Jump to content

User talk:NinjaRobotPirate

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Vitt56 (talk | contribs) at 07:24, 31 May 2017 (→User:Zjec). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

RfA

Hi NinjaRobotPirate. I wanted to enquire as to your thoughts about running for adminship. From a cursory investigation I think you'd make a great candidate, but given your comment somewhere above about not wanting to run in the past, I thought I'd check in with you before doing anything too in-depth. As far as I can see you've got everything voters look for in an admin candidate, and I think you could do some good with the admin toolset! Sam Walton (talk) 11:59, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Samwalton9: I've thought about it. It's a little tedious to continually report obvious sock puppets and LTA vandals. I'd have somewhat similar problems as Montanabw, I think, but who knows. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:06, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What makes you think that? It seems Montanabw's RfA was primarily opposed due to battleground/civility concerns, which I've yet to see in your contributions. Sam Walton (talk) 22:12, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Samwalton9: I think I can usually stay pretty calm, but there've been a few long-standing personality conflicts between me and a few RfA voters over content issues. BMK and Andrew Davidson would certainly strongly oppose, but I don't know if anyone else really cares all that much about our drama. I've been a part of the ANI peanut gallery for several years now, and that could be seen either as experience in admin areas or drama-mongering. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:21, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suspect that no one cares about minor drama between users, but it's best to discuss these things in the open at any rate. Do you have any examples that might be surfaced as a reason to oppose, and your thoughts on those situations now? Sam Walton (talk) 09:56, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Samwalton9: this was the latest episode of our longstanding "do pop culture references require a source" debate. I removed unsourced pop culture trivia, and BMK reverted me. I should have handled it with more tact, but BMK is quite aware of site-wide consensus on the issue. Just the same, it was a bad idea to turn this into a rehash of our policy debate when I could have easily resolved it myself by finding a source. That would have been the less dramatic solution, which is what someone else did. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:30, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't concern me greatly, you seemed to handle the situation quite reasonably. Some more investigation leaves me confident that you're a worthy admin candidate and I would be happy to nominate you. I've started a blank request area at User:Samwalton9/RfA/NinjaRobotPirate. Lets continue the discussion at that talk page. Sam Walton (talk) 11:46, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not Disruptive Editing

It's not disruptive editing when James Cameron will never make Avatar2, because it's fact that James Cameron will never make Avatar2, because I wrote a letter to James Cameron that will tell James Cameron to never make Avatar2, because if Wikipedia lied to us all that Got Turbo Star is The Series Finale Of Max Steel 2013, because in truth Got Turbo Star is not The Series Finale Of Max Steel 2013, because Netflix did not make Got Turbo Star the series finale of Max Steel 2013, because Netflix made The Final Countdown: Part 2 the series finale of Max Steel 2013, the Wikipedia lied to us all that James Cameron will make Avatar2. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:7830:A39:99B1:B5C0:9B9A:659 (talk) 07:53, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I am just wanted to scare one of the editors who is clearly making false information and putting Damien Teo in a bad name Bryan4562013 (talk) 00:40, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RFA

Hey man, I'm stoked to see your name at the RfA. Naturally you have my support. RfAs can be super-stressful, so I hope you're prepared for that. Obviously I wish you the best. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:35, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It's actually the first time I've requested a permission on Wikipedia. I had reviewer, rollbacker, and autopatrolled all randomly bestowed upon me. So, at least my first time will be memorable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:47, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

May I offer a quick bit of advice - trim down those quotation boxes in Cult film as they may invite criticism of close paraphrasing, also I think the BBC2 Alex Cox Youtube link is technically a copyright violation (though a comment says that since the BBC may have wiped this, nobody cares). An "Oppose - best work has copyvios in it" might sink an RfA stone dead. (I'm not going to do that, but as for everyone else.... and it is mentioned on Wikipedia:Advice for RfA candidates) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:39, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, good idea. Someone else was responsible for adding the quote boxes and youtube link, but it's probably not a good thing to showcase that. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:18, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Best wishes with your RfA! At the risk of sounding bitter, I hope it proves less bruising than my own abortive attempt! DonIago (talk) 03:01, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya!

Hope you didn't mind me asking those questions, there weren't any recent edits that I had questions about. I've voted on your RfA. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 08:22, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I can say the questions so far have not been what I was expecting. I was kind of hoping nobody would look at my first edits. I think they're embarrassing! Then again, there's always an embarrassing edit somewhere in the past hundred. Sometimes I preview three times, make one incredibly minor change, and save the page. Then I notice the last change caused the entire page to be screwed up. I figured someone would find one of those edits and say that I never preview. Maybe they're just waiting until the last day to spring it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:53, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to say that on AllMovie, Shaun of the Dead is listed as a British film, I might have forgotten to mention that, and apologize for any misunderstanding. Canadaman100 (talk) 05:25, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats!

[1] --JustBerry (talk) 03:51, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for supporting. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:13, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

Mind confirming you've seen my note to you in my support? No need to comment further, since that can put you in an awkward position as a candidate, but I'd like to know that the note was seen before you get the mop. ~ Rob13Talk 21:39, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. You mean the bit about merging SPI cases? I saw that on the info page when I checked, but it didn't seem conclusively worded – like how it says only SPI clerks should archive cases. It makes sense that SPI clerks would be the ones to merge them, but there didn't seem to be a prohibition. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:49, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wars wars

Care to have an opinion on the disagreement over the Rogue One plot summary? And happy new year! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Popcornduff (talk • contribs) 05:20, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Popcornduff: ordinarily, I'd up for a discussion about film plots, but 1) I haven't seen the film, 2) the discussion looks like it hinges on how to describe specific plot points, and 3) I'm not sure I want to read spoilers. I'm not really a stickler on the whole spoiler thing (I read through the discussion on the talk page), but catching up on Star Wars films seems like one of those things that'll probably make it to my "to do" list. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:43, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing the film definitely helps. There's no rush, so take your time and enjoy the film. (Or at least I hope you enjoy it more than I did... what a snoozefest...) Popcornduff (talk) 05:46, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to be getting 2017 off to a bad start. If you have the time or inclination, maybe you could check out the dispute on Carol (film)? (It's not specifically that I want someone to come and back me up on these things, btw - I trust your opinion as an editor of plot summaries so you might be able to point out where I'm going wrong, suggest alternatives, etc.) Popcornduff (talk) 01:16, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Q10

Do I get annoyed? Sigh, I'm going to have to do something about my rep.

Just a couple of things to your generally good answers:

8. You would only risk being desysopped if you unblock a user who was CU-blocked. In other words, the block by the CheckUser has to expressly say it's a CU block, normally checkuserblock-account. A likely finding in and of itself does not prevent an administrator from unblocking.

12. Typically, only a non-admin clerk would request a merge, and, as Rob said, it would then normally be done by an admin clerk, not by a non-clerk-admin.

Finally, anything an SPI clerk can do a CheckUser can do.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:21, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23: thanks for the clarifications. Unfortunately, I think it takes a little experience to understand when to request CU, and a lot of us err on the side of, "Hey, Bbb23 isn't a busy person. I'm sure he'd like nothing better than to spend his whole day running CU on frivolous cases!" But you've always been supportive and helpful, especially when I was trying to figure out how to deal with a tricky sockmaster. Without that, I'd probably still be intimidated by the whole SPI process. Just the same, I'm going to try to take things slowly and not get in the way. I think I'll just stick to the obvious cases for a while. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:58, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your RfA

I don't want to disrupt the page, but I want you to know that I Oppose your adminship on the grounds that you forgot to add "Zombie" to the end of your username.

(In truth, I was going to create the username "NinjaPirateRobotZombie" back when I first registered, but didn't because I saw someone else had a remarkably similar name. I would have complimented your username then, but I didn't know the community well enough to be sure that a random "Hey, you got a cool username!" comment from a newb wouldn't end up causing a stink. So here I am now, the next time you showed up on my radar, saying in a very roundabout fashion: You got a cool username.) MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 06:10, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ha. Thanks. I remember once doing a Google search on my username out of curiosity. Besides a few strange hits (an article in The Washington Post quotes something I said in a talk page conversation), what really surprised me were the number of accounts on random websites that have nothing to do with me. It seems that I'm not quite as original as I thought! Or maybe some of them were inspired by my account? It's a flattering thought to consider, at least. Personally, I thought "zombie" was a bit overkill. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:23, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I'm going to have to burst your bubble: It's the title given to a popular trope by a fairly popular website. I still like it, though. :) MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:38, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I've seen that article. I'm a little sad that nobody ever added me to the "real life" or "other" sections. I think it's bias against me because I'm not a zombie. My ex wanted me to keep going with a string of other stuff, but I didn't want to sign in with a 20 or 30 character username. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:13, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I can imagine getting an "unrecognized username" back when trying to sign in with the second place title for that page... It'd be pretty much equivalent to saying "Go ahead and make a new account, because you're never signing in to this one again." MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:52, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Plot summaries: there's templates for that

Hi NRP! If it would be helpful in the future, we've had user warning templates for quite some time which can be used to slap editors on the wrists when they violate various plot summary guidelines regarding word-count. There's Template:Uw-plotsum1 and Template:Uw-plotsum2. I think the consensus at the time was that anyone who continued to bloat plot summaries after the second warning could probably be construed as either edit-warring or editing disruptively depending on the specifics. Cheers! DonIago (talk) 14:56, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I remember reading about that. I couldn't remember the name of the template, and sometimes I prefer to write out personalized messages. Maybe I'm too optimistic, but I like to think people pay more attention when they get a personalized message. That looks like a useful template, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:22, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we did try to make it useful. :p DonIago (talk) 17:11, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SPI probability discussion on RfA

Thank you so much for your detailed answer to my question. I have decided to support your RfA after reading your thoughtful answer.

For your interest, the reason I asked that question was that I have been watching Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Instantnood/Archive for many years. The sockmaster was ArbCom-banned 10 years ago and in the last 5 years we're getting only about 2 reports a year, all based on behavioral evidence, and even I had been accused of being a sock of his. Deryck C. 17:00, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was worried my response might be a little too long. It was an interesting question, though. Thanks for supporting. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:45, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I remember...

I remember having asked you why you weren't an admin, and you mentioning that you think about it sometimes :D You'll have to think about it a lot now dude. Advance congratulations! Lourdes 17:54, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Lourdes: haha, yeah. I probably would have gone yet another year without thinking about it too much except that I'd been a little frustrated recently with some of the admin backlogs. Thanks for your very sweet support vote. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:33, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Razzie video was accurate

Look at the previous videos with previous ballots: 2015: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-7KFI8S64YM 2014: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8nkgLNLolUo 2013: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Ba2N5nPatg 2012: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vaPjKBCDv4 2011: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4m7vOhwxVD0

Now compare them with the official noms found on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/36th_Golden_Raspberry_Awards https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/35th_Golden_Raspberry_Awards https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/34th_Golden_Raspberry_Awards https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/33rd_Golden_Raspberry_Awards https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/32nd_Golden_Raspberry_Awards

It's not a trick, it is official. 96.32.45.67 (talk) 19:54, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But who is this guy? As far as I can tell, he's just some random person with a YouTube channel, even if it's right. Why can't we wait for an announcement from the official website? It's not going to kill us to have a mostly-blank article for a few days. Jumping the gun based on one YouTuber's speculation seems like a bad idea to me. I understand it must seem a bit frustrating to be held back by bureaucracy, but reliable sources don't seem to exist for this yet. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:51, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your RFA

— xaosflux Talk 16:18, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your t-shirt.

