. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:45, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Vandalism spree

Hello. Would you mind blocking 2405:204:650B:7D1:0:0:1FE4:D0A1 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (see their contributions and talk page)? There's a report at WP:AIV but nothing much seems to happen there. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 16:17, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Done. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:20, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Why was the quote from the book I inserted removed

Why was the quote from Dr S'D'Montford's book removed - She has written about 20 books on this subject - How do you like your citation done -I dont see uniformity - I see lots of different forms, including informal quotations in many articles - Please explain.. 20:09, 27 March 2017 (UTC)20:09, 27 March 2017 (UTC) Shambhallah20:09, 27 March 2017 (UTC)Shambhallah (talk) 20:09, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

@Shambhallah: "She is the author of over 10 books and 5 DVDs, editor of 4 alternative magazines of which she is the editor in chief of Macgick and ESP.(journal of The Ethical Society of Psychics). Shé had over 35 years professional experience working as a psychic in Australia, US, Sth Africa, NZ and Asia." That "Dr" S'D'Montford? Please detail where she got her doctorate from (and in what) and what academic credentials she has. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:14, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Basically, Wikipedia would consider her a reliable source for approximately nothing. [14], [15] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:25, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Please put my edit back.

Namasté,

Please place my edit back onto the Kevin La Beast page. It was missing updated information. If you do not want it to be edited, tell someone to step in to let it became a blocked edit page.. Pt0wN973b0iI (talk) 03:57, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

@Pt0wN973b0iI: Stop messing around. [16] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:00, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Jacob Barnett

The page suppresses opposing views by being guarded by people who have a history of using personal attacks this dif as well as throughout the archive. Subuey (talk) 18:28, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

@Subuey: If you're providing a single diff from a year ago on a totally unrelated page then your accusations of ownership aren't going to be taken seriously. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:35, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

You only mentioned half of what I said. Subuey (talk) 07:12, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Sławomir Biały's only argument is to put words in people's mouths, and his recent comments clearly show a disdain for the subject matter. Subuey (talk) 20:16, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Subuey, the last time you came here I said the diff you provided was basically useless. You unhelpfully pointed to the archive. [17] Now, again, no diffs. You need to provide diffs and show how Sławomir Biały is being disruptive. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:26, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

[18] [19] I thought you had been following along. How can I point to the archive? It is closed. I can paste this, from the archive "Quack, quack, says the duck. Sławomir Biały (talk) 01:49, 11 August 2014 (UTC)" Subuey (talk) 20:52, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

I did not write or sign the above statement about the duck, although it appears that someone has falsified my signature with the intention of making it seem as if I did. Edit: I see that after writing this, Subuey has corrected this misunderstanding. But I note that he is quoting something out of context, though of course any reasonable editor can go and hunt back through two years (!) of archives and find the actual context of the quotation, and they are very likely to agree with the statement in the context it was made. As far as I am aware, however, it was in this enigmatic edit summary, by Subuey wherein this particular species of waterfowl appears to have entered the discussion. Also, I would point out this edit to @Jim1138:'s talk page, which seems to fit the same overall pattern of disruption, modifying talk page discussions and falsifying what others have written. Sławomir Biały (talk) 22:31, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

@Subuey: I semi-protected the article earlier so it's on my watchlist. I'm not following the day to day conversation except when an edit summary indicates things are going off the rails. "Pointed to the archive" means "referred to the archive". You have now provided two diffs. I have no idea what the first one is supposed to show. The second one is problematic. Sławomir Biały, what source are you using for your "systematically misled the media, for personal financial gain, in every other aspect of this affair" claim? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:41, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

The first shows how he automatically assumes the subject of his response (viewfinder) is arguing about relativity. His good faith is questioned, since this has happened continuously in the archive (again can't use diffs except for here [20]) . Subuey (talk) 15:56, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

@Subuey: You're grasping at almost non-existent straws here. Stop doing that. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:12, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

So we just have to deal with it? "they are very likely to agree with the statement in the context it was made" see above [21] That's not cool. Subuey (talk) 18:00, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

As far as the "statements" go, only one - the first, is remotely true and I would challenge proof of the other two. The Plait source is used, but it is blog.Subuey (talk) 16:20, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Kristine Barnett wrote a book in which she claimed that Jacob had developed an expanded theory of relativity that was validated by the physics community, that his IQ is higher than Einstein, and that he is in line for a Nobel prize. These are completely false statements, per the Edwards source referenced in the article. The Plait source, in addition, details why his claims to have disproved relativity are false. The extraordinary amount of media coverage of Barnett's supposed accomplishments were obvious fake news, supported by misleading statements from the Barnetts. I infer that the reason the Barnetts repeated claims like these on talk shows like Katie Couric, BBC Breakfast, and Glenn Beck, on the book tour was to promote sales of the book and to suggest booking Kristine for a speaking engagement which can be ordered through her website. But perhaps this inference goes too far, and the motivation is not necessary for the point I am making, so I have removed that speculation from the post. Sławomir Biały (talk) 08:51, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Here because of ping. Subuey has been... unconstructive... at Talk:Jacob Barnett. For example, posting attacks in the middle of threaded replies ([22], [23]) is clearly disruptive. I reverted it now twice. Sławomir Biały (talk) 20:55, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Sydney FC page locked for vandilism

Thanks for locking the page, but you missed two, Vincent Péricard and Sebastian Carlsén have never been announced or linked with the team.

Thanks

morris (talk) 23:25, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

@Littlejib: Okay now? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:06, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the changes

morris (talk) 04:06, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Draft

Since you seemed to have mostly mirrored my sentiments at Wikipedia talk:Protection policy, I would appreciate your comments and criticisms of this first draft of an alternative proposal. TimothyJosephWood 23:38, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

@Timothyjosephwood: Responded: User talk:Timothyjosephwood/Page protector --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:30, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Disruptive IP shifting editor.

I understand. Since last December articles I've been involved with and my own edits have been hounded by a series of IP editors who are likely HughD. HughD was indef blocked from climate change and post 1932 US politics due to his behavior last summer and blamed me for many of his issues[[24]]. Starting late last year, before HughD's edit block had expired a number of low traffic articles I was involved with were tagged with often mindless fix-it type tags. The edits originally came from Chicago area IPs (HughD's Chicago connections are clear (member of Project Chicago and many area references [[25]]). I became suspicious of the behavior and the IP's all changed to Amazon based proxies and started raise concerns. In all perhaps 40+ Amazon based proxies were blocked due to this IP editor. Recently DoRD became quick to block the Amazon based IPs and the editor shifted back to Chicago based IPs. The Chicago based IPs probably aren't proxies though they are typically public IPs. The Wordsmith looked into the mater and agreed that the behavioral evidence was very clear [[26]],

There are two issues in place here. The first is that the IP is from a webhost, which has now been blocked per our usual policies. The second is that the behavioral evidence linking the IP with HughD is extremely strong. Aside from the pattern of pages he's been editing, certain grammatical quirks that HughD uses are unmistakably present. While I'm not a Checkuser myself, I'm fairly experienced in sniffing out socks and I'd say they're they same person beyond reasonable doubt, per WP:DUCK.

and [[27]]

After a thorough investigation, we've determined that these IPs are the same person and likely HughD. However, there isn't strong enough evidence to mark it as confirmed. So, the investigation is being closed.

Once that was decided the IP's activities increased over the past few days. I posted to the S&W MP15 talk page on Jan 15th.[[28]] The first time any IP posted to the talk page (since 2010) was Jan 23rd [[29]] (this blocked Amazon IP also posted to the GM chapter 11 page responding to a question I had posted). Since the 23rd 9(!) additional IP's have posted [[30]][[31]][[32]][[33]][[34]][[35]][[36]][[37]][[38]] and 4 have been blocked. We've seen similar behavior at the GM (and talk) pages [[39]][[40]]. Because IPs are thrown away so quickly the only thing that really stops the issue is protecting the page. I understand that even though at least one CheckUser and an Admin strongly feel this is HughD they don't have an IP address to tie it to HughD. That said, is there a way to simply declare that the IP editor is disruptive as is? Yes, if this is HughD then he has violated his edit block and is topic block several times over (difs can be provided). But that doesn't help if the we are dealing with a new IP editor. However, if the IP editor is declared to be disruptive/a troll that would make it easier to request page protection when the IP shows up. Do you have any suggestions how I might deal with this? Thanks Springee (talk) 23:58, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Since I was pinged here, I'll say that I regularly block web hosting ranges. I have no opinion, however, on whether any of this is HughD or not. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 00:15, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

@Springee: I've looked into the matter more and blocked the latest IP for two weeks as per "these IPs are the same person and likely HughD" and the above. We'll have to deal with new IPs as they pop up. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:53, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I understand there is no perfect solution but thank you for the help! Springee (talk) 00:55, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

• Now yet another Chicago based IP is showing an interest in more edits of mine. The IP restored an edit made by yesterday's blocked IP. [[41]].Springee (talk) 15:55, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:59, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I disagree strongly with Springee that this editor has been disruptive. He has added neutral, well-sourced material and made worthwhile arguments on talk pages. It appears to me that @Springee: is engaged in a POV war rather than trying to legitimately reduce disruption. Felsic2 (talk) 00:54, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Felsic2, the editor is not being blocked for disruptive. They're being blocked for WP:ILLEGIT. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:58, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

@Felsic2: And I'm completely unimpressed you failed to mention your involvement in this. [42] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:09, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't know I should include my entire history with a matter. I'll try to be more thorough in the future. Springee left out a lot of history too, despite his long entry.

