User talk:NeilN

Update

Got another month of this 80-90 hours/week work thing then I should be returning. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:03, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

OK, best of luck, Neil! We look forward to having you back. Softlavender (talk) 07:22, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

+1. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:38, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Richard Parks

Neil, last september you sock protected the article from IPs repeatedly reverting info. A recent IP has started doing exactly the same today, with some very similar edit-summaries. Almost certainly a sock of the previous one I'd say. Worth an SPI or can you just protect the page? Cheers, _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 16:39, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

You really want an article to claim that the Earth has three poles? I mean seriously - you really do want that? 77.47.80.202 (talk) 18:23, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

You were shown what the community wants, last September. So now you will be shown again. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 18:26, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

You like your personal attacks, don't you? 77.47.80.202 (talk) 18:28, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately,, once you have called editors vandals, and accused them of idiocy, in your edit summaries, you cannot reasonably expect a positive response. I note your keenness to discuss this on any talk page but your own. I will not be replying here; indeed, I expect the latter part of this discussion to be hatted by a talk-page watcher. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 18:35, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

So why have you repeatedly falsely accused me of vandalism? What response did you expect, exactly? 77.47.80.202 (talk) 18:49, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Note This user has been blocked for edit-warring on another article. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 19:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

21ST EMPIRE AWARDS

Can you make new page about 21st Empire Awards?

IreneTandry (talk) 03:36, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

He's baaaaaaaaack

And our inane original research vandal is back at 2601:989:0:3D7E:81D:CDFE:FB40:4076 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), starting to editwar again at list of fictional cats in animation and list of fictional wolves now that both pages' page protection has expired. I put in requests at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection to have both pages indefinitely semi-protected as the vandal will keep coming back to reinsert its inanity over and over again unless physically stopped.--Mr Fink (talk) 20:46, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Removal of the Saffron terror article

The Saffron terror article is politically motivated and completely based on allegation there is no real proof. There is no verdict from the court to any of the organization which are mentioned in the article. So this article should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sargunareddiar (talk • contribs) 04:56, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Tut the Nut is back

In September you protected the page List of monarchs by nickname because of a persistent IP vandal who repeatedly inserted "Tut the Nut" into the list and bragged about it on-line. This protection seems to have expired and an IP editor has started putting it in again, this time with a concocted blog page as a reference. The IP editor has also accused me of vandalism for reverting with the comment that the blog post was not a reliable source. Could you please re-establish the protection for this list. Thanks Dabbler (talk) 19:30, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Dabbler. I hope that you are well. NeilN is still away from WIkiP and hasn't edited since leaving an update a few thread above this one on March 9. You may want to file a WP:RFPP to stop the problems that you are dealing with. Best regards. MarnetteD|Talk 22:21, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I see the vandal was waiting to pounce as soon as Neil's 6-month protection expired, Dabbler. I've made it a year. Bishonen | talk 22:34, 31 March 2016 (UTC).

Verifiability and Truth

Greetings. I happened upon a certain talk page and came upon the following statement you made: " 'Verifiability, not truth' has been deprecated as an editing philosophy for a few years now." This is news to me - and quite astounding news, to be frank. Where are we supposed to get this "truth" if not through what Wikipedia continues to unequivocally demand, i.e. third-party, reliable sources? The truth will not be and shall not be defined by an editor's personal work since this kind of input continues to be strictly forbidden in Wikipedia. Hence, my puzzlement. Could you, please, elaborate on your statement? Thanks in advance. -The Gnome (talk) 18:16, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi The Gnome. "Verifiability, not truth" fell out of favor because it was recognized that reliable sources do make mistakes and insisting on propagating these mistakes in Wikipedia articles just because they appeared in print somewhere was not exactly sensible. Wikipedia:Verifiability/2012 RfC has a lot more comments about the topic. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:40, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. And thanks for the pointer about the 2012 RfC. The rules about the criteria for inclusion of information in Wikipedia articles have not changed as much as your claim makes it out to be. We are still relying on third-party, reliable sources for what goes into Wikipedia articles. A subsequently published essay makes quite clear what has happened and what we are now doing, post-RfC, which is not altogether much different than what we were doing before. To wit:

The Verifiability policy, [which] was...re-written in 2012 to clarify [the dispute about Verifiability and Truth], [states] that Wikipedia's "content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it". That we have rules for the inclusion of material does not mean Wikipedians have no respect for truth and accuracy, just as a court's reliance on rules of evidence does not mean the court does not respect truth. Wikipedia values accuracy, but it requires verifiability. Unlike some encyclopedias, Wikipedia does not try to impose "the truth" on its readers, and does not ask that they trust something just because they read it in Wikipedia. We empower our readers. We don't ask for their blind trust.