Thanks, everyone! It feels almost surreal. Two weeks ago, I would have been very surprised if you said I'd start 2017 like this. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:11, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I know exactly how that feels. Congrats! Schwede66 10:16, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just glad that I'm not the newest admin any more! Now all the scrutiny will be someone else. Hah. Congrats to you. I wonder if this will go on all month? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:35, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously not hard to believe that you were awarded admin status. Although I'm not a fan of the process, you are a better choice than many others. I would have supported you had I known your RfA was going on. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:54, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the kind words. And, yeah, RFA is kind of like standing up in front of a class full of middle school kids and saying, "Hello, please tell me every flaw that you see in me, and don't hold back!" NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:57, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
LOL!! Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:57, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your talk page is on my watchlist too and somehow I still missed your RfA. Then again, as you may know, I've been highly disillusioned with Wikipedia these days. I just want to "get the work done, then leave" all the time now. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:01, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My talk page can be a bit boring at times, so it's easy to miss the exciting stuff. Yeah, I know what it's like to feel a bit disillusioned with Wikipedia. I bet it happens to most of us at some point when you've been here over five years. I'm glad you're still around, though. Wikipedia would be a much worse place without you. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:39, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

welcome to the mop corps

Congratulations on your successful RFA!
Allow me to impart the words of wisdom I received from the puppy after my RFA passed
– almost ten long, sordid, gee-I-really-should-have-found-a-better-hobby years ago:
  1. Remember you will always protect the wrong version. (I got nothing here. It's inevitable. I'm surprised you haven't done it already.)
  2. Remember you must always follow the rules, except for when you ignore them. Without exception, you will pick the wrong one to do. (See #5.)
  3. Remember to assume good faith and not bite. Remember that when you are applying these principles most diligently, you are probably dealing with a troll. (You'll attract many more of those now, because mop. They must like to drink the dirty water in the bucket.)
  4. Use the block ability sparingly. Enjoy the insults you receive when you do block, because really, what else is there to live for?
  5. Remember that when you make these errors, someone will be more than happy to point them out to you in dazzling clarity and descriptive terminology. It will not be a personal attack because we are admins and, therefore, we are all rouge anyway.
  6. Finally, remember to contact me if you ever need assistance, and I will do what I am able.


Katietalk 21:18, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
DISCLAIMER: This humor does not reflect the official humor of Wikipedia, the Wikimedia Foundation, or Jimbo Wales, because if it did, it would be much, much better.
All rights released under GFDL.

A cup of coffee for you!

Congratulations on your successful RFA! Here's a nice pipin' cup of 'joe, made from freshly roasted and ground coffee beans, filtered through a French press, and poured and measured with the skilled, nimble, and well-crafted hands only a barista can have. Sit back and relax before you start putting your mop to good use -- you deserve it! —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 00:48, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SPI

Suspecting 82.212.78.58 of being an Evlekis sock? --JustBerry (talk) 06:38, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure who it is. I don't think I've encountered this one before. I would probably remember someone who screamed abuse in all caps. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:43, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I definitely remember someone who did last week. Will try to do some more digging. Thanks anyway. --JustBerry (talk) 07:14, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A brownie for you!

Congratulations on becoming an administrator! Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 19:16, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Malaysian IP

Hey, NinjaRobotPirate! Once again, congrats on being promoted to Admin! I just thought I'd drop you a note that a series of IPs geolocating to Malaysia (the most recent at 115.132.175.211) has been active at Alexandra Chando lately. The M.O. is kind of similar to "our disruptive Malaysian IP friend" (though this time they seem to be changing dates without explanation, among other things) so I thought I'd let you know about it so you could monitor the situation... Thanks! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:22, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@IJBall: yeah, that looks like the same editor. The English is better than usual, though. I'll keep an eye on that, but I'll probably be a bit busy tonight. I was hopeful when I saw the IP editor seemingly give up some of the more disruptive habits, such as cut and paste moves. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:52, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

cult film

Thank you for quality articles on films and film such as Cult film and Still, for your editing philosophy including voluntary one revert, for admin services as a way to help, for "there is room for everyone", - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:02, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I think we all wonder occasionally if anyone sees our contributions. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:53, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Get to work!

NRP: Please check Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rodolfootoya12/Archive against this if you get a sec. I'm stunned the guy has been at this for four years or more. He was like a child when he started. Please keep an eye out for Latin American IPs. He used to edit a lot from Costa Rica. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:58, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and my heading is just light-hearted ribbing. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:59, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Haha. I'll take a look at it. I did promise to patrol SPI, didn't I? Maybe I should have promised to do something easier. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:27, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've done the hard part (the SPI). I could block him myself, but you need the practice fun. Did you raid my common.js? Do you have the easy block tool installed? That's the quickest way to block suspected and confirmed socks. Does all the tedious crap. Also, if you don't have the mark-blocked script, get it. Super valuable for any editor who chases socks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 07:34, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I grabbed the marked-blocked script a little while ago – it's surprisingly useful. I've mostly been using Twinkle to do blocks, but, yeah, I heard the easyblock thing was good, too. Sorry it took so long, but my cat peed on the rug. And, of course, of all the places to walk, I had to step right in that spot. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:16, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Email

Hello, I sent you an email on behalf of the Signpost. Thanks, Go Phightins! 04:09, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Go Phightins!: replied – let me know if it doesn't arrive. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:51, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Date formats

Hi NRP. Regarding the date formats in the Bethany Mota article, I'm pretty sure that WP:DATERET takes second place to WP:DATETIES, and the lady is American. Favonian (talk) 21:51, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Favonian: Huh? MOS:DATES specifically says that ISO 8601-style dates are acceptable, and MOS:DATERET says not to change date formats. MOS:CITEVAR additionally says not to change citation formats. I really dislike it when people come in to an article that I've worked on and change the date format. We specifically has a guideline against this. Strong national ties would be President of the United States, not a YouTube account. I wish that damn date-format-changing script would get banned. The only time I've ever seen anyone use it is to disruptively change my citations to another format. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:58, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not a cause I'm willing to die for, but a person's nationality is a pretty strong tie, and WP:DATERET says The date format chosen by the first major contributor in the early stages of an article should continue to be used, unless there is reason to change it based on strong national ties to the topic or consensus on the article's talk page. The same issue comes up regarding British/American spelling and as far as I can tell, nationality of the subject (for bios) usually wins. Favonian (talk) 22:03, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry! Strike that. Wasn't until now that I noticed that it was only the cite format, not those in the body of the article. Getting late in my time zone. Favonian (talk) 22:06, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, ISO 8601-style dates are not allowed in the article body. I'm pretty familiar with how the MOS works, and that's why I get so prickly when people screw with articles using that evil script. It is the devil's work, and it serves only to frustrate whomever added the citations in the first place. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:14, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Disruptive blanking

Hi NinjaRobotPirate! I am more than happy to explain any edit that I make on an appropriate talk page, but I don't like being accused of disruptive editing. In fact, I have never seen anyone characterize the removal of content accompanied with an explanatory edit summary as disruptive editing. However, I do apologize for marking the edit in question as minor and I do appreciate you pointing it out. – Zntrip 00:32, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Zntrip: thank you for explaining your edit on the talk page and providing evidence for it. A vague wave to policy doesn't help much when you're removing sourced content. Anyone can say anything – someone could just as easily say that the weight of sources is on calling it Greek-only. If you hadn't marked your edit as minor, I probably wouldn't have cared so much, but this is a trick used by some editors to hide controversial edits (some editors choose to suppress minor edits from showing up on their watchlist). Maybe it's because I had just blocked several frustrating vandals and sock puppets earlier, but I was not in good mood at the time when I left that message on your talk page. I apologize for coming on so strong. I should have been a bit more diplomatic. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:41, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive edits

I hope you're warning the other user as well. He's continually removing them without the authority to do so. Me-123567-Me (talk) 19:11, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Hi, Im glad I finally am able to talk to an administrator. I was in Steppenwolf 1979-80 I was made aware that people had been going on the Steppenwolf Wiki site and removing data. Several editors that are not authorities on Steppenwolf have actually started to remove accurate data on the history of the band, they removed the Past Steppenwolf Members list, they keep removing data Im posting, then I got an editor to verify and post for me, another editor came on and disregarded my proof that the data I posted was associated with Steppenwolf. I have never witnessed anything like this. I am Glen Bui and I did sign up under a couple of Glen Bui's because I was having trouble logging in. you can go to magiccarpetrideinc.com and find data that is part of the Steppenwolf history... can you please stop these editors, I can submit to you any proof you need Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by GlenBui (talk • contribs) 02:10, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@GlenBui: I'm not the one you need to convince – you need to discuss this on Talk:Steppenwolf (band). Administrators don't really handle content on Wikipedia. Our role is more to keep the site running smoothly. Sometimes people disagree with what you want to add to an article, and that's part of what makes Wikipedia both frustrating and great. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, which means one person can't just force in content to an article. When other people say, "No, this doesn't belong here", you should go to the talk page and explain why it does as persuasively as you can. If things don't work out for you, there are places on Wikipedia you can appeal to, such as the dispute resolution noticeboard. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:23, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The editors disagreeing know nothing of the history of the band, I don't know why they keep deleting data. I've sent documented proof about the data I posted and then had an editor post after he researched it, then other editors came along and deleted what that editor posted. Some of these editors should be blocked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GlenBui (talk • contribs) 02:26, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@GlenBui: I understand your frustration. I've been situations where I knew I was right, and other Wikipedia editors wouldn't listen to me. But if you start a discussion on the talk page, maybe you can convince enough of them that they turn into allies. You know how sometimes people forget why they're even fighting, and they just keep fighting because it's become habit? Continually adding the same text to the article is only going to make them more stubborn about excluding it. Right now, they're gunning to have your access to Wikipedia revoked, and it's not easy for me to convince people to give you a chance. I'm doing what I can, but it's really up to you – I can't force Wikipedia to say what you want it to say. You have to go to the talk page and convince the editors that you're right. I know some of them, and I think they'll listen to reason. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:44, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Wikiproject!

Hail and well met! I am dropping you a quick note because I have created a new Wikiproject - WikiProject Green Party to help expand and improve on the vast number of Green Party articles on Wikipedia! I hope you will consider joining so we can collaborate together! Have a great day! Me-123567-Me (talk) 00:53, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article deletion

Hi. Yes please. I was meant to create the article on Indonesian language. Turns out it went to English wikipedia site. Much appreciate it if you can delete the page. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gdmnwltr (talk • contribs) 14:05, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Good luck with the article on the Indonesian Wikipedia! NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:10, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

That was not disruptive editing, I made the right improvements to the page, that source may not be reliable anyway. Wikiman103 (talk) 01:44, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikiman103: see WP:FILM/R and {{infobox film}}. The British Film Institute and European Audiovisual Observatory are among the most reliable sources we have for determining the country of origin for a film. If you continue blanking reliable sources, I will block you from editing, and it probably won't be short block, either. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:47, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ninja, dropped in with a quick request. Can you please do an ultra-quick source check at my above FL nom? That would help considerably. Thanks. Lourdes 07:18, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Lourdes: Oh, man, that hits two of my weakest points: sports and India. I think Lugnuts is good at cricket stuff; you might consider asking him if you're looking for someone who's actually competent. For what it's worth, though, the sources look fine to me. The statisticstimes.com citation is the only one that seems a bit iffy. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:39, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Hope you're doing well... see you around. Lourdes 07:41, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(In the meanwhile, I've removed statisticstimes and restructured the sources. Thanks. Lourdes 08:06, 21 January 2017 (UTC))[reply]

The Phoenix IP editors

He's back at Huell Howser and California's Gold, now using User:2600:8800:3080:2C50:194E:E87A:2510:F53C. He's been warned about disruptive editing by the editor who reverted him. --Drmargi (talk) 19:44, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmargi: I did a two week range block. That should stop him. Let me know if others show up. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:50, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I was wondering if a range block was feasible, but I know it has all manner of other implications. I wish he'd get the message. --Drmargi (talk) 19:52, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi :) When blocking this user, please consider reporting it on meta so that they can be globally blocked - they also do stuff like spam hundreds of wikis with poor quality (often factually incorrect) stubs, upload non-free images to Commons and remove references from Wikidata. I've already requested a global block for the range you've blocked at meta:Steward requests/Global#Global_block_for_2600:8800:3080:2C50:0:0:0:0.2F64 so there's no need to do it for that one, but they're persistent so there's bound to be another soon... :/ - Nikki (talk) 18:30, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I will. Thanks for taking care of it this time. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:41, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Response to NinjaRobotPirate