Springee is going around saying that you've determined the IP editor to be disruptive, rather than illegitimate. Would the IP editor be OK if he logs into his previous username? Felsic2 (talk) 01:18, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

@Felsic2: Yes, he needs to log in. The sooner the better or else he might find himself blocked indefinitely for this kind of anonymous hounding. [43], [44] The Wordsmith, all of Hugh's topic bans are indefinite, right? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:41, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure how we can tell him that.

If those are examples of hounding, then I've got a bunch of others, some related, to report. Here, User_talk:Miguel_Escopeta#Hounding, for example, @Springee: followed me to another editor's page, where I have have an ongoing complaint about hounding, in order to interfere. He has appeared on a number of pages I've edited simply to disagree or revert me. I've asked him to stop repeatedly. He's also followed the IP to entirely separate articles, so it seems to be a common pattern. Felsic2 (talk) 01:50, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

• Appeared on a number of pages? Could it be that many of those pages are related topics that he'd already be interested in? In other words, if you started editing articles about Taiwanese horror movies or Angolan rappers, would he be there? Niteshift36 (talk) 15:20, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

@Felsic2: You missed the first word. Anonymous hounding. If you think you have a case against Springee for hounding then you can present it at ANI. I would tell Springee the same thing if they were complaining about HughD's logged in edits. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:09, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

• It returns [[45]] Springee (talk) 19:08, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback

Hi Neil,

Thanks for the feedback.

What advise would you give me if I want to add these citations in the article as I believe they do add value to the piece?

Regards, SethSethMax (talk) 13:47, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

@SethMax: Short answer: don't. See WP:REFSPAM. We look dimly on links, disguised as references, going to sites selling products/services. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:57, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Its a shame you feel that I am spamming the article. I links back to an evidence based well researched article. I am not selling product/services. Shame you disagree — Preceding unsigned comment added by SethMax (talk • contribs) 14:08, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

@SethMax: Then you can cite the actual journals which published the papers and studies detailing the research. There's no need to cite a commercial site citing the research. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:30, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikilaj on Vladimir Plahotniuc

Hi NeilN, Thank you, I received your notification about me, as Wikipedia contributor, involved in a issue. In fact I don't know why I'm the problem )), I reverted back the information that other user had deleted, adding the necessary sources. Because the contributor that had deleted the phrase argued his action as poor sourced statement. What should I do now? I want to go ahead with my editing. Thank's Wikilaj (talk) 20:38, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

References

guidance

Hello. Seeking guidance. Have used an other username before which I do not wish to use anymore on wiki, for reasons i do not wish to mention here. Is it possible to block indefinitely or remove the old username? Thanks--Anon=us (talk) 23:31, 30 March 2017 (UTC)anon=us

I do not know how the link to Vladimir Plahotniuc appears on this note. I did not use it. I did not add it to this note.--Anon=us (talk) 23:36, 30 March 2017 (UTC)anon=us

Hi Anon=us. You have a couple options. You can log in to your old account, send me an email, and I will block it for you or you can follow the instructions listed at WP:VANISH. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:04, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Need time to consider either option. Thanks.--Anon=us (talk) 18:01, 1 April 2017 (UTC)anon=us

How do i email you? Can you send the link. Thanks.--Anon=us (talk) 23:07, 3 April 2017 (UTC)anon=us

@Anon=us: Look for the "Email this user" link on the left hand side of this page in the tools box. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:16, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for the trouble. I just set up email address in my profile. I do not see email this user. Please can you guide step by step. I just could not figure out WP:vanish. Thanks for the help. Is it ok if I do this after a day or two? Am in a rush actually. --Anon=us (talk) 23:30, 3 April 2017 (UTC)anon=us

Abuse of RfC process at Talk:Donald Trump

As you recently closed yet another premature or ill-formed RfC at Talk:Donald Trump, you may want to look into the OP's failure to WP:LISTEN. See Talk:Donald Trump#RfC for best sentence to describe status of Trump's presidency and Talk:Donald Trump#Which one of the proposed lede sentences will best describe Trump's current status as president?. I tried once more to tell them politely to drop the stick but he doesn't seem to get it… — JFG ^talk 15:07, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

@JFG: Ad Orientem closed the RFC and it's true, there's not a lot of difference between the new "discussion" and the RFC except for the RFC tag. However, how are editors supposed to discuss potential changes to the current consensus? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:23, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

• I think the issue with the opening of the lead has been resolved (crossing fingers). Let's see how it goes and try, for now, to avoid unnecessarily adding to the drama. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:26, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

I guess some of us are suffering from RfC fatigue… Over the last few months, we had 6 prior discussions resulting in the current lead sentence, documented in Talk:Donald Trump#Current consensus. Recently, editors have been arguing whether we should mention that Trump is the current president, and that can be debated per WP:CCC, however some people are jumping on the story to rip up the consensus wording and basically start from scratch, which I find disruptive. Shepherding consensus is not an easy job! — JFG ^talk 16:39, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Is a cattle prod useful for shepherding? I worry about the quality of the wool.🙂 I think Ad Orientem has been doing okay here.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:14, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Fair point. — JFG ^talk 17:18, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

In this case, I'm pretty sure the cattle would turn the prod upon the doomed herder. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:21, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

They already have. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:08, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Help me please

--NeilN talk to me Hello NeilN! please delete my personal Wikipedia page .... I'd like to remove my personal Wikipedia page because of several very personal reasons (privacy, personal security, economic issues, my current job position's credibility and stability). My page is the following: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matteo_Chinosi I am the subject described on this page and i don't want it at all. I just insered the following "cancellation line" at the top of the page "Template:Cancella subito" So please help me! I will be really glad if you can do it for me. --NeilN talk to me — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiprulez (talk • contribs) 15:32, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Wikiprulez. It's not "your" personal Wikipedia page. It's a Wikipedia article that contains no private info that cannot be found elsewhere. Articles cannot be deleted if editors deem you notable --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:36, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Name change discussion at Talk:Liancourt Rocks

Please come participate in the name change discussion regarding the future naming of the Liancourt Rocks article. Thank you for participating! ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:04, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Nihonjoe. I'll keep a watch on the discussion but obviously won't be participating. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:09, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Yup, that's what I figured. Thanks! ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:12, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

My Talk Page

Hi NeilN. I've got what's looking like a disruptive editor, who will not Drop the stick and keeps restoring a personal attack directed at another editor at my Talk page. I'm pretty sure this editor is autoconfirmed, so semi'ing my Talk page won't help. As of now, this editor's post has been reverted off my Talk page again, but I'm worried about if this editor comes back and tries to restore it again (though I guess they'll be guilty of Edit warring at that point...). Anyway, looking for ideas, etc. Thanks! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:12, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

@IJBall: Two admins saying basically the same thing should get the message across. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:21, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello, NeilN. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.— --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:39, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Motor vehicle ranking

In the spirit of WP:BRD, can we all agree to stop editing/reverting articles concerning the ranking of motor vehicle production and to try to discuss it instead. After we have some form of resolution from the discussion (or at least an edict from the administrators), then we can make the articles match to whatever the discussion resolved.

Furthermore, a discussion spread out over many talk pages is hard to follow and mostly results in the same arguments being repeated for no benefit. If it failed to convince anyone at one talk page then why would it convince the same people at another page?

I suggest we put the majority of our discussion at Talk:List of manufacturers by motor vehicle production.

This message has also been placed on the talk page of the other editors involved.  Stepho  talk  01:13, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

@Stepho-wrs: I don't think you understood my gentle nudge. Do not encourage this person to edit. They are avoiding scrutiny and socking and all article or talk page posts may be reverted on sight. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:18, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2017

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

Administrator changes

TheDJ

Xnuala • CJ • Oldelpaso • Berean Hunter • Jimbo Wales • Andrew c • Karanacs • Modemac • Scott

Guideline and policy news

• Following a discussion on the backlog of unpatrolled files, consensus was found to create a new user right for autopatrolling file uploads. Implementation progress can be tracked on Phabricator.
• The BLPPROD grandfather clause, which stated that unreferenced biographies of living persons were only eligible for proposed deletion if they were created after March 18, 2010, has been removed following an RfC.
• An RfC has closed with consensus to allow proposed deletion of files. The implementation process is ongoing.
• After an unsuccessful proposal to automatically grant IP block exemption, consensus was found to relax the criteria for granting the user right from needing it to wanting it.