My emphasis. The above is quite clear. In fact, the essay is specific that the previous rules' "core message remains the same." Any material added to Wikipedia must have been published previously by a reliable source. Unless we have verified it beforehand with a reliable source, we may not add content just because we believe it is true, nor we may delete content that we may believe to be untrue. Cheers. -The Gnome (talk) 07:05, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

@The Gnome: I agree with most of what you've said but have a quibble with "nor we may delete content that we may believe to be untrue". Part of your quote is the reason why we can delete or disclaim such content. "That we have rules for the inclusion of material does not mean Wikipedians have no respect for truth and accuracy, just as a court's reliance on rules of evidence does not mean the court does not respect truth." The canonical Wikipedia example is probably Jimmy Wales' birth date - one short discussion can be found here: Talk:Jimmy Wales/Birthdate. We have sources that state it is one date, but it is probably another. So, yes, material added to Wikipedia must be previously published in a reliable source but sometimes just chanting, "it's verifiable!" is not enough to retain the material if good faith doubts from impartial editors are raised as to the accuracy of the source. With increased focus on the quality of BLP articles, there's an increased determination of getting the facts "right". --NeilN ^{talk to me} 07:41, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

I see where you are but still cannot understand who the "impartial editors" could be if they are not us. When there is a dispute, the matter goes or should go into a wider discussion, or even an RfC. On the basis of the good-faith assumption, I do not prejudge other editors as partial or impartial. So, chanting "it's not true" does not cut it, either. The example you gave of Jimmy Wales' birthday strengthens the argument for verifiability: When sources indicate one version of events, we need to back up any alternative version with sources before we offer it in the article. Otherwise, your "probably another is true" would be equivalent to personal opinion. In your example, we have the input of Wales himself! Which is, of course, allowed and quite legitimate in biographies of living persons, with the usual, known precautions and caveats. In so many words, we are using the testimony of the subject of the article as a source. Without sources we have very little Wiki-worthy, if anything. -The Gnome (talk) 08:26, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm Back!

Just wanted today hello and I'm glad you are feeling better. Happy Easter to my favorite Wiki Admin! Keep up the good work girl! CheckersBoard (talk) 14:20, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Note from IP

Neil very sorry to bother you I'm am not good with computers or with wiki but your reversion of ozone park boys keeps coming up when the name Michael pippi Fiducia is googled with false accusations . Most of it is in your language . If you could get it taken down some how it would be greatly appreciated sorry to write you on here but I did not know any other way to contact you like I explained I am not very good with computers the reversion keeps showing up I would really like it taken down. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.6.165.239 (talk • contribs) 21:04, 22 April 2016‎

Mass deleting without required local consensus

Hi, NeilN. Navbox guidelines state that inclusion or exclusion is a decision only to be made by consensus of local editors of the article.

As a courtesy we were having such an informal discussion on the talk page of Michael Laucke when a non-article editor showed up (Robsinden), cast a vote and 2 minutes later started mass deleting navboxes from similar articles. There are hundreds of articles that will be affected under this.

What is the procedure to put a moratorium on their mass, undiscussed navbox deletions? They are not an expert in the topic matter of the pages the navboxes are being deleted from (classical guitar). They already deleted all the navboxes from flamenco guitar articles (also hundreds). Again, this is supposed to be discussed at each article's talk page, and the consensus is reached by editors that actually edit the article‍—‌that way it is a local consensus.