First off, I removed the Split Second reference because I was unable to find any additional reference to American involvement besides the one page, and I assumed it was simply an error and there part. Secondly, User:TroySchulz is Austin, a classmate and friend of mine. He's asked to me to do certain edits on is behalf, though I'm trying to avoid making the same mistakes that he made that resulted in his account being blocked. (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:43, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@DonVito101: I find it unlikely that you're a different person, and per Wikipedia policy it's not even particularly important whether you're a person TroySchulz recruited to do his editing or TroySchulz himself. I'm going to make this blunt: if you give me any further reason to suspect that you're acting on his behalf (or are him), I'm going to block you from editing. The only reason why I haven't blocked you right now is because TroySchulz was completely uncommunicative, and I'm quite surprised to get any response from an account TroySchulz uses to evade his block. I suggest you find something else to edit besides film articles. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:59, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your concern, and will take them heart. DonVito101 —Preceding undated comment added 02:59, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SIRI article

hey! just wondering why you created the Should I Remove It article? rest of your writings seem to be totally from other direction — Preceding unsigned comment added by MGaidak (talk • contribs) 15:49, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was working on adding citations to list of freeware, and this program came up in my research. I think it was on a list of best freeware or something. I don't really know anything about it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:23, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to have a look in

...at the Jennifer Hale article, where there is question about appropriate sourcing and statements regarding DOBs for a voice over celebrity, you are welcome. The incoming editor raise issue because when I began my editing, I was editing from IP. But I have clearly identified all edits as from me, and there is no warring, just a request, (i) that the two edits be clearly understood as separate, in any reversion counting—the first to the infobox (tweet supported month-day of birth, to which I have relented, with afixed [better source needed] tag), and the second to the main body text, regarding discrepant reports/suggestions of year of birth, which is still up in the air, (ii) that it be understood that all of my edites were fully edit-summary justified, and (iii) that I went to the trouble to start a Talk discussion, so as to move the matter from reversion to collegial, community editing. I have no horse in this race, except that BLP standards be maintained, that AGF applies (no knee jerk reverts by editors perceiving ownershop of articles), and that the article get better for the attention. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 09:03, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Leprof 7272: I think AngusWOOF makes a good point on the talk page about WP:BLPPRIVACY. The same thing came up recently at WikiProject Biography in this discussion (permanent link), where I said I'd default to not saying anything. I think the Twitter feed would be an alright source for the day of her birth (January 1), but it's not information that I'd personally include. I could post this to the talk page if you want. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:00, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request to userfy pages

Hey NinjaRobotPirate. Would it be possible for you to userfy a bunch of pages to my userspace? The articles involved are the ones deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Singapore National Day Parade, 2016. I had a discussion with the deleting admin here who says it is OK if someone else userfies these. I found sources and coverage for each of these and would at least like to merge some of the verifiable content into the main article. Thank you. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:35, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Lemongirl942: Sure! Might take a few minutes to figure out the process. I haven't done that before. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:43, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much! No problem, you can take your time. There's no hurry! --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:45, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Lemongirl942: OK, they're all in your userspace: User:Lemongirl942/Singapore National Day Parade, 2005 through User:Lemongirl942/Singapore National Day Parade, 2016. Be careful of attribution; it can be a headache when merging content. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:32, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for your help! Haha yes, I agree that the attribution while merging is a headache (in fact, I maintain a log just in case I ever do something wrong). I wish someone would find a way to automate it. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:39, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Signals Through The Flames film edit

Hello Ninja. Excuse me if the separating title above looks off. Loninappleton. Alsee mentioned something about a signed identifier for myself at top. Thanks for making the edits in my Draft:Signals Through The Flames film. I've made some progress. The American Film Institute should help notability. Elsewhere a University library has The Cambridge Companion To Brecht which references the film. Perhaps you can help with the text in description since it is a film entry and not about the theater group. I think I strayed away from thinking of the film as the topic. In a followup edit I can put in the links to the Cambridge Companion To Brecht ref. Thanks for your help. Example would be how to simply state that the film was listed in the two volumes. Would it be inline references after the title or in text such as 'The American Film Institute lists the film then inline ref, as does The Cambridge Companion to Brecht inline ref following?Loninappleton (talk) 20:00, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Loninappleton: You're doing quite well, actually. It took me a long time before I felt comfortable enough to create an article, so you're starting off much better than I did. I'm honestly not sure how to best incorporate some of those references. The AFI source is most interesting because it shows that newspapers covered the film, presumably granting the film notability. However, it's difficult to explain this in the Wikipedia article, since we haven't seen the newspaper articles. One thing you could do is list the sources cited by AFI in the Wikipedia article, perhaps under a "further reading" section, like I did on Ilusión Nacional. I found sources to demonstrate notability, but I couldn't read them – they're in Spanish. So, I stuck them in the Wikipedia article at the end, so people would know they exist. I think that's something you could do, too. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:37, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the compliment but can only do things by rote. Perhaps my Sandbox entry was put into Draft too soon. :-) Regarding foreign languages, you show French on your user page. Perhaps there is a reference in Figaro or LeMonde from 1968 which references Living Theatre's Paradise Now performance shown in the film. Occupation of the Odeon Theatre during the May Day uprising is also shown in the film and noted in my description. I still didn't sign myself properly but another user has some advice for that which I have to review.2602:301:77E9:1600:C52C:66FC:2043:60D7 (talk) 23:16, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, my French skills aren't very good. I checked a few French sites and didn't see anything, but it's possible someone more skilled than me could do a better job. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:53, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to proceed to add the AFI reference for any corrections. On signing: I continue to get that wrong. Would the whole phrase as it appears from you above in edit mode be just copied in as it looks? I see that I am logged in and will add the tildes for a proper signature.Loninappleton (talk) 21:28, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean about "the whole phrase". Which phrase? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:35, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'll put it in the box

Loninappleton (talk)

Out of the box. I don't know if it's necessary but what I did was put that code (phrase) in a text file to retrieve and enter as a signature.Loninappleton (talk) 21:53, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question I have opened the cite a web source template and filled in what I could. The preview gave an error in date format. I simply quit the entry not knowing what to do. My question is, is there a tutor page with a screen shot of needed data and not the verbal plus code examples which I've found but not understood. A tutor page should straighten me out. Ideally another example of American Film Institute cited would work best since I've never done any of this. Even asking google did not give a screen shot-- just some examples of web pages.Loninappleton (talk) 01:55, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This page is a tutorial on how to add a citation. For example:
  • <ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.afi.com/members/catalog/DetailView.aspx?s=&Movie=57192|title=Signals Through the Flames|work=[[American Film Institute]]|accessdate=January 29, 2017}}</ref>
The date format isn't too important; if you get an error, it's OK. Someone else will fix it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:04, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alma socks...

Hi @NinjaRobotPirate:! I suspect we have a new Alma Fordy sock, much like the one you blocked yesterday in new pages right now... any chance you can hop on IRC for a second? (#wikipedia-en) Chrissymad ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 23:22, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Chrissymad: I haven't used IRC in years, but I've been thinking about requesting an account. Anyway, I see you filed a report at SPI. I blocked the sock. Let me know if you see others. They're not too hard to spot, but it usually takes me at least 12 hours to notice her activity on my watchlist. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:01, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you fancy putting your newly acquired ninja powers to good use?

Congratulations on the admin promotion, I did not realize you were even up for it! Anyway, 220.162.5.108 is adding unsourced and very poorly sourced POV content to Barbra Streisand articles. The specific nature of the problem is described at Talk:Hello,_Dolly!_(film)#Inappropriate_sources but it has now proliferated to other articles (especially Yentl (film)). The IP refuses to heed the warnings on his talk page. I was hoping you could deal it with because I don't want to spend the best part of an hour logging the entirety of his edits at ANI. Betty Logan (talk) 08:33, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Betty Logan: Ugh, it probably would have been ignored at ANI. That was one of the reasons why I decided to go through with the RFA – I was tired of having my ANI complaints ignored, even when I was reporting a LTA vandal. I blocked the IP editor for 31 hours. I doubt this will be the end of it, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:37, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. It's great to have a regular from the Film project with admin status. It allows us to nip these things in the bud. Betty Logan (talk) 09:55, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately 220.162.5.108 has picked up where he left off now his block has finished. Is it possible to put him out pasture for a week or two so we don't have to deal with this on a daily basis? The articles affected could alternatively be semi'd but there are quite a few. Betty Logan (talk) 07:02, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Betty Logan: Yeah, I blocked for a week this time. I don't know if it will make much difference. Some people seem to think that Wikipedia is a free-for-all where you're randomly blocked by capricious administrators, and this is simply part of the experience that must be endured. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:25, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah it's a thankless task at times. I will do the clean-up job; thankfully the editor has not hit many articles this time. Also, I see you replied at the Lee Grant RFC too so thanks for that! Betty Logan (talk) 07:28, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It won't be the end if he was doing the same thing 2 years ago, it is clearly a behavioral pattern. Hopefully he will get bored though and take a couple of years off like last time. But man, this is so less stressful than having to file reports every day and then waiting for a week for them to be dealt with. Betty Logan (talk) 22:03, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it's nice being to skip over some of Wikipedia's bureaucracy. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:48, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

The IP (Special:Contributions/80.2.63.236) you blocked for persistent addition of unsourced material is the "Cause of death vandal" (so named because of a habit of adding the "death place/date"-parameters to infoboxes, with or without a cause of death; see these recent edits by the IP you blocked; [2],[3]), a vandal who is editing from IPs in and around Leeds, UK (see geolocation of the IP you blocked), and has been vandalising BLPs here for years, adding material that is not only unsourced but often pure fantasy or deliberately false. And thus should be blocked on sight. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 17:22, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bouncy Glow

I cannot remember back that far, and any evidence from CU will no longer be available (and if there was that data it would not be local to enWP), and as I locked as spambot that indicates bot pattern editing, rather than targeted editing. If the user's editing is okay, then I think that we can AGF. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:42, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Creation protection of Seneed Acharya

Hi, NRB, nice to see you wielding your new tools. Was there any special reason you only protected Seneed Acharya against recreation for a week, and only semi? It's more usual to protect fully, and I think for a year, or indef — at least that's what I usually do. And this guy seems quite persistent. Mind if I extend the protection? Bishonen | talk 17:03, 29 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]

@Bishonen: I have no problem with that. I'm still trying to figure out when I'm being too soft or too harsh. I figure it's easier to explain away being too soft than too harsh. So, sometimes I just semi-protect redlinks for a week or two and add them to my watchlist. I figure I can keep an eye on them and take care of any problems. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:17, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks, fully protected. I feel, especially in a case of stubbornness like this, that the promoter shouldn't be able to recreate this yet again with another sock after just waiting four days + 10 edits. Let 'em work to become admin first. ;-) Bishonen | talk 19:08, 29 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Happy Lunar New Year!

 Happy Lunar New Year!

Hello NinjaRobotPirate,
May you have success, prosperity, peace, love and good health on this Chinese New Year. Here's to another year of productive editing. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for this new year.

Kind regards,
Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:37, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'll settle for good health, but the other stuff sounds good, too. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:59, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
Thanks for helping me with deletion nomination! Groiglery1217 (talk) 16:55, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

James Wan

Hi, I just received your correction on the James Wan page editing I have made. The date of birth is incorrect, he's born on the 26th of February, not the 27th, check his IMDb page, or any personal profile he has. Also his Chinese name is written "Tze Yin". That's the correct writing. Please follow up! Thank you! FactCheckker1515 (talk) 08:36, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@FactCheckker1515: The IMDb is user-generated, and thus not a reliable source; it can't be used as a citation in a biography of a living person. The New York Times, however, is is a reliable source. I don't know what personal profiles of his exist or whether they're official. I'd rather just stick with what a newspaper reports, but if there's a clearly official website that says different, I suppose we could use that value. You need to find this source before you change the date, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:48, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'm on it and will write back once I have it! This information is coming from his representation but will try to find an article because I just noticed his IMDb is also incorrect on the day as well. Thank you! FactCheckker1515 (talk) 08:59, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bach & Mozart

I didn't even see that connection til you mentioned XD But it but may be a case of WP:BEANS now that they know they're blocked...may stray from the name variation? Chrissymad ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 21:56, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Chrissymad: Ehh, it's possible, but, in my experience, it's not particularly important. If someone is incapable of seeing that their behavioral quirks are obvious, they'll be caught no matter what they do. If they are capable of seeing it, it doesn't matter if I point it out. But I can try to be a little more discrete if it makes people feel better. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:53, 31 January 2017 (UTC) (slightly edited to be a little more explicit about what I meant) NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:16, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter - February 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Administrator changes

NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67
Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
  • Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
  • The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Arbitration

Obituaries

  • JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.
Discuss this newsletter • Subscribe • Archive

13:37, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Your engagement

…@NinjaRobotPirate: in the process of deciding on your nomination to admin was impressive—"You're a better man than I am, Gunga Din!" And I am very happy to see you in this role, with the added expressed hope that it does not divert you (by sapping valuable time) from the many constructive sorts of engagements you have had in the past. May tools make your time more efficient, and your assistance more widely felt. Cheers, Le Prof 73.210.155.96 (talk) 05:08, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats

Late yes, but welcome to the mop. Schmidt, Michael Q. 09:33, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:45, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Behavior on Oh Brother, Where Art You?