Technical news

• After a recent RfC, moved pages will soon be featured in a queue similar to Special:NewPagesFeed and require patrolling. Moves by administrators, page movers, and autopatrolled editors will be automatically marked as patrolled.
• Cookie blocks have been deployed. This extends the current autoblock system by setting a cookie for each block, which will then autoblock the user if they switch accounts, even under a new IP.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:55, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks

For protecting King Tut

Dabbler (talk) 15:57, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Ethnic group

Something odd here with at least one editor making changes that make no sense - see my edit summary.[46] I'm not sure if one of the editors is a sock or not. Shashko is clearly editing in an area subject to DS and has had the alert. Doug Weller talk 17:02, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Put Ethnic group on my watchlist and topic banned Sashko1999 from Macedonia for one year. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:37, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Good call. Doug Weller talk 17:38, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

You'll probably have seen this.[47] There is no Belgian ethnic identity, there are the Flemins and the Walloons, two ethnic groups. And of course we don't call European Americans an ethnic group. I don't know what this guy's agenda is but he lacks the competence to even understand what he is doing - I presume, otherwise it is just vandalism. Doug Weller talk 15:09, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Blocked two weeks as per my prior warning. Next block will be an indefinite. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:22, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

intervention

Hi. Please see balija talk page. There are 2 editors keen on their version without sources to back up their claim. What do you suggest? The issue starts from here. As per Kautilya3 and Sitush, all Balijas are called Gavara in tamilnadu, which is not true. Gavara is only one branch or subcaste/ subsection of Balija. Please suggest an option / solution. --Anon=us (talk) 18:05, 1 April 2017 (UTC)anon=us

Anon=us, you can go to WP:DRN but please be aware that Sitush is widely recognized as a go-to editor when other editors have questions about caste articles. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:17, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Will wait for Kautilya3 to reply first. Reg Sitush, i respect him. Also recognize nobody can be right all the time.--Anon=us (talk) 18:22, 1 April 2017 (UTC)anon=us

Hi. Please see Kautilya3's reply. Is it not possible for admins to intervene first? Would you suggest going to WP:DRN directly? Thanks.--Anon=us (talk) 06:19, 2 April 2017 (UTC)anon=us

Opened WP:DRN. Thanks.--Anon=us (talk) 07:07, 2 April 2017 (UTC)anon=us

Request

Can you semi-protect the page Wikipedia:WikiProject EastEnders/List of births, marriages and deaths in EastEnders to persistent long-term abuse. 123.136.107.12 (talk) 18:19, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Two weeks. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:24, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

yor comment

If you look better you will see it wasn't me, but the other user--Kostas20142 (talk) 19:43, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

@Kostas20142: I'm aware. They said they were going to stop with the jokes but they haven't so they got a rather blunt warning not to do that again. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:53, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Alex Khimich

Neil, I see that you issued Alex Khimich an ArbCom sanction. You may wish to know that they are blantently ignoring the sanction and are now illustrating a disruptive manner at Talk:Russia–Ukraine relations in the Eurovision Song Contest#Neutrality (including incivility towards other users in some sort of anti-Russian way. And also being siruptive with their edits on the article too. Any chance of intervening, and maybe temporary protection of the article too, as I fear it is going to turn into one messy bloodshed. Cheers my friend! Wes Wolf ^Talk 23:42, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

@Wesley Wolf: Things have calmed down somewhat, I think. I'll keep an eye on the article. P.S. I know "go crawl back under the proverbial rock that you came out from" is mild, but admins are going to look at that too if they're trying to figure out if behavior blocks are in order. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:22, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

FYI re M briglia05

Hello NeilN. I hope that you survived April 1st. In dealing with a messy article copy/paste (see details here Wikipedia:Help desk#What to do with this redirect.3F) I saw your post here User talk:M briglia05#Please read. The editor has also created this Matt Works. I fear these actions, which have occurred since your post, indicate WP:COMPETENCE problems. I wanted to get your input on how to proceed in this situation. Best regards. MarnetteD|Talk 01:09, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

@MarnetteD: They were on their last warning so now they're blocked until they can explain how they will change their editing. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:07, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for thee update N. MarnetteD|Talk 04:23, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Think before you act.

You reverted my edit seconds after I made my edit. I was trying my hardest to repair the Naturopathy article, but you reverted it without thinking, clearly. Just look at that time frame! Sorry to be harsh, but that was intentional vandalism that I will not support. I am reverting such vandalism immediately. --SliverWind (talk) 20:11, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

@SliverWind: You're heading for a topic ban. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:12, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Sockpuppet. Should have guessed. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:33, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Alternate talk page deletion

Hello, Neil. First, thanks for the heads-up on the ANI discussion. I'll have more to say over there. Thanks also for the edit on my alternate talk page. I have to ask, though, what the content was that you hid. My curiosity is getting the better of me. Cheers! ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 22:49, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

@TheOldJacobite: Emailed you. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:52, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, that was far worse than I would have imagined. Thanks. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 22:58, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Could you have a word

Taking this to you because I don't want to make a WP:HAPPYPLACE case out of this, and you are familiar with the situation. Our friend IExistToHelp has taken to clerking the NPR user right board [48]. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:34, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

DENY needed

I think you might have handled the last case I mention somewhere. Please see Special:Contributions/Dxfcghjh. Per DENY, delete this if you like. Johnuniq (talk) 10:09, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: Widr got it, thanks. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 11:18, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Stupid Question

If disruptive edits, IE:adding duplicate information over and over after several warnings is not Vandalism, why does the templates for disruptive editting refer to it as Vandalism? Example: "Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at blank, you may be blocked from editing".Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 10:13, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

@WarMachineWildThing: I'm not a fan of that wording. Can you suggest better? If so, let's head on over to Wikipedia talk:Template messages/User talk namespace. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 11:26, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

I can't think of any better wording Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 19:08, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

*sigh*

Well, our friend Smalltime0 has just moved on to edit-warring the same material on another page. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:01, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

sorry

didn't get pointed to the consensus, and couldn't find it. The sources don't support the stated position and other wiki pages use white nationalist and not supremacist. Spencer himself uses ethno-nationalist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smalltime0 (talk • contribs) 16:07, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

@Smalltime0: It's not exactly hard to find: Talk:Richard_B._Spencer#RfC:_White_Supremacist_vs_White_Nationalist --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:10, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Fine, I can see that now. The consensus is flawed, and I don't have time to lead the debate against it. Given that the strongest media sources are using opinion pieces to decry him as a supremacist rather than an ethno-nationalist is disturbing and discredits those sources. I'll stop the reversions, but please escape your echo chamber. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smalltime0 (talk • contribs) 16:20, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

@Smalltime0: I don't care what he's called as long as it meets our WP:BLP policy. However the RFC had pretty clear consensus so any changes going directly against that current consensus are disruptive, especially on an article covered by discretionary sanctions. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:43, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for what you said at Talk:Too Much Too Soon (album). I have pretty much no experience in this kind of stuff, so I'm glad that you stepped in. Thank you! RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 16:42, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks RileyBugz. It's difficult for anyone, even experienced editors, when two longstanding editors go at each other disruptively. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:38, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Men's Rights - Statement regarding white men

"Most men's rights activists in the United States are white, middle-class, heterosexual men"

That statement requires statistics, otherwise its an opinion. If it's an opinion it needs to be stated as such. Moreover, sources don't provide any type of study or statistics to back up claim.

According to the list of links to avoid, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided: "2. Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research, except to a limited extent in articles about the viewpoints that the site is presenting.

That statement is not verifiable, at least not through that link.

Redpill's purpose, not to be confused with the documentary, is to seduce women and have a specific view of women. If visited, it doesn't mention any Men's Rights. This is unreasonable conflation. Flamous7 (talk) 19:05, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Reference 33 gives a link to Katz's book that supports the claim (first ¶). References 42 and 44 give direct quotes. The claim they are not verifiable is incorrect. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:21, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Flamous7. First, you should be using Talk:Men's rights movement to discuss this as this concerns content. Second, raw statistics are primary sources. We need to use secondary sources like studies published by an academic press to interpret any statistics. Third, please see WP:ASSERT. Who is claiming that MRM activists are not mostly white, middle-class, heterosexual men? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:23, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I will definitely bring this up in that talk section in regards to your suggestion.

Kat'z book doesn't provide any reference as to where the statistic came from. In fact no statistics or studies are mentioned, only a statement. I agree, Secondary sources are indeed necessary, but the source has no reference to said statistic or survey. I tried finding a source that cites the statistic.