I can pull up the guidelines for all this if you need it. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 17:01, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Checkingfax Just wanted to let you know that NeilN is still away from WikiP. N has not edited since early March so you may not get a response to this any time soon. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 17:22, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

History of the Qur'an

NielN, I gather that you may be away from Wikipedia for a bit; but if you are able to, you input would be much appreciated in respect of the poblematic section on the 1924 Cairo edition of the Qur'an on the History of the Quran article. I gather that you properly reverted a substantial chunk of that section for copyright violation; but now in seeking to formulate an alternative wording for the section in question, it would be a help if you were able to specify the particular phrases and paragraphs that created the problem. Many thanks. TomHennell (talk) 12:07, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

By the way here's your revert for copy-vio: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_the_Quran&diff=prev&oldid=665066207

19:54, 26 May 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

NeilN, sorry to press you, as we note from the post above that you said in March that you were likely to be heavily engaged on other projects for several weeks. We would, however, greatly value your input into providing a properly formulated section on the 1924 Cairo edition in the History of the Quran article. We don't intend to proceed with restoring any agreed text into the article itself until after the end of May 2016 at the earliest; but if you would like to take part in this re-edit and do not have the time to do so currently, we would happily wait a bit longer, although not indefinitely. But if you do intend to take part and would like us to defer, please post to that effect on the talk page before the end of May. TomHennell (talk) 13:46, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Where's Neil?

Seriously, where the hell is Neil? Softlavender (talk) 07:09, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Don't know. I recall that he gave a rational explanation for his absence, which left me with the continuing impression that there was nothing to worry about. I am worried that there are arcane by-laws in one of the darker corners of wikipedia that might say something to the effect that if an admin doesn't use the tools for a certain period of time, they will be removed. Other than that, I shall return to lurking. -Roxy the dog™ woof 08:13, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

He hasn’t been away for that long. I’m sure he’s enjoying a nice vacation after all that hectic work. After all, more hectic work is what awaits him here.- NQ (talk) 09:51, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Like you're one to talk. Disappearing for months on end while we wring our hands over you like grandmothers. Pah. Softlavender (talk) 09:58, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

@Roxy the dog: It's a year of no edits or admin actions. WP:INACTIVITY. He's not nearly there yet. Doug Weller talk 10:47, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Good. I think he is the only admin I actually voted for. -Roxy the dog™ woof 10:50, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Still here. Client asked for a phase two and made me an "offer I couldn't refuse" (monetarily wise). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:37, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

More Vandalism On Tommy Sotomayor Page

As you can see here, these three accounts have been vandalizing the Tommy Sotomayor Wikipedia page again:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/62.12.67.139

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2601:601:E00:309C:7CE5:D6AC:BFB1:2DE3

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2607:FCC8:C7C6:4A00:1017:FC58:F62E:E066

If you could possibly block these accounts and IP addresses, thanks. Neptune's Trident (talk) 23:28, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Neptune's Trident, NeilN is on an extended wiki-break, so you should seek help from another admin, or a noticeboard. Softlavender (talk) 04:32, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up!!! Neptune's Trident (talk) 05:52, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Request for page protection.

Is it possible to protect this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uhura. Someone using multiple IP addresses has been repeatedly making a change. They have refused to discuss it on the article's talk page and just throws out insults when making the edit. Thanks. SonOfThornhill (talk) 13:38, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

NeilN is on an extended wiki-break. Please take the issue to WP:RFPP. -- Softlavender (talk) 14:01, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm (somewhat) back

Should be on here a couple hours a day. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:41, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

I thought when I saw an edit by you earlier that it'd been a while since I'd seen you. Welcome back. General Ization ^Talk 04:45, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:51, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Good to see you back; as the many comments above attest, you've been missed. Hope your wiki-break was highly profitable! --MelanieN (talk) 14:03, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

... waves paw ... "hi" ... -Roxy the dog of Doom™ woof 14:30, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Nice to see you even somewhat. Bishonen | talk 14:42, 11 June 2016 (UTC).