I must apologize for my behavior at Oh Brother, Where Art Thou?. Your edit reminded me on how an IP user placed Touchstone Pictures as the distributor instead of Buena Vista Pictures/Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures on a lot of articles on Touchstone films and how a North Carolina IP user messed with me over Adventures of the Little Koala and The Lion Guard and I just snapped. — FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 03:05, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you're referring to, but, yeah, there are some IP editors I've been tracking who go around changing production companies. One of them changes everything to TriStar or Columbia, but I range blocked him. If you see other editors who do this, feel free to tell about it, and I can block them, too. If you reverted one of my edits, don't worry about it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:12, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A bowl of strawberries for you!

Thanks for being so patient with newbie me! :) Your suggestions with Suicide Squad are valuable to me and I've been checking out the references you provided. Curdigirl (talk) 07:27, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet case

I don't agree with your decision to closed the SPI case against 2405:204:5507:b557::1c1e:a0a5/2405:204:5104:5ABB:0:0:1661:38A0. The IPs are nearly identical, and the behavior is 100% the same. Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball 03:16, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Boomer Vial: as I explained, that's not sock puppetry; it's a user on a dynamic IP address. These IP addresses are randomly assigned by the ISP and, depending on how it's configured, can last anywhere from hours to weeks. Users who are assigned dynamic IP addresses generally don't have any control over what IP address they're assigned, though they can sometimes manually trigger a change. When they do that abusively, they can be range blocked. That's not an option in this case, though. The range is too wide, and I would have to block the entire ISP. If the disruption continues, I will semi-protect the article, but there hasn't been any disruption in the past two days. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:36, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@NinjaRobotPirate: Fine. I will let you know if anymore vandalism occurs. Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball 05:53, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Would ask, NRP, are your insights codified anywhere in WP policies and guidelines? Since you took the trouble to fully explain, perhaps not. But I have encountered editors and even admins that seemed unaware of this, and it would be helpful to have a WP:XXX to refer to on this, when questions come up. Perhaps you can add this few lines, to a guideline, somewhere. Cheers, Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 12:15, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Schemmel

Do you think we should protect Sean Schemmel's page so people could stop adding his unconfirmed birth date? DBZFan30 (talk) 11:56, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, I don't think it's a major problem yet. Sometimes people eventually find a reliable source once they realize it needs to be cited. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:03, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As if you do not have enough to do

Cheers, hello. I'd ask, as an experienced editor, but now with the Admin chops, you have a very quick look in at the Ruby Ridge article—good news, no tensions or stand-offs.

I've just finished a first pass of citation checking, and normalizing the citation of the two major reports on which the article is based. The issues addressed include the appearance of the same report, cited in multiples different ways, leading to absolute confusion in in the references (solved by creation of a Biblio, and use of a short citation format in the inline citations); and the fact that these book length reports are often cited without page or section numbers, thus making the verification of material a PhD thesis, a matter only very partially addressed. Have a quick scan of Bibliograph and Reverences, to see the style/format resorted to, noting that most of what is there was already there, including the very long quotes, which I broke up and/or made smaller. (More on the use of these reports, perhaps, later.)

So, the article is in process—much unsourced/missourced material unearthed, and I am switching now to next phase, to begin filling all the "Who said this?" citation gaps that are there. (Big problem was end of paragraph citations, covering only the last sentence, if that.)

In any case, the request—could you, in particular, have a look at the "See also" section, and do quick clicks to see what you think should and should not be there, and (via deletions, if possible), guide me to what we should and should not allow to accumulate there? For instance, I do not think the MOVE wikilink useful—it barely, in my view, belongs the once in the article—and it appears that this section is becoming a dumping ground for groups with WP articles that would like to generate reader attention (i.e., that are unmentioned in the article, are only most tangentially related to the topic, but that are nevertheless listed here—e.g., groups that Weaver visited, and the associated Waco and McVeigh events, yes, but all the rest?).

Otherwise, on this same subject—any general tool to evaluate these wikilinks as to propriety, per WP guidelines/policies? Cheers, Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 07:33, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, would gladly have you copy and paste-in at the relevant Talk page, the perspective on the Twitter matter, at your convenience. I have been standing clear, letting the dust settle, and your post would allow me to return, and see where the article is at (one last time, for each of us). Thanks. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 07:33, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Leprof 7272: When an entire paragraph is given one citation, I usually assume all the statements are being sourced to a long passage in a source – usually a book. If it's only the last statement that's actually sourced, that would be a little strange, and I don't think I've seen that before. Repeated citations can use named references or {{sfn}}. The sfn template is sometimes easier to use with books. The "see also" is pretty long. I guess it's up to editorial fiat what belongs there. Usually, we'd try to link to a list article instead of lots of individual, somewhat related articles, but I don't think we have a "list of standoffs" yet. Beyond that, I'm not sure exactly what's related enough to include, but it seems to me that Branch Davidians is unnecessary since Waco siege is already there. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:50, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@NinjaRobotPirate:, thanks for looking in. I will begin doing some trimming to the "See also" section. Regarding the "If it's only the last statement…" observation—in my experience, articles fall generally into two categories, those adequately sourced from word go, and those absent or all-but-absent any citations from the start, that are then, haltingly, brought up to snuff, via what I term forensic sourcing (post hoc research to identify sources for unsourced content). With regard to your observation, I would say, if an article is in the first category, your observations and experience hold true; if they are in the second, forensically sourced category, all bets are off (in my experience). And in the vast majority of "old growth" Wikipedia articles, there are far too many to count in the second category. Thanks for looking in, peace in your work. (P.S., trying to have Koumine article reinstated, perhaps look in there in a few days.) Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 12:10, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
Very nice job all around; thanks for your continued well-reasoned support of Wikipedia! Belated congratulations on your successful RfA. Softlavender (talk) 08:02, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. There's a lot of on-the-job learning involved. Can make things a bit daunting. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:07, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Comment on the guidelines regarding "joke" categories

This is a notice that a discussion you participated in, either at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents or at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 February 8 has resulted in a Request for comment at Wikipedia talk:User categories#Request for Comment on the guidelines regarding "joke" categories. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:38, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Minor Admin's Barnstar
I just made this image, hopefully it isn't in violation of any laws... Anyways, thanks for blocking the account that I reported at WP:SPI and just being a great admin in general. Thanks! RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 00:11, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, that's pretty cool work. Thanks. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:23, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Blackout

Hello NinjaRobotPirate. May I please invite you to join the discussion concerning The Blackout at Talk:List of films with a 0% rating on Rotten Tomatoes? Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 21:13, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

North Carolina IP Hopper

You know that IP Hopper from North Carolina that messed with me at Adventures of the Little Koala and The Lion Guard I once mentioned? Its at it again, this time at The Program Exchange and Lilo & Stitch: The Series. I need help. — FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 21:46, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@FilmandTVFan28: it's difficult for me to tell exactly what's going on at those articles since I'm not familiar with them. It looks like the IP editor is challenging a citation at the first article, The Program Exchange, but is edit warring instead of discussing why. I'm not sure it would help much, but maybe try starting a talk page discussion? Then I could semi-protect the article if the IP doesn't contribute to the discussion. The other page, the Lilo & Stitch one, looks more disruptive, but there hasn't been all that much activity on it. I'm a little reluctant to semi-protect it right away, but I can do so if this keeps up. Let me what happens. It would help if you warned the IP editors, too, because I can't really block them without their having gotten a warning first. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:11, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I did as you say. — FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 00:23, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Black Hawk Down

When you have a moment, would you take a look at the recent edits on Black Hawk Down, please? I know I violated 3RR, and I am willing to take a hit for that, but the edit war has to stop and some semblance of order has to be established. I believe I was clear in my reasoning for why the characters in the film should not be linked to the real people – and I believe this is consistent with the reasoning for why this is not done in other "inspired by real events" films. In this specific case, some of these characters are combinations of real people, or are made to say and do things that they did not say or do. To link to real people is to imply that they are one and the same, which is misleading. At any rate, someone has to step in. Thanks. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 02:01, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TheOldJacobite: I dunno about the content dispute – that's probably more the realm of dispute resolution or maybe a thread on WT:FILM – but I warned Dibol for edit warring. You guys should be discussing this on the talk page. I could fully protect the page, but I'm hoping it's not necessary. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:49, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I started a discussion ages ago which never got a single response. But, yes, you are correct. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 12:32, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New articles copied form citizendium.org

Hello, I tagged 1995 Rock and Roll Hall of Fame Induction Ceremony with a merge template into Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and since I also saw some referenced content (even though there are also parts that are not properly sourced) in Advanced Extremely High Frequency (satellite) I also suggested it to be merged into Advanced Extremely High Frequency. I was also puzzled at the speed the articles were being created. I understand now that they are just all copied from citizendium.org without the required attribution. The question is weather we should just delete the articles or add the needed attribution to it. Let me know if I can help with the clean-up. Regards. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 16:48, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Crystallizedcarbon: Yeah, it's a real mess. Mostly, I think tagging the articles appropriately will help. The Citizendium stuff is CC-BY, so it's easier to clean up; we need to attribute that properly, but once we do, I think it's alright to add to Wikipedia. If there are other copyright violations (that aren't CC-BY), they'll need to be deleted. Ugh, I don't want to go through 20+ new articles and try to figure out where they all came from. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:06, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It was a pain but I think I was able to find the attribution template for CC-BY so I added it to both articles. I will probe some more into his "hard work" ... --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 18:05, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like someone else deleted all the articles and blocked Izaiah.morris. I don't know what Izaiah.morris was thinking. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:56, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A beer for you!

I know it is a little bit late, but I just realized that I forgot to congratulate you. Cheers. Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 16:52, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive IP from Arizona

Hey, Ninja, the IP from AZ making repetitive disruptive edits is back again at 2600:8800:3080:2C50:4534:B3B1:931C:9DAA. I reverted what he's done, but he's not going anywhere, I'm sure. Care to block? --Drmargi (talk) 22:11, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done. One month range block. I'll also request a global block at m:SRG. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:19, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. It just keeps up. He's got another global block already and some monkey business on another IP a few days ago. --Drmargi (talk) 22:27, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it's a real pain. It's always possible I missed something, but this should catch all his latest activity. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:45, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Feb 2017

I thank you for your message on my talk page, the source I added on Alien: Covenant was an error, I meant to add a fact press release on the website, I will return to this in the future after discussion in the talk page. I appreciate your position but I would briefly like explain that the edit warring warning on my page has been unavoidable as I have been removing unreliable sources from a user (TheOldJacobean). He has repeatedly failed to properly discuss the matter in the talk section and has removed sources equating to vandalism. As an editor of predominantly film articles, I find this behaviour unacceptable. Although I have been an editor for over three years, I still consider myself an amateur and have no idea how to deal with such situations, I quite frankly have no idea how to contact an administrator. He or she has utterly antagonised me and up until now the only way I have scene fit to deal with the issue has been to revert the article to what the research informs me. I thank you for your patience and hope that with assistance, I will be able to improve in the future. --Warner REBORN (talk) 18:16, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Ninja read here

Hey I've seen your Assassin's Creed article, it is very interesting, but in some things i'm not agree with you. Can we spoke about these things???? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vitti2002 (talk • contribs) 16:54, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Vitti2002: I don't really know what you're referring to, but from this edit, it looks like you're upset that Cluebot reverted you. Cluebot is an automated program that sometimes makes mistakes. However, it looks like you've also vandalized the article in this edit. Please don't do that. If you're looking for a place to discuss edits, the article's talk page, Talk:Assassin's Creed (film), is where you'd do it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:04, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@NinjaRobotPirate: I don't know what do you mean for vandalising I've only put that the father killed the mother and that the father is in the Abstergo.