In regards to claim, if those books are accepted, then I can post my own such as sites such as avoiceformen or books from christina hoff summers disputing that, correct? (of course i would have to post in talk:mensrights first).Flamous7 (talk) 19:51, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Flamous7, Summers may be a reliable source. AVM would be considered a self-published source and largely not accepted. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:03, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Requesting an unbiased vote

Hi,
Your unbiased vote is requested here.

Thanks. —usernamekiran[talk] 20:25, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Usernamekiran. I'm not sure why you're notifying me when my last post to the talk page was 3.5 years ago, responding to a disruptive editor? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:31, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Because I believe you can perform a good judgement. —usernamekiran[talk] 20:34, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Some WTF from reddit

[[49]]

God, they should have kept that drawing game online. MikeTango (talk) 21:34, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Baines

Hello, was told this source, Jervoise Athelstane Baines, (1893). General report on the Census of India, 1891. Her Majesty's Stationery Office; ie., this [[50]] cannot be used since it is Raj source. It is not the census but the report on the census. But Sitush calls it WP:Primary. Was intending to use it on all other caste articles too; to show represenation during british period with a short note on enumeration issues at that point itsef (in 1891) and classification issues thereafter. Sorry but wiki appears to contribute in keeping divisiveness. Editors only delete caste puffery; but do not show current socio-political representation as decided by communities themselves. Please take a call on Baines; whether it can be used across all of wiki.--Anon=us (talk) 22:19, 3 April 2017 (UTC)anon=us

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:98.207.85.229&diff=cur

I used Talk to suggest replacing the erroneous 'democratic' with 'republican' in the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Rice article. I would appreciate if you can clarify why did you sent the referenced message? raduv@comcast.net ; Skype:pat20v — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.207.85.229 (talk) 02:50, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, the IP that edited before you was close enough to yours that I mistook them for you. I intended to revert and warn for these edits. However your post still contravenes our WP:BLP policy as you provided no sources for a very contentious assertion. I looked and there were no sources that backed up what you posted. You are welcome to discuss but you need to state what sources actually say, not what you want them to say. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:47, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Just FYI

This rant about you was posted to my talk page. Just figured i'd let you know in case this needs any followup or action. Not sure who the IP is or why they're randomly posting this rant on multiple editors pages. -- Dane ^talk 03:47, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

@Dane: Thanks. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Review_of_AE_block for the full story. They could have sat out a week... --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:52, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

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

Neil, I came across this article and noticed it was flagged for deletion back in September 2016. Is this not an exceptionally clear case of Advertising?

I am surprised that it was not deleted instantly. I am 'pro corporate' - Wikipedia is an exceptional place for us to document corporations and their behaviour free from interference. "Petplan Australia" is not a legal entity. In this case the entry simply describes the features and benefits of a particular marketing brand.

As an Australian editor I would support its deletion. MarekJG (talk) 04:55, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

@MarekJG: I tagged the article for deletion last September but another editor removed the tag which they have a right to do. It'll have to go through WP:AFD but since we have similar (mostly lousy) articles for the U.S. and U.K. it's a tossup as to what the outcome will be. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:06, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Why not talk to me?

Instead of omitting me from discussions, and trying to drum up support for a false accusation? I have repeatedly responded to the claim you are raising here—in private, I night add—and the most I can be accused of is not worrying about annoying, and occasionally confusing people. I am no sock. I edit from IPs, from my account, wherever I am, and there is nothing nefarious going on. Search for "Le Prof" as text, and see. Cheers. Real life and work calls. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 05:54, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

@Leprof 7272: I suggest you re-review the situation. I omitted you from no discussions, did not try to drum up support, and made no claims. I just asked another editor why they were tagging your IPs as socks as I thought that was strange. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 11:22, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

@NeilN: Thank you for the reply. And apologies for any over-reaction. I had thought (and still think) that we are largely on the same page with regard to our emphases and convictions about content here at WP. Please note, I have updated the discussion that prompted me to drop in, and per the example of a UIC history professor who also apparently experiences the same autologout (and so also edits from a variety of locations), I have begun to identify myself at the various IPs from which I might be found. Cheers. Le Prof 73.210.155.96 (talk) 22:01, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Question

How to remove an editor from wiki? — Preceding unsigned comment added by McCouchsky (talk • contribs) 15:47, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

@McCouchsky: If you're asking how to get me blocked, then I really don't have an answer for you that won't sound self-serving. For other situations, you'll need to provide details. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:54, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Ah. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:56, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

A few random questions...

1. How did you make your username on your user page and talk colored?

1. Is there a way that I could just gain the block feature, not admin, if not when and what should I do before I nominate myself for adminship?

• Note: I do not plan on RfA soon.

Thanks CopernicusAD ^(u) (t) :) 20:41, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Please leave me a tb though I do. Monitor my wlist CopernicusAD ^(u) (t) :) 20:58, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi CopernicusAD. The colored usernames come from wikicode you can put at the top of each page:

• For user page: {{DISPLAYTITLE:User:<b style="color:navy">Neil<span style="color:red">N</span></b>}}
• For talk page: {{DISPLAYTITLE:User talk:<b style="color:navy">Neil<span style="color:red">N</span></b>}}

Customize as required.

Only admins have access to the blocking tool. I'll re-state what another admin liked enough to quote at my RFA: "To become an administrator, stick around a couple years, make thousands of productive edits, participate in discussions, and gain the trust of the community that you know Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and won't abuse the administrator tools." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:03, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Okay, thank you.§CopernicusAD ^(u) (t) :) 21:08, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Jacob Barnett 2

Now autism is being questioned. [51] [52] That is insulting User:NeilN:NeilN, both intellectually and personally. It is also a bit conspiratorial. I don't have a problem with the exclusion of autism. I do have a problem that the people who have control over this page are thinking like this. Subuey (talk) 22:56, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

@Subuey: The problem in this case (and documented in the article) is the mass media, when looking for a "feel-good" story, can be gullible idiots. Example. Would I use the term "alleged autism" in the article? No. But I also wouldn't sanction anyone using that term to make a non-disparaging point on the talk page as we have no WP:MEDRS-equivalent sources attesting to that diagnosis. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:34, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Requiring WP:MEDRS is a bit dumb. Barnett wrote a whole book on the subject, it was not some flippant media headline (and even if it was, where on earth would that have come from?). It is just comments like this: "Given that the Barnetts have systematically misled the media, in every other aspect of this affair, that gives us very good reason to be sceptical of their claims of autism Sławomir Biały (talk) 19:36, 1 April 2017 (UTC)".

His mother has no medical qualifications (at least, none are presented in the article) so she's not qualified to give a diagnosis of autism. I do see some issues with the article that other editors seem to be ignoring so let me get involved. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:18, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Looks like IP you blocked has evaded

NeilN, two days ago you gave a 60-hour block to IP 2601:805:400:E074:9D9B:28DE:ADEB:E664, who had been vandalizing various Dancing with the Stars article, initially to give Simone Biles higher scores than she actually earned, but then with increasingly wide vandalism.

A new IP with the same first four fields of the address, 2601:805:400:E074:132:101E:2210:89C3, showed up briefly last night, about 24 hours after the prior IP was blocked, and then again tonight for more extensive changes; both series of edits involved making Biles appear to have scored better than she did, with tonight's going much further afield. Since you were the blocking admin, and since tonight's edits are a couple of hours old and have just been undone, I thought I'd leave it in your hands rather than go to AIV as you recommended the other night for more immediate matters. Thanks for looking into it. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:31, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: The new IP has been blocked. I noticed the same activity actually on the DWTS articles. -- Dane ^talk 04:44, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Dane, it looks like this is a long-time vandal: there was a range block on 2601:805:400:e074::/64 for two weeks, which ended late on March 31; the IP NeilN blocked showed up 13 hours after that range block ended, and was blocked 35 hours after that. The new range block lasts for a month, so I'm hoping we're safe through early May. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:00, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: I hope we're good too. I keep an eye on the DWTS articles as well though so i'm sure if it becomes an issue i'll probably catch it too. -- Dane ^talk 05:06, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Michael Christianson

NeilN, thank you for your help with this draft. I have gone and made the suggested corrections and cleaned it up. Your time is much appreciated! Wondering if you could help with suggestions for including a picture. I have been given a picture owned by the subject of the article but i've been unsuccessful in applying the image and not having someone automatically remove it as a copyright violation. Any suggestions? I'm pretty new to the process. Msboogaloo (talk) 22:04, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

@Msboogaloo: As you were typing this, I was accepting the draft :) For the picture, what license are you choosing when you upload? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:15, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

@NeilN: clearly not the correct one...probably easier to tell me which one I should select. LOL The picture is apparently one they had taken of him while at practice and he has the raw picture.Msboogaloo (talk) 23:26, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