Administrators' newsletter – March 2017

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

Administrator changes

Amortias • Deckiller • BU Rob13
Ronnotel • Islander • Chamal N • Isomorphic • Keeper76 • Lord Voldemort • Shereth • Bdesham • Pjacobi

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • A recent query shows that only 16% of administrators on the English Wikipedia have enabled two-factor authentication. If you haven't already enabled it please consider doing so.
  • Cookie blocks should be deployed to the English Wikipedia soon. This will extend the current autoblock system by setting a cookie for each block, which will then autoblock the user after they switch accounts under a new IP.
  • A bot will now automatically place a protection template on protected pages when admins forget to do so.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:14, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per SPI

You said here to contact you directly --

2600:387:3:805:0:0:0:61 (talk)

I believe that the block on the first IP from that range he used is over. But not the blocks that followed. Kellymoat (talk) 16:56, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't me that got blocked for 72 hours. I got blocked for 24 hours. You are involved with two different people here. 2600:387:3:805:0:0:0:61 (talk) 16:57, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IMDb

I'm sorry, but each editor there has given differing reasons for so-called removing ALL the data I added; under a I don't like it syndrome, rather than proper WP policy, using differing excuses for removal. Even if they disagree with parts, then they should edit, not simply remove ALL the text I added for the parts with valid sources, that make it perfectly acceptable under WP rules. Thanks you. Jimthing (talk) 04:13, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Hello NRP. Thanks for your work on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mare-Silverus. I have started a thread on the talk page for the film so hopefully they will post their thoughts there. Your taking the time to post in their talk page is appreciated. There is one typo - I think you mean "talk things out" instead of "talk thinks out" - I only noticed it because I make typos like that all the time. I blame it on flat keyboards since I learned on that old tech known as a typewriter :-) Best regards. MarnetteD|Talk 03:14, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I try to keep an eye on SPI, but it fills up very quickly. I think sometimes editors who work on old films are a bit unused to discussing edits or facing editing disputes. These articles tend to be a bit quiet. But, yeah, I try to catch typos when I can, though there's usually at least one left behind. I never really did like typewriters very much – computers let you be so much more careless in your typing. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:31, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Another likely puppet

Hi! I noticed you were involved with this sockpuppet case already, so I was hoping you could look into this case (duck) for me. Thanks! Garchy (talk) 19:29, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that seems to be the same person. I blocked the sock and left a note at the SPI. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:50, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ian McDiarmid article

You may want to get ready. Protection has expired at Ian McDiarmid and it looks like the "Senate" vandal is going right back to what they were doing before. DarkKnight2149 22:56, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like Materialscientist already took care of it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:06, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
They did. DarkKnight2149 15:35, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FME

Hi NRP. I don't know if "From My Experience" is a full fledged internet age acronym but I thought it was more apropos than FYI :-) When I saw your post I thought I would let you know that one of these Nsmutte socks favored harassment techniques of Bonadea has been filing AFDs of their user page, talk page and articles they created. I and others have speedy tagged then and all (as far as I know) have been deleted. I am not saying that your post was wrong and I would want you to do the same in the future if that is your judgement. I just wanted to let you know what my experience has been. Cheers and enjoy your weekend. MarnetteD|Talk 07:38, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@MarnetteD: Oh, OK. I didn't realize it was a campaign of harassment. It's tough to keep up on all these socks. Thanks for the note. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:08, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome. Yep the rate that socks are created means "we're gonna need a bigger drawer" to keep them in :-) MarnetteD|Talk 14:24, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Good Humor
I really liked your essay "How to streamline a plot summary" Hope it does some good. BigJim707 (talk) 15:14, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:41, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not again...

Our favorite Arizona disruptive IP is back again, at 2600:8800:3080:2C50:D56:431D:D4B0:EF4B. He's been busy disrupting quite a group of favored articles for the last couple hours. Time to get out the block hammer? --Drmargi (talk) 20:13, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh, I guess it's been a month already. This time I blocked for three months. That should give us a longer break. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:35, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm beginning to think we're seeing OCD or a cognitive issue or two. Usually a disruptive editor isn't this persistent. Did you see what was done on Gary Shandling's article? Mille grazie! --Drmargi (talk) 22:43, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Speedman

Regarding your recent "soft-block" of Scott Speedman, I wanted to also let you know that they appear to be a vandalism-only account. The only reason I didn't report them is because their edits seem to have stopped after I reverted all of them. DarkKnight2149 20:17, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Darkknight2149: Yeah, it seems like a vandalism-only account, but I figured I'd give him the benefit of the doubt. I can always come down harder on the next account, if there is one. If you see more questionable edits, you could leave me a note, and I'll take care of it. It sometimes takes me a few days to notice this stuff. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:01, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. DarkKnight2149 21:14, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

hello from,Rocketman703

Hi, I have been trying to figure out how to reach you!!! What a relief!! I haven't edited in years... I had never heard of Hybrid Ice until,last week... Stumbled across a reference to them on youtube. I came right to Wikipedia, where the article claimed their self-titled album hit #5. Ok, I have a somewhat encyclopedic memory, and I had never heard,of them. I had no memory of the album. My wife, also 15 at the time of the album's release, and from the same town had never heard of them... So,I spent the last 3 days doing research on Billboard.com... Dicovered the album never charted in the Top 200. Having a Wikipedia article stating an album hit #5 when it never cracked the top 200,is a pretty big error. So I endeavored to correct it, but this Kellymoat person keeps undoing my edits. Moreover, the band's official site claims the album hit #5. I am merely trying to make sure that the information here in Wikipedia is historically accurate and not promoting a self-serving falsehood perputrated by the band's site. I have 3 degrees, including 1 in History, and graduated at the top of my class in that subject - I take it seriously. Thank you. Rocketman703 (talk) 02:05, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Rocketman703: I can't say I ever heard of Hybrid Ice, either. I'm a bit skeptical of the claims, too. Still, you have to remember that Wikipedia is supposed to be collaborative, and that means we should discuss things calmly on the article's talk page when there's a conflict. Repeatedly reverting each other doesn't usually resolve anything. In the end, I think we all want accurate information here. But people can still disagree on the best way to achieve that. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:19, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NinjaRobotPirate, this Kellymoat keeps reverting my changes to the HybridIce article. I have told them of my research, and the truth is clearly on my side... one cannot simply claim a band has a #5 album when they never even cracked the top 200. What can I do? I have "talked" with her(?) and she (?) keeps reverting me. Is there a way to block Kellymoat from editing the Hybrid Ice (band) or Hybrid Ice (album) articles? Thank You, Rocketman703 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rocketman703 (talk • contribs) 21:18, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Rocketman703: the first step would be to post to the article's talk page and try to hash out your differences. If that doesn't resolve the issue, you could try one of Wikipedia's dispute resolution methods, such as the dispute resolution noticeboard. The article can be protected from editing by everyone, but there isn't really a technical way to prevent a single user from editing it. I know all this stuff seems kind of frustrating, but it's the price we pay for a user-editable encyclopedia. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:16, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:NinjaPirateRobot

Just noticed that this account was just created - just letting you know... is this a legit creation that you made? Or am I looking at a sock puppet? ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 14:13, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Oshwah: No, it's an impersonator. I haven't created any other accounts. Feel free to block any ninjas, robots, or pirates. I'm going to soft-block this one in case it's just someone trying to be helpful; more likely, it's a troll I've been playing Whac-A-Mole with for the past two months. If I ever did create any new accounts, I'd link them somewhere from my user page using this account (and probably try to figure out how to use account creator, which looks like an interesting toy). NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:45, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We may have a problem

Can you please block Darkknight2149f and delete the redirects from f to z. Those were all redirects that I created with the intention of creating a doppelganger account. However, Wikipedia only allowed me to create so many accounts at once. Now, someone who is not me created Darkknight2149f as an account (probably the troll) and now they have credibility because I redirected that page with this account, like all of my doppelgangers. Also, can you delete the redirect User:DarkknightMMCXLIX and any others I created that don't have an account attached to them. DarkKnight2149 14:50, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oshwah Beyond My Ken GoldenRing Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi Tagging administrators that responded on my Talk Page. DarkKnight2149 14:54, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lol thanks for the promotion, Sir Knight, but the reason I'm not an admin is because ths is all getting far too complicated for me! *bows out gracefully while the going's good* Hope you get it sorted though! — O Fortuna! Imperatrix mundi. 15:03, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake then, Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi. DarkKnight2149 15:06, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Et similter. GoldenRing (talk) 15:41, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here are a full list of ones that are mine:

In case the troll tries to edit this, the same list will be on my userpage and Talk Page. DarkKnight2149 15:06, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If there is any further confusion, I may open an SPI on myself, to separate the good eggs from the bad. DarkKnight2149 15:29, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Darkknight: FYI, I'm not an admin either, which is probably good for both Wikipedia and myself. Sorry if I gave the wrong impression. Good luck with this problem. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:59, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No more being blocked!

I WAS TRYING TO HELP OUT BECAUSE I KNOW SOME RUMORS ARE NOT TURE AND YOU ARE PUTTING FALSE INFORMATION ON IT SO YOU KEEP BLOCKED ME TO PREVENT ME TO FIX IT! Crazybob2014 (talk) 21:13, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Crazybob2014: you removed some content from the infobox of Ferdinand (film) in this edit. I don't know why you removed the names, but they weren't sourced. I didn't restore them. However, you also removed a citation and a production company that were sourced to Variety Insight. I restored that. If you continue removing content that is cited to reliable sources (and the citations that verify it), yes, you will be blocked. So, don't do that. Wikipedia is based on what reliable sources say, not what you believe to be true. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:25, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stuck and confused

Hi there! Are you an administrator or are you just a regular user like me? I'm assuming you are an administrator?Frank.chan1983 (talk) 10:59, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Frank.chan1983: I'm an administrator. That means I can lock pages from being edited, delete articles, prevent users from editing, and a few other things. Most of these rights have limitations, which means I can't just delete any article I want. It has to go through the proper procedure first. Is there some way I can help you? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:04, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is the first time ever I've had an issue with someone on wikipedia. In fact I wouldn't have created an account if I didn't have this issue. First, a silly question. Do you watch 24 Legacy? And if so, do you know who the Tony Almeida character is?Frank.chan1983 (talk) 11:07, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not blow smoke. You created an account because you were caught IP Hopping to avoid 3RR. Kellymoat (talk) 11:12, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Frank.chan1983: no, sorry, I don't know anything about that show or character. @Kellymoat: I hesitate to ask, but what's going on here? Is this something that I'm going to regret getting involved in? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:18, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just like you say to me about blindly reverting sock puppets. We need to hear out all user issues. Because sometimes they are legitimate. But, when you look at the short edit history, you can see that someone definitely has an agenda against another editor. Kellymoat (talk) 11:24, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm guessing this is about the edit war on Tony Almeida? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:50, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is. Kellymoat (talk) 11:53, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You're going to get in trouble for edit warring one of these days. There are exceptions for edit warring when you're reverting vandalism or socks, but an unregistered editor whose IP address changes isn't really socking – not in a way that would unambiguously give you a 3RR exception. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:18, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mean to imply that they were a sock. I just meant that your message to me about socks applies here - sometimes their edits (in this case, complaint about an editor) may be legitimate. So, when you asked if you were going to regret getting involved, I could have said to ignore them, but I didn't think that would be fair. Instead, I pointed you to their edit history so that you could make your own decision to ignore it or not. Kellymoat (talk) 12:39, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yesterday was the first time I learned anything about looking up revision histories, and edit warring, and all the Wikipedia lingo. So I disagree if I am accused of instigating an edit war. I just didn't understand why something I wrote was factually accurate kept getting deleted. To say my post was considered vandalism is a false accusation. I have never vandalized any article and I never will. There are three ip addresses that I could show up in..my primary work, my home, and my weekend job. I might as well as throw that out there. Now I will concede that Tony's role so far in Legacy has been extremely disappointing and his appearances seem extremely wasted and nothing has really happened since that failed interrogation. I registered on Wikipedia because I didn't understand what was going on and I never had any of my "good faith" post reverted. Worst case was the wording was changed which I didn't mind. With all this being said, the reason my revision was reverted was: it was more from an episode. What kind of an explanation is this??? All the information here is taken from episodes that a character has appeared in.Frank.chan1983 (talk) 12:55, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's more for an episode than it is a character. - is the exact edit summary. Edit summaries are like Twitter - they are limited in how many characters can be used. Therefore, they don't always give enough space to fully explain.
You added details that, in my opinion, involved too much "episode plot" to a character page. The article is set up with brief summaries of entire seasons. Not individual episodes. If we start expanding, we end up with pages that are entirely too long and full of fluff. Kellymoat (talk) 13:18, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One sentence is not too much episode plot. If I wanted too much episode plot, I would have also added that he was dismissed by Rebecca and sent on his merry way the next episode. You can't deny that his interrogation failed. What are you going to do once the season ends? Are you going to delete other people's contribution as well? Are you even an administrator? I find it funny that you would follow me here to an administrator's page when I didn't even mention you by name. I was just trying to talk to this administrator to see how wikipedia works. While you're here you might as well as go to Tarot: witch of the black rose page and delete my contributions there as well. I changed the issue count from 97 to 103. Maybe you can delete that and cite that "changes can't be made until it ceases publication".Frank.chan1983 (talk) 13:30, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know MOS for comic books. But if it was TV, we prefer the episode count gets updated when the show ends, or at most when a season ends. We don't need episode counts getting changed each week (or daily, in the case of a soap opera or talk show)Kellymoat (talk) 13:41, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Kellymoat: Well, yeah, edit summaries are limited – but that's why we have talk pages. It's definitely not vandalism, so you should try talking things out. Wikipedia doesn't always include every fact, but the way that's usually decided is through discussion, not edit warring. It does seem like you guys are making some progress, even if the discussion is happening here on my talk page instead of the article's. But reverting each other isn't going to solve the problem. Frank.chan1983: no, she's not an admin. But, still, being an admin isn't supposed to give you special privileges when it comes to editing articles. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:37, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, the 3RR and Multiple IP templates include the word vandalism, even for cases that are not "Taylor Swift is a backstabber" type of vandalisms. Kellymoat (talk) 13:45, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Twinkle isn't the best solution for every situation. It's an automated tool and can leave warnings that aren't nuanced enough, such as accusing people of vandalism. Sometimes you have to leave messages in your own words, and explanatory messages on article talk pages can also help. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:59, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eventually the Tony page needs to be updated. It's already outdated as the "enhanced interrogation" already took place and failed. I am willing to wait until the series ends on the 17th and hoping me or someone else (probably someone else) updates the info. But I don't want to see additional information(assuming it's accurate) being deleted after the 17th (rewording and editing is fine) because that's denying other readers access to information about this character. I wonder if the 24 wikia page is like this...I'm going to go there and start a real and intentional edit war there now that I have some wiki experienceFrank.chan1983 (talk) 14:09, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikia is designed for fancruft - things that don't belong on Wikipedia, can be posted there. There, you have entire portals for specific subjects. Go to the 24 portal and see the thousands of pages written about the show. That much trivial detail does not belong on Wikipedia. Kellymoat (talk) 14:20, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with what is considered trivial or not. But at some point after the 17th this will be revisited again. If saying an interrogation failed is trivial, then this entire article here might as well be trivial. Based on your logic, the summary Live another day blu ray extra is totally trivial and definitely way too wordy. So I'm going to wait and see how the remaining episodes play out.Frank.chan1983 (talk) 14:33, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"I disagree with what is considered trivial or not."
Most fanboys would agree with you. That is why sometimes it is better to have outsiders make sure things remain encyclopedic. Wikia was designed for that stuff.
Think about Star Wars. Most people know the 6 movies. WP can deal with those 6. There is 135,000 pages on Wookiepedia. Fans, not encyclopedias, need to be concerned with much detail. Kellymoat (talk) 14:51, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Humourous plug: It's a good thing the fanboys are here as well, because there are actually 7 movies. DarkKnight2149 17:14, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
TEN if you count Rogue, the Ewok movie, and the Christmas flick. But the sentence reads "most people". In fact, I should have said 3 to be more accurate. Either way, 3/6/7/10 vs 100k articles -- that was the point I was making. Way more articles than Wikipedia needs on one subject. That is why FANdom (formerly Wikia) exists. Kellymoat (talk) 18:10, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So you are admitting you don't watch the show. In my opinion that makes you even less qualified to be reverting people's contributions like you have been. Right now this article is out of date. But like I said, I'll wait until the 17th and see what happens.Frank.chan1983 (talk) 14:58, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And on that note, I am finished with you.
Ninja, sorry that this took place on your page. Kellymoat (talk) 15:33, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ok..Frank.chan1983 (talk) 15:38, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As it turns out other people managed to get the last bits of info on Almeida uploaded after the finale aired.Frank.chan1983 (talk) 15:18, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – April 2017

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

Administrator changes

added TheDJ
removed 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.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:55, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Who ECP

Hi, I responded to an edit request there and saw that you posted about applying ECP to the page. Please note that ECP is only to be applied in certain areas and articles, following certain procedures. The Who, should not be under ECP, but rather regular protection, based upon my understanding of the rules. Sir Joseph (talk) 17:04, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sir Joseph: I'm not sure why you think this. Per WP:ECP, admins are allowed to use ECP to protect any page that's subject to sock puppetry from autoconfirmed editors. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:36, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't checked the history so it could be you are correct, but according to ECP, it should only be used when regular protection methods have not worked. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:41, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said in my talk page post, it was to prevent sock puppetry by autoconfirmed accounts. This is one of the allowed uses of ECP. Semi-protection is ineffective in doing this, and the alternative is full protection. If you want to change ECP policy, go start a thread at WP:VPP. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:12, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

hello i hope you dont mind if i updated the plot of jumanji 2

i really hope u dont mind that at all — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jstar367 (talk • contribs) 19:17, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Range block - Possibly a longer duration...?

Hey,

As of recently, the troll/vandal that has abused this IP range has been active again, mist recently from Special:Contributions/113.210.194.186 and Special:Contributions/113.210.98.56. Could you possibly re-block this IP range with a longer duration than previously? Perhaps a couple of weeks or months if there is not too much collateral damage. Thanks. 2607:FB90:A74F:3487:0:45:5470:5D01 (talk) 16:18, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, unfortunately, there's a bit of collateral damage. If it gets worse, I might be able to do a longer block, but his trolling is a bit sporadic. I usually range block it when I see the trolling flare up again. I'll do another short range block on that range and longer ones on some of the less active ones. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:50, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion invite

Hello. I invite you to join a centralized discussion about naming issues related to China and Taiwan. Szqecs (talk) 04:57, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

179.60.97.71

Hello, I saw that you reverted an edit by 179.60.97.71 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), I recommend you to block him, he is an anonymous user who is sure that would be a ninth season of regular show and also he is blocked forever in the Spanish Wikipedia

Cheers

Mordecai (talk) 19:24, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@The real Mordecai 456: Thanks for the note. It looks like I already did a two-week range block, but I'll watch for further vandalism. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:40, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OSN & Lifesdear

On 10 March 2017 you have [blocked] Lifesdear for blocklevasion after disruptiove editing on OSN. To my opinion, he is now back with his spamming but under a new IP. See here. What do you think? The Banner talk 18:59, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@The Banner: it's been a while, so it's difficult for me to remember the details. The geolocation is wildly different, but it looks like the new IP is restoring Lifesdear's favored version. Is it just OSN that's being targeted? I could semi-protect it again. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:28, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, only OSN affected. But the question is moot, as the article is already protected by Cambridge-etc. The Banner talk 19:39, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A Phillipine IP was active wityh spamming at BeIN Channels Network, another target of Lifesdear. The Banner talk 19:40, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure whether this is Lifesdear or not, but if there's further disruption, we can always semi-protect any affected articles. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:04, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move request

A request to change the title and content of a comics article has begun at Talk:X-Men (film series)#Requested move 7 April 2017. Any interested WikiProject:Comics editor may comment there within one week. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:15, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Continued edit warring at First Epistle to Timothy and 1 Timothy 1

Editor 66.215.220.110 has resumed edit warring on these pages once your page edit blocks expired, without achieving consensus or getting anywhere at NPOVN, which has yet to be closed. I would have reverted the edits myself, but you warned us both against edit warring. Perhaps you could follow up on this matter. Antinoos69 (talk) 07:20, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Antinoos69: I see someone reverted the IP editor.  Let's see what happens next. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:34, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Only the edit to First Epistle to Timothy has been reverted. The edit to 1 Timothy 1 remains. Also note the utter disregard for the truth with which he/she characterizes the discussion at the noticeboard at Talk:First Epistle to Timothy. This has gone well beyond absurd. I expect he/she will next be claiming his/her reverter actually agrees with him/her! Antinoos69 (talk) 08:42, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I know you're frustrated, but rhetoric like "utter disregard for the truth" won't help the situation.  NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:56, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ignoring facts and the truth is what will be most detrimental, and not only on Wikipedia. Antinoos69 (talk) 10:01, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am starting to suspect that the IP is/was a sock puppet of Eric the fever (talk · contribs), who is now making the same argument on my talk page as the IP once was on the article's talk page, including the inexplicable part about WP:RS/AC. Do you have some reliable, technical way of verifying my suspicion? If so, I would appreciate your effort. Antinoos69 (talk) 07:15, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Antinoos69: yes, it's technically possible to connect an editor to an IP address. However, since this is considered a breach of privacy, it's only done in extraordinary circumstances. In practice, it's essentially disallowed. I really don't know all that much about the topic, but I agree the arguments look similar. It's also suspicious that new people keep randomly showing up at the article to edit war over this stuff. However, I don't think there's really been anything overt enough to do more than raise suspicions. If you disagree with my analysis, you could open an investigation at WP:SPI. You might also consider holding a request for comments if this debate is still raging. That will help establish consensus. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:12, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, I can absolutely guarantee that it is not a sock puppet account. Eric the fever (talk) 00:42, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am even willing to unmask myself just to prove it. 97.91.251.229 (talk) 00:44, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
With regards to the actual edit warring going on: The article itself has a long a tortured history[[4]], prior[[5]] versions[[6]] of this article contained material very similar to what I added, one version had 15 scholarly citations supporting the statements. The material stating views supporting Pauline authorship was unceremoniously removed[[7]] by an IP editor with no discussion on the talk page and no explanation given whatsoever. Prior attempts to restore the sourced material were themselves deleted.
The other user in question, Antinoos69, has a long history of vitriol and ad hominen attacks as evidenced here[8] and here[9]. Furthermore, this editor has raised false[[10]] allegations of sock puppets against others in the past, about the same issue, on the same article. The evidence here clearly shows that there exists an alternative viewpoint on this subject matter, with well supported citations that deserves to be mentioned.
I would like to add as one final point that I have no theological dog in this fight, I find the misogyny expressed by Paul in this letter unsettling and generally doubt his exclusivist views. My reservations about the author, however, have no bearing on whether or not Paul wrote the letter in question. Hopefully this provides a little clarity on the subject matter.Eric the fever (talk) 01:14, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Eric the fever and Antinoos69: I wish I could give you guys something more to go on, but I think it's best for you to try some form of dispute resolution here – maybe an RFC, like I suggested above. I realize it's tedious to go through Wikipedia's bureaucratic processes, but it doesn't seem like this is get resolved without it. If you continue on like this, it's likely someone will end up sanctioned. When you've involved in long-running, heated debates like this, it's easy to lose your cool and break a policy. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:25, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree this edit warring is unhelpful. Thank you for your time with this rather ugly affair. Eric the fever (talk) 12:24, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Gregson-Williams birth date