@Msboogaloo: The photographer has the copyright then. The easiest way to do this is for the photographer to upload the photo to somewhere like Flickr and use a CC-BY-SA license. It can then be copied here. Otherwise, the photographer has to transfer the copyright ownership to you (via an email for example) and then you can upload it to Commons choosing a Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 4.0 license. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:11, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

@NeilN: Great stuff thank you again for the help!Msboogaloo (talk) 00:16, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

@Msboogaloo:, you should probably read WP:COI too, and disclose if you're being paid for this work. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:24, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

@NeilN: Nope, no form of payment. Just working on local celebrities here in Idaho... Msboogaloo (talk) 01:01, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Ooops-

-didn't realise you'd left a similar message to me only a minute before- funny we didn't get a edit-conflict- take-care!- cheers — O Fortuna ^{velut luna...} 16:19, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: Four dubious reverts. Urgh. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:07, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, too, Fortuna. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:10, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

You know this made me laugh

[53]! I take it that's not a standard template message. As always, many thanks. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:04, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

You're not a standard IP editor! --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:06, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Oh that's funny. Cheers, 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:09, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Celestina007 (talk) 01:09, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

@Celestina007: You've been asked more than once (including by me) to tone your responses down. This is not toning your responses down. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:23, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)@Celestina007: Although I have been known to have a bit of a grump at NeilN every now and then, in this case I agree with him and think he's absolutely right. The general consensus is the text you added puts a lop-sided and recentism slant on the article that is not necessary. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:43, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

@Ritchie333 you barely coming to tell me this shows that you care, and that's what I really needed at this moment Because what this "administrator" @NeilN did really baffled me, completely reverting an edit with good sources backing it up because he thinks it's "undue" I've learnt not to take these things too personal anymore because he really can do and undo. being an administrator makes him the law, do you have any idea how many potential quality editors we have lost due to such behaviour?? oh well, what can I say, In God i trust. Do have a nice day, thank you once more. Celestina007 (talk) 10:06, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I have spoken to many people who have left Wikipedia or refused to join in the first place, and listened to their complaints carefully. It is the principal reason I became an administrator in order to do something about it. Administrators are not above the law and are fully accountable for their actions (and those at think they aren't tend to get featured in Wikipedia Review and Wikipediocracy where they get summarily tarred and feathered). Anyway, in this case, Neil removed it because we need to make sure that on biographies of living people, we write the article carefully and must ensure we do not make it look like a tabloid newspaper. I think Beyonce has probably seen it all by now, to be honest, but I have been on the receiving end of complaints by people who are upset their article looks like a complete train-wreck through no fault of their own. So we need to proceed with caution. Neil did not act in any administrative capacity, but merely as an editor, and I agree with his action purely on its merits. Reverting an edit is not personal - less than 24 hours ago one of my edits was reverted because I'd forgotten to remove some vandalism that was in an earlier edit; I didn't complain about abuse but gave the reverting editor a barnstar because they did the right thing. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:13, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

@Celestina007: I don't know why you didn't join the discussion on the talk page before going to ANI (and still haven't done so). I explained there why I reverted you. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:41, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

edit war notice

Hi NeilN, thanks for the notice. I am fairly new to the editorial process of wikipedia and I appreciate you letting me know the guidelines and options. Mixelpix (talk) 01:45, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello, NeilN. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

"abuse"

Had a feeling a few months ago there was some uh, behavior worth suspicion about an account and this recent debacle at ANI/AfD makes me think my gut was correct, will be interesting to see how it plays out. Anyway, hope you enjoy a beer, you terrible, terrible admin! Yes, I'm being purposely vague for...reasons.CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 15:36, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Chrissymad, been an interesting couple days. Get hauled to ANI for edits, get hauled to ANI for adminning. I'm waiting for the Talk:Gerry Adams IP to come out of the woodwork and take up the cry of "censorship!". --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:00, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Richard B. Spencer

Would you mind closing Talk: Richard B. Spencer#New RfC: Compromise? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:48, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

@DrFleischman: I've commented there. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:28, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, that's fine. There was a bit there when that discussion looked like it was spinning out of control, but it seems to have died down. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:41, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Trump survey

Hi Neil, sorry to bother you. I started a perfectly neutral survey at the Trump talk page. User:Scjessey hatted it and started a much broader survey which I feel will be more cumbersome and open-ended. Any advice?Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:07, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

My advice would be not to pretend your survey isn't "perfectly neutral" and my survey is "broad", when neither is true. But that's just me. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:12, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

You have yet to offer the slightest reason why this question is not neutral: "Should we say in the lead paragraph that he (A) is a businessman, in present tense, or (B) leave it in past tense only?" You swept this survey aside, and instead offered a completely overhauled lead sentence. I do not need to pretend that my survey is "perfectly neutral" and your survey is "broad". It's blindingly obvious.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:18, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

It wasn't "completely overhauled". It went from this:

"Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American businessman, television personality, politician, and the 45th President of the United States."

To this:

"Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is a businessman, television personality and politician who became the 45th and current President of the United States on January 20, 2017."

-- Scjessey (talk) 20:23, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Obviously, you omit the current version that was the result of a lengthy discussion and survey that ended on April 2. I do not find you to be a reasonable and forthright interlocutor.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:25, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

@Anythingyouwant and Scjessey: This is still about the first (and possible second) sentence, yes? Both your surveys overlap? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:05, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Right. I favor the current lead sentence, Scjessey doesn't.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:12, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Why don't you two work out a compromise that suits both of you? Instead of saying that trump currently is or is not a businessman, why not leave it ambiguous? You're both capable editors; I'm sure you can come up with something. ~Awilley (talk) 18:59, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

The matter seems to be settled by consensus. And saying that he was a businessman before he got into politics does leave it ambiguous whether he's still doing business in the White House (which reliable sources say he is not doing).Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:06, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Anthony Hudson (manager)

Hi NeilN,

Thanks for responding to my request for page protection on Anthony Hudson (manager). However, you've set it to full protection, which is preventing me from editing some of the embellishing material that violates the Wikipedia:BLP policy.

Is there any chance you could reduce it to semi-protection? This would allow us to clean up the article, and prevent brand new accounts from vandalising it like they have been. Currently, I feel like the full-protection is just going to put the unfortunate edit warring off for three days before it starts again. Cheers. Patrick478 (talk) 22:14, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

@Patrick478: Both autoconfirmed and IP editors were edit warring. If there is something in the article that truly violates BLP then please bring it to my attention. Note that I do not consider a bit of puffery a BLP violation. Otherwise, use the talk page to get consensus for what a stable article should have and then we can go from there. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:32, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Shittable

Thanks? --NeilN talk to me 23:25, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Congratulations File:Human Feces (cropped).jpg You have been recognized as a Wikipedian worth shitting on, and so have been awarded your own shit on you day, April 7th - You are a shittable Wikipedian! TimothyJosephWood 22:56, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Mark Dice discussion

Since you commented on Jimbo-talk re: Mark Dice, you might want to join the discussion on the talk page about the sources Jimbo inserted in the lede. Feel no need to, I just thought I'd let you know that a more in-depth discussion is taking place. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:27, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi TonyBallioni. You may have noticed I've used my admin tools issuing protects and blocks for that article so I won't be commenting on content. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:33, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Ah, I hadn't noticed the blocks. Understood. Was reaching out to you as an editor not an admin on this! Thanks for the quick response. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:36, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Personal threats

Saw you did an edit recently - if you're around please take a look at User talk:Sundayclose. I've reverted the threat and reported the vandal to ARV but there will have to be a rev-del/whatever of the disgusting vileness in the edit-history. Shearonink (talk) 04:03, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. Shearonink (talk) 04:14, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Reported to WMF. Same as Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Treat_by_User:Nubailo --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:20, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

It might be time

Re: Nongdamba (talk · contribs). Thanks and cheers, 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:23, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Saw the AIV report. One month. And now I gotta do the extra paperwork. Grumble. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:25, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Shall I revert the edits? 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:26, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

If they look disruptive or caste-related nonsense, sure. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:27, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Likely block evasion by User:Matthewcarleton15

Hello NeilN, thanks for your recent talk page warning to this editor. However I believe this is the latest account incarnation of a previously blocked user, see User_talk:Yamaguchi先生#User:Matthewcarleton214. Since your warning, I've reverted a number of further disruptive edits fitting the same pattern of the prior blocked accounts. I thought you might want to know about this broader context. Thanks Declangi (talk) 08:18, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

@Declangi: Thanks for the info. Blocked. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:57, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Edit war

Hello
I am sorry for your inconvenience. Is the problem related to Arabs was in 4 April 2017 ? I've returned the page to this version. + Can I remove the notice from my talk page ? Regards -Aṭlas (talk) 21:44, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Atlas. You and the other editor should discuss and try to work out your differences using the article's talk page. You can remove any warnings from your talk page at any time - see WP:BLANKING. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:02, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick reply. I don't have much time to discuss something in the talk page. I reverted two editors (an ip and an user). The first one added unreliable sources to support his unencyclopedic claims (The Great Arab Revolt has had as big an impact on the modern Middle East as the World War I...........) and I thought he/she was a sockpuppet of the blocked user:HailesG. The second one keeps changing images with no reason ([54], [55]). So I reverted all their edits to this version. As you can see, he doesn't want to stop reverting. Kind Regards -Aṭlas (talk) 22:27, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

@Aṭlas: They're blocked. I strongly advise you not to re-revert and to wait to see what others say. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:38, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Okay, thanks b0ss. -Aṭlas (talk) 22:42, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

AstoneInTimeonwind

Could you revoke TPA and email for this one too? Sro23 (talk) 22:55, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Done. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:28, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry!