Thanks for talking, but I did checked the IMDb page and he was born on 13 December 1961.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.37.24.219 (talk) 22:48, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that the IMDb isn't a reliable source. We need a better source than that. Entertainment Weekly, People, and other entertainment magazines often have ages listed for celebrities. Those are usually good places to check. I can do a search there myself later. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:52, 11 April 2017 (UTC) edit: I got curious and looked it up on Google now. It was easier than I thought to find a good source. Should have done that a while ago. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:05, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Little Koala

My problem with Adventures of the Little Koala is that the North Carolina IP Hopper keeps on removing categories involving CBS Television Studios and Cookie Jar (respective successors of Viacom and Cinar who produced the English dub of the show) and falsely claims that Cinar and Cookie Jar are not the same studio when they actually are according to their history. I already tried the talk page, but it didn't work. I also tried to request the page to be protected, that didn't work either. Maybe if that user had a backup source to claim its deletion of the info as requested by LordofMoonSpawn, I'd gladly believe the user, but since it continually failed to do so, I don't believe the user at all and never will. I recently gave the recent IP address a warning for trying to claim ownership of the article again. The user may come back to do it again under a different IP address as it always does and I don't want that to happen again. — FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 06:44, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@FilmandTVFan28: Yeah, I know how frustrating dealing with this kind of stuff can be, but policy restricts when I can block editors or protect pages. Probably the best thing to do is to continue warning the IP editors when they make disruptive edits. I know of a couple IP editors that do stuff like this, and sometimes it takes a long time before you can really get anything done about it. I'll try to keep an eye on it, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:35, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. — FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 22:42, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'M NOT A HOPPER, STOP CALLING ME ONE!!!! 2605:A601:7013:400:2156:5BC9:8A30:F61E (talk) 03:36, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You

I owe you my life for defending me. — FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 04:16, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Non-diffusing categories

Fine, got it--שי אביגד (talk) 10:38, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Randamoozham

Hi NRP, could you please spare me a couple of minutes to fix this mess. An editor moved the article to Randamoozham (novel) to make way for a film article despite the fact that i) the film hasn't even been made yet; ii) the film article doesn't exist yet; iii) the famous novel would be the primary topic anyway even if it did. The move wasn't discussed and the editor has left a trail of redirects. I can sort those out but I can't do that until Randamoozham (novel) is moved back to Randamoozham. Betty Logan (talk) 22:19, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Think I got it. Let me know if further cleanup is necessary. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:30, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I have sorted all the rest. The editor seemingly went on a move frenzy (there are about five redirects related to this move) but I think I got it all. Betty Logan (talk) 22:43, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Editor Yimingbao

Since you handled this guy before User talk:Yimingbao, he simply refuses to properly close bolding tags whenever he creates or adds to an article. You can see from his last block in the area that we have pleaded with him to stop but he has never once responded. This markup error was discussed at Tennis Project talk in the past and now the frustration level with this editor is getting high. Warnings seem to do nothing. It would be great of this person would work with us but that doesn't seem to be on his docket. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:33, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Fyunck(click): the biggest problem back then was that Yimingbao was actively stripping out the formatting. Is this still happening? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:17, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
From what I can see, no that is not the current problem. He just refuses to add the back-end of required markup tags making a ton of work for the rest of us. Our only choice is to spend a bunch of time adding 50-100 back-end bold and italic tags per article (since I know of no Bot that does it), or to remove all the unclosed tags he creates. Removing all the error half tags is much easier so it may be what we have to do, but I'd much rather the editor in question simply adds the correct notation to begin with. And he never has answered a query so we can't converse. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:24, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Fyunck(click): I understand your frustration, but I'm not entirely sure I can block him for that. I'd suggest filing a complaint at WP:ANI. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:41, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Any suggestion helps, but I usually find ANI less than helpful... especially when there are a couple other editors doing the same thing. The thing is I really want him to continue editing and making new articles, but doing it the wrong way is almost as bad as not doing it at all. And it messes up the syntax highlighting provided by Remember the dot's Syntax highlighter gadget. Very frustrating when a couple editors flaunt that there is nothing that will happen to them so they just keep on a truck'n with bad coding and work for everyone else. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:50, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Fyunck(click): I agree ANI isn't always helpful, but it's pretty much the only thing we've got. One issue that worried me earlier was how Visual Editor, AWB, and other tools would handle these unclosed tags. You might raise this issue at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). If they say it causes problems, we could probably enforce some requirement to close the tags. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:59, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's a great idea... thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:13, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I see you noticed that I took you up on your suggestion at the Village Pump. There are some smart blokes there that may be able to help. Time will tell. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:29, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That didn't take long. Adamtt9 (talk) 00:01, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah.. so yes, per this edit he is still actively stripping out closed bold tags. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:04, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh. Blocked three days for disruptive editing. If he agrees to stop doing that, I'm sure he'll get unblocked very quickly. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:13, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It would be nice if he would agree to code everything correctly to begin with because the article and entries he does is slow repetitive grunt work. I love that he takes the time to do it. But if he does 10 of them a day and I have to spend an hour or more fixing them everyday, and a couple other editors do the same thing that we have to fix... I start to get more testy than I probably should. Especially since it could all be done right from the start. I don't know why he won't engage in conversation unless perhaps he doesn't speak English. Thanks for your efforts and suggestions. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:29, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We have another editor now. User:Pascr12 has been removing closed tags, and after warnings, continues and posts this in reply to my warnings. Adamtt9 (talk) 11:10, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
However, he may start listening. Adamtt9 (talk) 11:19, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I saw. That edit is a good sign. I don't understand this resistance to closing tags. I've never seen it anywhere else on Wikipedia. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:25, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what it is about the tennis editors that makes them so strong-headed. For some reason, they are 100% sure that they are doing it correctly that when we warn them, they respond by telling us that WE are wrong. This leads back to the previous articles, as most of them look back to see how to edit "correctly", even though the past articles are all incorrect. If only there was a way to fix it. Adamtt9 (talk) 11:28, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I guess seeing something done one way in so many articles does establish a kind of de facto standard. I've tried – mostly in vain – to excise certain phrases from Wikipedia. For some reason, people really love writing, "The film opens with..." in film plots. I don't know why feel people they have to explicitly say that the plot is from a film. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:46, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppeteer?

Hi, I just wanted to let you know that an account you blocked is now the subject of a sockpuppet investigation. If you can, could you please comment on the matter? (It should be pretty quacking.) Thanks! ToThAc (talk) 14:53, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ninja. Not sure what the confusion is, but the Wayback Machine link you posted to replace my own dead link replacement on the Thale (film) page is still a dead link. Neither the archive or original links you posted work. So you've basically reverted to a dead link. I don't actually find the relevant page listed on the Wayback Machine at all - but maybe that's just me being inept. The link I initially replaced the dead one with was to the author's own blog, where he says the page is no longer hosted at Empire since they dropped their blog pages. That seems the best option to me. No? Cheers Cardinal Wurzel (talk) 11:43, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Cardinal Wurzel: It looks like I didn't paste in the right URL for the Wayback Machine's archive. It would seem to me that the best solution is to use the Wayback Machine, which is trivially easy to locate. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:51, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that - what I mean is, the page isn't archived on the Wayback Machine. You get a message saying "That page doesn't exist". But okay, the next best thing is probably this - https://web.archive.org/web/20150524121513/http://www.empireonline.com/empireblogs/owenwilliams/p2 - sixth entry down the page. It's a preview of the full article and includes the relevant quote. Cardinal Wurzel (talk) 11:54, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Scratch that. Someone else has found the full page. Told you I was inept. Cardinal Wurzel (talk) 11:56, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And by the way - I thought I left you a perfectly polite message. "Let me know on my talk page if I can help you," says your profile page. Snapping at me that something is "trivially easy" isn't very helpful. But I'm very sorry if I'm an annoying idiot. Gosh, Wikipedia is so friendly! Cardinal Wurzel (talk) 12:08, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to fix the URL, but it looks like Betty Logan beat me to it. I'm sorry for speaking a bit too bluntly, but I never said anything about you being an idiot. I don't know where you're getting that from. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:16, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well if something's "trivially easy" to do, but I don't know how to do it, the implication is... Cardinal Wurzel (talk) 12:18, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If it bothers you so much that I called the archived copy "trivially easy" to locate, consider that I screwed up in pasting the link the first time I tried to add it, and that would seem to be an easier job than locating it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:39, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

your block of User:189.216.25.162

Time to add usertalk page to this block too, I think. Still copying pages to his talk page. Meters (talk) 05:18, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done. A month is a long time to go without talk page access, but I suppose there's always UTRS for appeals. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:12, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yup. To be honest I expect that this will start up again after the block. Six weeks and three blocks and still doing it... Meters (talk) 17:59, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:EmElKayKayKay

Does that user name seem a little questionable to you? I saw it last night and wondered about it, but can't decide if it is intentionally combining MLK with KKK. That's the impression I get, and if it is the case, it's repulsive. What do you think? ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 13:16, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TheOldJacobite: I don't have a lot of experience in handling user name violations. I'd recommend reporting it to WP:UAA and see what the experts over there think. I do know that we used to have an account named MLKKK that was renamed to NinjaBro. It doesn't look like sock puppetry to me, and maybe they both thought it was a funny user name. Google says it's based on a fictional internet troll from South Park. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:00, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'll report it to WP:UAA and let them sort it out, as you suggested. As I said, I'm not sure it's a violation, but it is borderline. Thanks. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 16:11, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rangeblock mentioned on RFAR

Your rangeblock was mentioned on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Request_to_de-sysop_Jondel. I believe the intent was to show that other admins block IPs without warning, but I believe the poster doesn't understand that this was a rangeblock. I though you would want to know your action was brought up there. Toddst1 (talk) 14:50, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Huh. OK, thanks. The user was warned twice, here and here. I don't know if it's worth bringing up there, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:33, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I saw those actions. There's no way to (or reason to) warn every IP in a rangeblock. I think that editor's bringing your action up in that context shows yet another serious lack of knowledge of the basic functions expected of an admin - which is why we have that RFAR. Just wanted you to be aware that your name was dropped. Cheers. Toddst1 (talk) 17:52, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Would appreciate more nuanced intervention

I'm sorry, but I'm pretty frustrated with your intervention here. I've been trying very hard to make good faith efforts to resolve this dispute, and that should be abundantly evident to anyone that has paid attention to the dispute. I literally reverted my own edits today and have been trying to discuss them on the talk page. Prior to that I've been trying to make edits that represent a comprise, all of this for an editor so green or so provoking that he/she won't even indent and sign his/her comments after being politely asked to do so. For all of that patience, work, effort and restraint I am disappointed to see that you would template my talk page. I'm going to take the article of my watch page and stop editing it. But I'm going to tell you here, for an administrator, I am extremely disappointed with your lack of circumspection and due diligence. In the future I hope you will take your exercise your role with Wikipedia more responsibly. This kind of capricious and negligent behavior on the part of Wikipedia administration is why regular editors, who do a lot of good work that almost always goes unrecognized, get burnt out so easily. When you punish experienced editors trying to do good work, the quality of Wikipedia is what suffers the most in the end. - Scarpy (talk) 16:20, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's frustrating to deal with someone who reverts your attempts at compromise, but the key is dispute resolution. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:29, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry that my point is that obscure. To clarify, I wrote you, here on your talk page, to explain why I disagreed with how you handled this as a Wikipedia administrator. My criticism is that, for the reasons listed above, your intervention here was counter-productive. - Scarpy (talk) 20:12, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm frustrated too. Especially being insulted by being called green, and having my comments either ignored outright when I point to the earlier discussions already on the talk page and then the worse than that by being accused of a strawman position. Yeah, I'm new, so what? I thought wikipedia WANTED new people. Now I'm being slammed for being new?? Scarpy, you're being incredibly insulting and rude as I see it. So there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Morty C-137 (talk • contribs) 17:57, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – May 2017

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

Administrator changes

added Karanacs • Berean Hunter • GoldenRing • Dlohcierekim
removed Gdr • Tyrenius • JYolkowski • Longhair • Master Thief Garrett • Aaron Brenneman • Laser brain • JzG • Dragons flight

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Miscellaneous

  • Following an RfC, the editing restrictions page is now split into a list of active restrictions and an archive of those that are old or on inactive accounts. Make sure to check both pages if searching for a restriction.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:20, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look in at my Talk page

Looks like I'm walking dead here. Last act. No content being added there for now, because the admin is asking I reply to all that is already been posted. Just have a look when convenient. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 01:01, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Leprof 7272: man, that's a mess. I wish I could do something to help, but I'm not sure what I can do. Several veteran admins are involved there and have given some good advice. One thing you might consider is looking to an editor with similar experience in academia. Sometimes people who are established in that world will struggle on Wikipedia due to its idiosyncrasies. Many of Wikipedia's processes are pretty different than the academic and professional worlds. Several people at the noticeboard discussion praised your knowledge but said they wanted you to stop tagging articles with templates. If you focused more on the content side of things, maybe you'd run into less opposition. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:32, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nate Speed again

Could you re-protect 20th Century Fox Home Entertainment, Turner Entertainment, MGM Home Entertainment, First Independent Films, Carolco Pictures, Vestron Video, Artisan Entertainment, and Lionsgate Home Entertainment when you get the chance? Thanks. Sro23 (talk) 00:11, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Based on Nate Speed's long-term history of disruption and use of VPNs, I've semi-protected them all for a month. I hope he moves on to some other hobby soon. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:08, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Van Diemen's Land v Port Phillip, 1851

Knock Knock... Who's there?...
RfA.... RfA who?!?
Of forget it already. I just got my first FA :) Lourdes 17:40, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, that's awesome! Time to break out the champagne! Although I do have to wonder if alcohol and editing Wikipedia mix together very well. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:27, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
:) I don't drink anyway (these days at least). Have fun and see you around. Lourdes 01:58, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:JuanRiley

Do you recall this recent SPI? It's from JuanRiley. This was first detected from this IP that was linked to whim whom you blocked for evasion. Apparently he's still continuing to make disruptive edits, this being the most recent. And judging from his past history, he won't stop. (N0n3up (talk) 05:31, 8 May 2017 (UTC))[reply]

@N0n3up: I blocked the IP editor. Let me know if the disruption continues, and I can semi-protect the article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:57, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Genre warring from Goldsboro IPs

You blocked a range of IPs for two weeks, but the block expired and the disruption started up again with the following two IPs:

Can you reinstate the block with an escalated duration? Thanks in advance. Binksternet (talk) 20:48, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Range blocked for another two weeks. I was going to do it for a month, but let's see if this has any effect first. I'm probably being entirely too naive to think the IP will stop being disruptive, but I'm in a good mood today. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:29, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. See you in 14 days! ;^)
Binksternet (talk) 22:04, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Right on schedule, I see you blocked 2602:306:cda2:e890::/64 for one month this time, after the predicted disruption appeared again. Thanks! Binksternet (talk) 13:15, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it was pretty blatant. Makes you wonder if sometimes vandals sit around in front of their computer with an alarm set to go off when the block expires. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:06, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alien: Covenant

I was fixing spelling errors. There were a lot of mistakes, as evidenced by all the squiggly red lines, so I fixed them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TarkusELP (talk • contribs) 12:45, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page access for sockpuppet

Hey NinjaRobotPirate, could you possibly revoke talk page access for Special:Contributions/RenamerguyRenamerguy? Thanks in advance! -- LuK3 (Talk) 21:17, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:27, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New section

How exactly is a well sourced fact vandalism? It is relevant to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.186.210.131 (talk) 19:57, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you're talking about Rölli. Not all facts belong on Wikipedia. If you want this in the article, you'll need to discuss it on Talk:Rölli and get consensus. You may have a point that there's probably a better word than "vandalism", though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:09, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:DBZFan30 and the Film MOS

Hi NRP. You blocked this user for continued disruption at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film. Despite the discussion having a clear no-consensus, they insist on changing the text ([11] [12]) without the consensus to do so. I'd appreciate if you could take a look. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 10:45, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm honestly a bit surprised this started up again. I thought it was resolved. Oh well. I hope he gets a mentor. He seems to mean well but not understand why his behavior is disruptive. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:01, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Lugnuts: I see that you're talking about me behind my back. I highly recommend that you stop treating me like this. I will no longer edit the Manual or start anymore discussions on the talk page.
@NinjaRobotPirate: I have learned my lesson, so I do not need a mentor. I'm sorry if my edits were disruptive. DBZFan30 (talk) 19:29, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
DBZFan30, remember, you promised not to ping Lugnuts any more. Please, don't ping him. Also, Lugnuts' message is old – it's from yesterday. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:57, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Darren Whackhead Simpson

Hi there, I listen to his radio show every day and he mentions it every now and again that his biggest and ultimate fear is that of snakes, I have these two links to prove it as well http://www.sapeople.com/2014/04/18/snakes-in-studio-radio-host-pranked-697/ http://www.channel24.co.za/The-Juice/You-have-to-watch-this-video-Darren-Whackhead-Simpson-face-to-face-with-his-biggest-fear-snakes-20150330 And he has stated that he is definitely not 4"11, although when you google "Darren simpson height" it shows a height of 1.8 metres.

So my information is correct, and if you don't mind allowing my edits.Isymilo (talk) 14:24, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Isymilo: you could remove the height as unsourced and add the fear of snakes with the citations above. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:25, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Range block

Hi NRP,

I remember you performed a range block, per an ANI request, on the IPs of a disruptive sockmaster not that long ago. Would you be willing to do the same for the IP range(s) of LTA Satt 2? I have listed quite a few of the individual IPs he has used down below the page. The ones list that start with 173/141/174, are older. Its the "2600:1003:xxxx" ones we're dealing with for some time now. Thanks in advance, - LouisAragon (talk) 00:30, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@LouisAragon: unfortunately, a range block would be really wide and have a significant amount of collateral damage, and there isn't a whole lot of Georgian-related activity that I see from the past few weeks. I can keep an eye on the IP range, though. If you wanted to keep on eye on the sock's edits yourself, you could enable the gadget in Preferences→Gadgets→Advanced→Allow /16, /24 and /27 – /32 CIDR ranges on Special:Contributions forms and click on the contribs for 2600:1003:B0* (talk · contribs · WHOIS). It's not much fun going through contribs and reverting edits, but sometimes it's the only thing you can really do. Semi-protection is also an option if there's an article with lots of disruption in the past few days. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:06, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Project Film

Hi. I agree with you. I've attempted to engage him on the talk page of an article and on his talk page. Trust me, I'm done reverting. I've wasted an entire evening when I could have been working on articles, or dab pages or AfC. Regardless, thanks for the spank. Onel5969 TT me 03:35, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Onel5969: Oh, I know how it is. Everyone gets a little too wrapped up in these kinds of disputes occasionally. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:56, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I've added some cites now from periodicals of the period, hopefully that will suffice. Again, thanks for making me take a deep breath. Onel5969 TT me 03:59, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Center for Medical Progress

Hello NinjaRobotPirate. The two 66.87.* IPs who are warring on this article have now been reported at WP:AN3. Do you mind if I lengthen your semiprotection? Alternative would be a rangeblock (or two separate blocks) and that gets more complex. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 03:40, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston: That'd be fine with me. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:53, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. EdJohnston (talk) 03:55, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Alone in the Universe

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Alone in the Universe. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fairly plain at this point about the production companies

For Alien: Covenant it is becoming fairly plainly evident that Scott Free Productions is listed in the credits of the film as a British company participating in the Production. My plan is to bring it into the Lead section in the next day or two since it has been placed on the Talk page, and the Finance section of the Production details of the film. It should preferably be read as an Anglo-American film or British-American film at this time. ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 15:15, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@ManKnowsInfinity: Nationality is not based on the production companies; it's based on what reliable sources say. Unless you're requesting some kind of administrative action, however, I don't understand why you're contacting me about this. I said that I've taken the article off my watchlist and am not particularly interested in arguing about trivia. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:21, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Hasan Salama

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Hasan Salama. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:List of unusual deaths

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of unusual deaths. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Gisele Bündchen

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Gisele Bündchen. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

handout for students editing film articles

Hi there,

I'm hoping to solicit your feedback regarding a handout Wiki Ed is developing for students who want to work on articles about films: User:Ryan (Wiki Ed)/Films. It will be a print guide that supplements other resources and materials for student editors, like the interactive training and brochures that address broader aspects of editing, like etiquette, NPOV, citing sources, working in sandboxes, using the talk page, etc. This guide focuses only on aspects of editing required for contributing to articles about films assigned in classroom settings. We're hoping to get some feedback from the community by Monday, so we can send it off to the printer before the end of the month. I realize that's not a lot of time so no worries if you don't get to it. Thanks. --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:03, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I can look at it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:11, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Great! Thanks. And because I'm realizing I failed to mention it above, there's a second draft that you may or may not be interested to look at. It's for students editing articles about books: User:Ryan (Wiki Ed)/Books. That said, there's a good amount of overlap between them, and feedback on one may also apply to the other. Thanks again. --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:51, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:2017 Berkeley protests

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2017 Berkeley protests. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Politics of the Republic of China

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Politics of the Republic of China. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Zjec

Long term vandal User:Zjec is suspected of using multiple IPs to vandalise talk pages and even harassing other users today.


These are the IP that he may used at one point:

Accordingly I intercepted his message boasting his troll job at French and Simple wiki:


In that message he claimed that he used the above IP addresses to vandalise while utilising the 85.87.209.81 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) address to exhaust administrator's attention and even deceiving them by self reporting his vandalised deeds, though I'm 50/50 on this. Startling to note that he used a Remote Access Tool to access all those computers to hide his tracks, according to himself.

Apparently his elaborate vandalism scheme partially succeeded as none of the admins realise the true nature of his scheme and his 85.87 IP remains at large. if his claims are true, this is the most adroit deception/lie used by a Wikipedia vandal ever IMHO.

Perhaps I can help you to issue warnings to him against sock puppetry and unauthorised computer intrusion? Vitt56 05:54, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Assuming Zjec is correct, his likely false flag personal attack against himself may have helped greatly his scheme, but that's my educated guess. Vitt56 05:58, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nice try, but Zjec is just some kid screwing around, not a master troll. Honestly, I think your ISP, TM Net, needs to have its Wikipedia editing privileges revoked, but that's sadly beyond my power. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:22, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Accordingly another concerned user started a sock puppet investigation against Zjec Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Zjec Vitt56 06:39, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@NinjaRobotPirate: It may be worth keeping an eye on this account, too: Vittumagneetti (talk · contribs). 2601:1C0:4401:F360:291A:C7EC:8E39:D51F (talk) 03:37, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not that freak vandal but I was "203.106.141.142" who provided crucial evidence to Zjec SPI case. Wondering whether I can usurp the contribs of 201.106 Vitt56 03:50, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Vittumagneetti, whoops, my apologies!!! I just saw a new account who was active at Zjec's SPI, so it was a little suspicious, that's all... ;-) 2601:1C0:4401:F360:291A:C7EC:8E39:D51F (talk) 04:04, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind. Additionally I wish to say thanks for those who awarded me that barnstar. Vitt56 04:06, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Notice: I will began usurpation of my 203.106 edits by changing the signature to my username. However it will be called Vitt56 because my current username is actually a Finnish obscene phrase. Nevertheless I suppose that the name change request which I've filed just now will be certainly successful Vitt56 07:06, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree but okay

Disagree but okay. Not "synthesis", explicitly stated in the links given. If you can find positive reviews for those sequels, be my guest LOL. Sagecandor (talk) 16:55, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Bahá'í Faith

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Bahá'í Faith. Legobot (talk) 04:32, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Robert Mueller

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Robert Mueller. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Martin (actor) oops

Hey NPR,

Just a quick head's up that your edit here at Gary Martin (actor), caused this boo boo. I realize you were ferreting out some evaders (kudos!), but sometimes we throw out the baby with the bathwater. I was happy to fix it, just thought perhaps a friendly reminder was in order, that it's always good to preview? Cheers! X4n6 (talk) 21:50, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that revert was a little too aggressive, but dealing with this sock has been a bit tedious. I set a few range blocks, which should reduce the socking to a trickle. We'll see. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:47, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Entirely understood. Good luck with it. Cheers! X4n6 (talk) 05:41, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Goguryeo

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Goguryeo. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:NinjaRobotPirate&oldid=783119641"