Sorry about the in use box. I was actually trying to repair the article too. XD-barrelroll.dev (talk) 03:46, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello NeilN, DoABarrelRoll.dev has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Also, For the block notice, that was so if people used User:Alison Price they would see that they had been blocked.-barrelroll.dev (talk) 03:51, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

-barrelroll.dev, thanks for helping out. But please be careful that you're not undoing the fixes of someone who got there faster. And there's no need to tag the user pages of every indefinitely blocked editor. People go to talk pages to communicate. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:52, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Mail call

Hello, NeilN. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 03:53, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks

For the cleanup on my talk page. Jeh (talk) 11:57, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Dispute resolution and sanctions

I need your advice to seek dispute resolution and/or sanctions because at Khan Shaykhun chemical attack i.e. Talk:Khan Shaykhun chemical attack#Npov section three editors (El C, L.R. Wormwood, My very best wishes) are seemingly WP:GAMETYPE and ignore multiple WP:NPOV violation of policy, seen from [56], [57], [58], [59], being disruptive and time wasting for the discussion and improvement of the article.

Unrelated to the topic, can the "POV" template at 2017 Shayrat missile strike be removed, or how long should we wait to remove it, because the tagging editor did not innitiate a discussion nor supported it in the last few hours? See Talk:2017 Shayrat missile strike#Neutrality dispute.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 01:40, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

@Miki Filigranski: These editors are discussing their objections with you in a proper way. In some cases, you're simply not going to get what you want. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:58, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

By "in a proper way" do you mean that the discussion did not escalate to such a point? That theirs proposition and consideration is not a violation of NPOV policy? I understand your second sentence, perhaps I should look for some intermediate option or better explain proposed content change. Please answer my second remark about the template, and need an additional clarification; does creating a sandbox imply it can be used to prepare a major edit, instead to make multiple minor edits on an article, and can be used to make examples of proposed content change in a discussion which for e.g. needs a consensus? Such examples could ease the explanation of content change proposition and prevent edit warring.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 02:19, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

@Miki Filigranski: Another editor has removed the POV tag so that issue is moot. All major changes to the article should be proposed on the talk page. You can use a format like:

I propose changing:

• [old paragraph]

to

• [new paragraph]

--NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:18, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I am going on a two day professional trip. In the mean time, could you examine and reply me what's the procedure with 1RR when some editors continue ([60]) to make more disruptive rather than constructive edits, or make a good faith edit ([61]), but still it is contradicting editing policy, editors seemingly ignore the warning to discuss it or correct it, and thus negatively affecting improvement of the article? Per WP:REV both partial and complete reversion are considered as a revert and should be followed WP:STATUSQUO "good-faith edit which you feel does not improve the article, make a good faith effort to reword instead of reverting it" and if "there is a dispute, editors are encouraged to work towards establishing consensus", however per WP:DOREVERT "a reversion is appropriate when the reverter believes that the edit makes the article clearly worse and there is no element of the edit that is an improvement". In all this where and what is the weight of editing policy violation compared to reversion? Even if is appropriate per DOREVERT, does 1RR overweight the appropriateness?--Miki Filigranski (talk) 17:40, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

That was my edit, and it was explained on article talk page. That was my reply to the question by Miki. I think this user should stop blaming others of something they did not do. My very best wishes (talk) 18:45, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Miki Filigranski, there will be editors who you see as disruptive. There will be editors who see you as disruptive. That's why 1RR and prior consensus restrictions were implemented for these types of articles. If you cannot gain any kind of consensus for your changes that's a pretty clear message that the edits you're complaining about are not disruptive. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:07, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

I would like to hear specific answer to my questions, because I am still not sure about the issue. I disagree with your remark about consensus. What you said seems like a loophole, because nevertheless of contradicting editing policy, or lack of improvement for the article, if editors (with specific reasoning) who consider such an edit are in the majority - then Wikipedia is not a neutral encyclopedia, yet becomes a biased WP:BATTLEGROUND.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 20:26, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

@Miki Filigranski: That's as specific an answer as you're going to get from me in this venue. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:30, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Alright, thank you.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 20:32, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Phil Cornwell

Thank you. I was about to leave a note specifically for you, but opted to give you a vacation and went to the noticeboard instead. Cheers, 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:53, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Satoshi Hino

Hi, because you protect that page in 4 days if I was to report it? 148.0.105.234 (talk) 02:13, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi 148. I protected that page because of your WP:RFPP report. You should use the article's talk page to explain your concerns. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:21, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Ok, but you can change the level of protection for 1 year to see if we solve this problem of names, you know an example. 148.0.105.234 (talk) 03:26, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

We're not fully protecting an article for a year. I expect discussion to take place on the talk page. Anyone who reverts without taking part in discussion may be blocked. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:32, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thank you for being so kind. I am trying my best to sort this out. I would like to request you to take a look at the Mosaic Festival Mississauga document and help post it. I have tried to put every thing in there. I am the founder of the project but now work as artistic director. it is an on going project and I usually see various on going festivals on wikipedia but do not understand why we can post our event. Kindly guide me to how we can get the Mosaic page posted..Thank you Asma

Asma Mahmood (talk) 02:36, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

@Asma Mahmood: The article formatting needs a overhaul but the major problem is providing sources showing the event has an impact beyond the local community. See WP:GEOSCOPE. Do any national or foreign papers have coverage of this event? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:08, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

HI Neil, all articles from Mississauga News are national news paper articles as Mississuag aNews is a subsidiary of Toronto Star and metroland who are our major media partners..here is another link from Mississauga News..We have many articles from Toronto Star for our film festival bt I am not using those as MISAFF has its own recognition ..asmaAsma Mahmood (talk) 03:14, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

@Asma Mahmood: "The Mississauga News is a local tabloid newspaper in Mississauga, Ontario." Editors here will not recognize it as a national newspaper. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 09:34, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

:N_I_H_I_L_I_S_T_I_C

Any reason why WP:CLEANSTART doesn't apply in this situation? If their block is also based on their edits, I can understand - but if it's based on them clearly having edited Wikipedia before, then I don't get it.

Oh and before people put 2 + 2 together and get 5 - no, it's not my sock, I'm just nosey. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 09:19, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

@Spacecowboy420: "Certain articles and topics are particularly contentious, and have attracted additional community scrutiny in the form of requests for comment, community sanctions, or arbitration cases. These areas should be completely avoided by the editor attempting a clean start." and "The guiding principle is that clean start is not a license to resume editing in areas under heightened scrutiny." The Vipul matter and advocacy editing are contentious areas and attract heightened community scrutiny. Being to ANI twice within a week of your first edit means that editors have a legitimate interest in reviewing your contributions. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 09:30, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

That makes sense, thanks for the clarification. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 09:31, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

UNJUST DECISION -- Abuse of Wikipedia

UNJUST DECISION: Neil, it is with great sadness to see some people treating Mr Moglica (an author of 15 books) to unfairly. UNJUST. How would you feel? Treatment of this author this way, is an abuse of authority. And, in my best understanding, abuse of authority is in violation the Wikipedia's policy. Abuse can come in many forms: one of them is the unjust decision taken by a group of friends. Thank you. British Spelling 12:56, 10 April 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hot British (talk • contribs) 12:56, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

@Hot British: Given your use of sock/meat puppets just be thankful you remain unblocked. And please fix your signature. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:02, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

As such, I address you to restore the page. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hot British (talk • contribs) 13:03, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

@Hot British: WP:DRV. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:07, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

@Neil. Thank you for your reply. First of all, I would like to discuss this matter at the same level. How would you feel if someone treated you like this author? Thus, if you have any authority, I would like to reslove the matter at this level. If so, I address you to restore the page. It has been so much abuse against this author over and over? Thank you in advance for your time. Have a lovely day!British Spelling 13:33, 10 April 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hot British (talk • contribs)

@Hot British: Stop wasting our time defending your advertising for you/your friend and using sock puppets to further waste our time. Seriously. I am this close to blocking you for your antics. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:51, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

And blocked, based on Freshacconci's new evidence at SPI. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:01, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Your ruling

You completely disregarded the fact that this user violated the WP:1RR and needs appropriate consequences for his actions. Please think again on your ruling of "Stale". TheBD2000 (talk) 17:38, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Yo, TheBD2000: Please see WP:NOTPUNISHMENT- stale means, in this case, that any action would not prevent disruption. Cos it stopped, an now there int any. Cheers! — O Fortuna ^{velut luna} 17:46, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @TheBD2000: You completely disregarded our policy that blocks are designed to be preventative, not punitive. There's nothing for the editor to "correct" as they were reverted days ago. This is the second time you've badly attempted to apply some process to that article. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:47, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Sethism

Dear NeilN, as you kindly blocked Theoneandonlyseth and Sethrod1, could you please, perhaps, have a look at their (at least) third try and obvious sock SethRod1269 also? And, as a followup question: is there anything we can do to avoid this just going on for ever? Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 20:35, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

@DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered: See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Theoneandonlyseth --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:46, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Wow, that's very efficient - many thanks! DBaK (talk) 20:54, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Developing thicker skin

Personally, I think that this sort of edit here is unwarranted; and I am trying to figure the best way to handle it. My thought is to simply revert it, even though it is a talk page entry, on the grounds of WP:NPA. Or is it best to just leave it be? I addressed the editor's question as to why I had removed removed these additions to the page on my talk page. Thanks for any advice! Scr★pIron^IV 20:47, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you - that works for me. Scr★pIron^IV 20:58, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi. I am really not trying to cause offense. The concern that I raise about COI users are valid in this instance. I accept the commentgs that my entry lack neutrality, but my question then is" Why didn'y the user rather edit the entry to be more neutral. Why was the entire entry deleted? It would have been a very simple excercise to make the entry more neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RodinsDrinker (talk • contribs) 08:28, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

@RodinsDrinker: If an editor doesn't think content belongs, they are obviously under no obligation to keep any part of that content. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:09, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Block of Willchamplin1

Hi, Neil, you appear to be the admin who blocked this user for having a username that matched his Wikipedia article. He submitted an OTRS ticket containing a legal threat (I am the agent handling the ticket). I advised him that this wasn't helpful, and told him to submit an appeal of the block rather than demand a lifting of it via OTRS. If you have any questions on any of this, please let me know. You seem like a very busy person (!). KDS4444 (talk) 22:38, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi KDS4444. He should be emailing info-en@wikimedia.org to prove his identity. It's going to be interesting handling his COI editing if/when he gets unblocked... --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:43, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Indeed... Especially as verification of identity can be tricky if the client has real world notability (as in this case). KDS4444 (talk) 22:45, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Okaaaay, well, Mr. Champlin has now verified his identity via OTRS. I have given him a heads-up regarding his conflict of interest and asked him to talk with me if he has any questions about editing his own article— for now, he seems to be in the clear as far as his identity goes. What will be the next step to (gulp) getting his account unblocked? KDS4444 (talk) 05:25, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi KDS4444. I've unblocked them. Thanks for your efforts in dealing with this case. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:27, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Disruptive edit warrior

Could you please do something about this edit warrior who's only interested in inserting Berber everywhere and has broken the three revert rule in the Houari Boumediene article. Regards. M.Bitton (talk) 22:58, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Can you explain why you have not engaged in discussion on the talk page? Can you explain exactly how The Encyclopedia of Islam is unreliable?--Kansas Bear (talk) 23:01, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I started a discussion. I'm in WikiProject Berbers that's why I'm interested in editing anything related with Berbers. + I don't think I am an "edit warrior". I edited hundreds of articles (dynasties, reverting vandalism, figures, created two articles and I have many others to create...) with no problems. Your edits shows that you are the edit warrior. You're just reverting, reverting, reverting....with no reason.

Sorry NeilN! This is the second time you see me in an edit warring.-Aṭlas (talk) 23:34, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

@Kansas Bear: I know you're acting in good faith, but I think it's time someone brought Aṭlas' canvassing to light. In all honesty, I'm not in the least surprised that he quickly contacted you and Doug Weller (here and here), just like he did previously concerning Ibn Tumart's article, where no less than 4 editors where canvassed.[62][63][64][65] I could be wrong, but as far as I can tell, this kind of behaviour is not acceptable. Maybe NeilN could shed some light on this issue.

While you could be forgiven for thinking that he's new, and that maybe he doesn't know what he's doing, you can't help but wonder what's going on when you see the editor deliberately introducing unreferenced categories, when it suits him (one of many, despite having been been made aware of WP:CATDEF) and removing them from certain articles, when it doesn't. M.Bitton (talk) 23:18, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Per WP:APPNOTE

An editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion can place a message at any of the following:

• "On the user talk pages of concerned editors. Examples include:"

• Editors who have made substantial edits to the topic or article. (Walrasiad)
• Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics) (Kansa Bear, Doug Weller, Cplakidas )
• Editors known for expertise in the field(Cplakidas, Kansa Bear, Walrasiad)

Mouloud Kacem Naît Belkacem was born in Ighil Ali (kab:Ighil Aεli) in Kabylie and that's makes him a kabyle (Berber !!?).

Ibn al-Azraq was born in (Málaga, Al Andalus) and he could be (an arab, a Berber, a Muladi, a Black...).

Achamán is from guanche mythology. Gunche mythology is related to Berber mythology like (The tuareg mythology).-Aṭlas (talk) 00:48, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

I won't insult anyone's intelligence by going through the concerned policies, nor will I list the many articles that have been subjected to his original research (I'll repair the damage in due course), but there's an edit of his that I believe is worth sharing with the editors who are here to build an encyclopaedia and whose time is being needlessly wasted (Kansas Bear and Doug Weller). I won't be commenting on it (it speaks for itself).

Last month, an IP editor corrected a typo in the Ceuta article, in the next edit, Aṭlas not only introduced the word Berber (even though it's not the source), he did it with a misleading edit summary (rv, not a typo). M.Bitton (talk) 00:27, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

I was talking about this Tarook97's edit.-Aṭlas (talk) 00:35, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Sure you were. What about the fact that you deliberately introduced wp:or ? M.Bitton (talk) 00:41, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

It's none of my business. The editor claimed that it's a typo (which is clearly not a typo), and I restored it. So You want to exploit any (good faith) gap from me ? You don't have anything else to do ?

Are you looking for other lapses ? I can act the same way. You was blocked for 1 week (Disruptive editing!), your first edit was a revert, edit warring ([66], [67], [68]). Do I really have to search in your past? I don't think so. -Aṭlas (talk) 00:49, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Pokes head up: The main issue is the insertion of "Berber" in various articles, correct? Is this term not properly sourced when added? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:15, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

I accept any solution you ask me. Just revert my bad edits, and I promise you that i will not go back to cause any problems. -Aṭlas (talk) 01:24, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Email

Hello, NeilN. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Sure, take your time. I just wanted to let you know that we've reached the canvassing stage — the discussion isn't going quite our way, so let's drop some invitations to people we're sure will take our side. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:39, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

@Biruitorul: I've issued a clear warning. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:59, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Brainydad

You might want to see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kashmir2/Archive. I'm sure her current incarnation is due to not being able to access her account, but Brainydad can't be explained that way. She's trying to contact you on her talk page by the way. There's a real CIR issue here. And an obsession with me, who she thinks is the cause of all her problems. Doug Weller talk 08:48, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Brainydad has stylistic tells. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 11:49, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Hey NeilN, who wouldn't be obsessed by Doug Weller 💔 👄 Ha! 😉 — O Fortuna ^{velut luna} 12:14, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Lol! This needs to be written up at SPI as a sock relating to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kashmir2/Archive so there's a record. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 13:47, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

She seems to have forgotten which account she was using.[69] She caught it and reverted it. Doug Weller talk 14:13, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

It's soooo complicated running multiple accounts -- HAGGER oops --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:18, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Tecsatan

As the blocking admin, I believe you may wish to peruse the edits this user has made to their talk page and consider whether revoking TPA is appropriate. They are continuing to rant about this issue, even to the point of sending me emails "requesting" that I "consider just how inappropriate [my] admin's responses have been". I can reproduce the email if desired. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:39, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

@MjolnirPants: Both TPA and email access removed for both Tecsatan's and the community's benefit. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:55, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Borinquen96

Ni. In March you blocked User:Borinquen1996 as a sock of User:Juantheman96. Now we have a new account, User:Borinquen96, who appears to be a re-incarnation of the earlier editor. Could you take a look and block if you see fit? Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:46, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: Well that was fairly easy. Thanks. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:48, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

No, thank you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:49, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Apparent block evasion via sock puppetry

Yesterday you issued a 2-week block to User:Suzanne Olsson for sock puppetry [70] later adding that this was a relatively light penalty, but repeated offences would result in much more significant sanctions[71]. Unfortunately, I think a repetition has already occurred. Before being blocked, User:Suzanne Olsson never quite figured out how to sign her Talk edits correctly. Originally no signature was given, then when the use of the four tildes was pointed out, she did not understand and started flanking her typed username with them, putting four tildes, then typing her full username, then another four tildes, such that you got this: Suzanne Olsson (talk) 23:30, 10 April 2017 (UTC) Suzanne OlssonSuzanne Olsson (talk) 23:30, 10 April 2017 (UTC) [72]. This is not something I have ever seen before, and it is not the kind of thing that a new user is likely to emulate, because it looks ridiculous and is not immediately evident to a novice how it would be generated. I edited some of these out when responding, but she just kept doing it right up until she was blocked.

Today, a brand new user started editing the Suzanne Olsson page, User:Bambi2017, and it took her less than an hour to violate 3RR [73][74][75][76], removing text that User:Suzanne Olsson had specifically complained about. That was suspicious to begin with, but then the new editor made two edits to the Talk page,[77][78] and both of them had the same odd signature syntax (e.g. Bambi2017 (talk) 18:24, 11 April 2017 (UTC)Bambi2017Bambi2017 (talk) 18:24, 11 April 2017 (UTC)). I don't see any way this is not a duck.

Given the repeated sock puppetry, protection of Suzanne Olsson may be required. Agricolae (talk) 19:17, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

@Bambi2017: the ever efficient Bbb23 handled it. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:16, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

I've also added the article to my watchlistbot list. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:20, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Chinese IP hopper

Neil, the other day, you protected the article for George Gently because of edit warring by a Chinese IP hopper. MarnetteD and I are also having difficulty with him on Endeavour (TV series) and on An Inspector Calls (TV series), where he refuses to discuss, and is determined to edit war in preferred edits. The article on Endeavour was just protected for three month because of his edit warring, and a day after it ended, he was right back at edit warring the same edit. It's really frustrating. He does have one IP where he does most of his editing, 223.71.245.147, but then hops at times. What a mess. Thank you for any help you can offer. --Drmargi (talk) 03:30, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

@Drmargi: Nine and three months respectively. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:34, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Hope that does it. Grass doesn't grow under your feet, that's for sure! Thank you! --Drmargi (talk) 03:36, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

My thanks as well N. The one other article that I've seen them hit is Inspector George Gently (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). The protection you applied ends later today. Maybe they will leave it alone but if you wouldn't mind placing it on your voluminous watchlist that would be great. Thanks again. MarnetteD|Talk 04:27, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Already there but I'll keep a closer eye on it. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:30, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello N. They moved to this IP 211.100.11.189 (talk · contribs) today and hit a few articles other than the already protected ones :-( MarnetteD|Talk 14:05, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

User:World's oldest living people

You may wish to revoke talk page access.--Cahk (talk) 07:01, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

@Cahk: Guess so. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:16, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Revision of article addition

I have met this person in real life and know her well and have got to see she has high moral standards. A view of her twitter page will show she cares for animals deeply — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.136.96.36 (talk)

Hi 81. Please read our verifiability policy. "Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:52, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Edit war notice

Hello, NeilN. I've removed the ethnic group bar box from this page [79] to prevent editorial wars. Before the recent edits of the user @Linaduliban: was that as of 16:18, 12 April 2017. I explained to him/her through his talk page. So did I do the right thing or what?. Regards--Canbel (talk) 15:47, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Canbel. You should open a discussion on the article's talk page explaining why you removed the infobox so that Linaduliban and other interested editors can comment. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:58, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

I did ([80]).--Canbel (talk) 16:21, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi, Neil, Thanks for your welcome to me, a newcomer to Wikipedia.

Hersei1960 (talk) 18:46, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

@Hersei1960: You're welcome! Hope you decide to stick around and build and maintain the encyclopedia. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:51, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Kate McKinnon

Oops—2 weeks looks fine as well. Best, Airplaneman ✈ 19:30, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

@Airplaneman: Ha. Already reversed myself. If I re-reversed would I be wheel-warring with myself? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:31, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

If you did, you'd be in trouble! Airplaneman ✈ 21:31, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

ANI

Please can you unprotected WP:ANI, hopefully the sockmaster has got bored and wandered off by now. 88.151.223.162 (talk) 19:57, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

It's been protected for less than ten minutes. If you want to post something, post it here, and I will copy it over. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:59, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

I've noticed the protection expires in under 2 hours. I'm sure I can live without it for that long :) 88.151.223.162 (talk) 20:10, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

CSD for sock's common.js

That clown at the AN/I who was playing with 1click archiver has this page User:Sucesssuper/common.js, but neither TW or page curation will let me tag it for deletion under G5 and G6. Can you please take care of this? I'm pretty sure he won't need it any more. Thanks L3X1 (distant write) 20:49, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

@L3X1: Poof! --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:51, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Anthony Hudson (manager)

Hi NeilN,

Thanks for your recommendation, I will try to refrain as suggested and keep the edits minimal.

Could you also look at edits made by Users: Patrick478, NZ Footballs Conscience, 02ndBest as they are constantly adding negative elements only to the Subject's article.

I believe their edits are not good faith edits when they discuss the subject on a forum that is designed to negatively talk about the subject. (Redacted) Many thanks for your time, GDN0417 (talk) 00:58, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi GDN0417. You need to be a bit careful here. Posting links to accounts on other websites can be seen as a violation of our outing policy. Now, as to the article, we strive to have a neutral point of view. That is, the article should have both criticism and praise for the subject in the proper proportion. So if the subject has many successful seasons and championships then the article will be largely laudatory. If the subject consistently has poor records then criticism will be more prominent. So does the current version of the article reflect the proper balance? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:39, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Deleting a message from my Talk Page

Hi NeilN, I am wondering why you deleted a message (by someone else) from my Talk Page? [81] Cheers, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 10:26, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @Koertefa: See here. Cheers! — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 10:41, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

FYI

Since you're the one who left this, may wanna add this to your watchlist. You know... for the sake of the women and babies...tiny babies. TimothyJosephWood 17:49, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Alphabet

See my warning on the editor's talk page and the discussion on Favonisn's talk page. I'm off to bed. Doug Weller talk 20:59, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

I see... So adding factual visual proof of this with noted major Egyptologist/Linguist Alan Gardiner and Champollion does not enhance Wikipedia and understanding? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ameninhat (talk • contribs) 21:14, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

@Ameninhat: You are free to directly cite reliable sources. Your self-published book is not a reliable source. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:19, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

OK... I get it now! I cited my work in addition to Gardiner, Champollion and such. I am clear now. Thank you. Don't self promote or self cite. Cite established well noted sources. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ameninhat (talk • contribs) 21:25, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

@Ameninhat: You also need to crop out the copyright notice from the picture you uploaded on Commons before someone notices and decides to delete the file. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:31, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Got it! Will do right now. Thanks. I'm learning. Ameninhat (talk) 21:41, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

User talk:000meow

Hi, Neil. How do you remove extended confirmed status after a user has 500 edits? I don't mean why — that's obvious, and well done — but how, technically? Where? Bishonen | talk 16:09, 14 April 2017 (UTC).

@Bishonen: Go to the user's user or talk page and click the "Change user groups" link in the tools box in the left hand sidebar. Uncheck "extended confirmed user". --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:14, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Ha. And then you get cries of admin abuse? Bishonen | talk 16:16, 14 April 2017 (UTC).

@Bishonen: To which you reply, "discretionary sanctions!" (yes, it's come up before). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:19, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

@Bishonen: I've done it at least twice and I would have today if Neil hadn't gotten there first! Doug Weller talk 18:24, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Umami editing

Hello Neil. You previously supervised a block on an editor whose version is now being reinstated by an IP user 76.169.72.11 here. Possibility of a sock, so would be grateful for your review and action, please. --Zefr (talk) 19:23, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

@Zefr: Blocked the IP. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:33, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt work. --Zefr (talk) 19:39, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Not quite sure why there is so much policing against editing of this subject. Valid sources are being provided to the edits which you are reverting. This seems very biased. 75.82.56.175 (talk) 19:47, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

You can argue that on the talk page after you log in. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:51, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Actually, you can't. This triggered a memory and I recalled this account. @Zefr: I'll be blocking the master indefinitely so any further posts by this editor may be treated as block evasion. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:47, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

You and other editors have been more than patient with this persistent vandal. Given the user's pledge to disrupt Wikipedia however possible, we'll likely see more of him under a different IP, but his calling card comments are conspicuous and we can act collectively again. Thanks. --Zefr (talk) 21:00, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Vandalism? The subject of umami is obviously BS. And you can ban all you want. Really don't care. In fact I'm going to start getting as many ip's banned as I possibly can. You will be doing good work for me. If Wikipedia wants to play stupid games then so shall it be.