Oh, thank God. ;-) Katie^talk 21:01, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Ha! Thanks for the welcome back everyone. Poking around I see we have a new 30/500 protection level for some areas. Arbcom-level drama also seems to be remarkably low. Anything else I should be aware of? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:10, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Woohoo! Hmm... there's two new permissions, WP:EXTENDEDCONFIRMED (for 30/500 protection) and the very poorly named WP:PAGEMOVER... we now have cross-wiki notifications... the bugs and feature requests you made for Twinkle have still gone unresolved... What else... User:Widr now sports a mop, so you don't need to do any WP:AIV work during the day (I don't think you'll be able to even if you tried)... I also recently hit 100K edits, beating you by only a week or so – I guess that's the one good thing I have to say about your absence :) That's it from me. Thrilled to see you back on the wiki! — MusikAnimal ^talk 00:56, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

@MusikAnimal: I did notice getting notified by some wikis I've never visited. Thankfully not all foreign-language wikis have automated welcome postings. I don't suppose the WMF have got off their duff, spent a few thousand from their hoard, and given us an IPv6 contrib checker where we can plug in the result from Native Foreigner's calculator? We still stuck using wildcards in the gadget? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:05, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

We are :( However a rewrite of xTools is *actually* happening now, so I can make the team aware that an IPv6 contribs tool should be a priority — MusikAnimal ^talk 01:21, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

@MusikAnimal: Hopefully the rewrite is *actually* happening. I got a Maniphest update email just now and had to laugh. The request (multiple watchlists) was opened in March 2005 and today's big update was "Quiddity moved this task from Wishlist 51-on to Wishlist 21-50 on the Community-Wishlist-Survey board." Over ten years. Well we did get a dreadful proof of concept last year which completely ignored fairly simple requirements. Progress? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:27, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

(←) Is that the same as the cross-wiki watchlist? I'm not aware of a multiple watchlists feature aside from mw:Gather, which was deployed to all wikis at one point (and I LOVED it), but alas that project was dropped... In the meantime you can use User:MusikAnimal/customWatchlists, a hacky-ish JavaScript version, but it works. xTools on the other hand is not supported by WMF, so it's all volunteers and their willingness and hopeful dedication toward the long-term effort. A rewrite has been slow to happen because the existing tools mostly work just fine, except the obvious lack of IPv6 support in the contribs tool. meta:Community Tech also does an annual wishlist survey that didn't yield any xTools-like stuff, but maybe 2016 can bring it to that list. Something tells me we could probably gain enough !votes :) — MusikAnimal ^talk 01:53, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

@MusikAnimal: This one - I think that's the main one now with a thousand (slight exaggeration) duplicate requests merged into it. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:02, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Yeah I don't know. Gather offered this, along with other excellent features. Why it was dropped is beyond me. I see it made the community wishlist survey, positioned somewhere between 21 and 50, which unfortunately doesn't cut it for Community Tech to be involved. There's only 5 of us on that team (as of two weeks ago, myself included!!!). We hope to get a new developer soon, and perhaps move on to stuff other than the top 10 wishes. Also this year I hope we can better promote the survey, I personally didn't know about it until after it happened. Anyway, yes, you all can start bashing me now that I'm with the WMF :) — MusikAnimal ^talk 02:10, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

@MusikAnimal: I made some pointed remarks about the survey seeing it was the third "what features would you like?" survey done in about a year and a half. Glad to see this one got some traction. And I never had a problem with the rank-and-file developers - just some senior devs and management direction. Fair warning though - If I see some Flow-y goop with more whitespace than Dilbert's PHB's project plans coming down, your user page will be replaced by a collage of Justin Bieber photos! --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:34, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Welcome back. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:41, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Christina Grimmie

Hi I Saw you protect the page. I was wondering if you could also remove the Pending changes protection since semi-p prevents any un-autoconfirmed users from editing. Thanks. TheDwellerCamp (talk) 05:54, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi TheDwellerCamp. The semi-protection expires in two days. After that, the indefinite pending changes protection will take over again. Removing it would mean the article would lose whatever prior protection it had after the semi expires. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:58, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on this page. When I was a reporter, the worst mistake I could make was misspelling (or worse) someone's name. Saying a living person is dead tops that. RaqiwasSushi (talk) 06:02, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the young lady died. Life can be very cruel. Peace. RaqiwasSushi (talk) 11:41, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Jun Hong Lu

Hi,

The page under Lu Jun Hong is extremely biased and there are many pages that had reported its misinformation. However, those information are mostly in Chinese and I do believe that Wikipedia wishes to have an unprejudiced representation of information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.127.106.150 (talk) 15:16, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Use the article's talk page to discuss your concerns please, instead of resorting to rapid reverts. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:20, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

What if they refuse to include the edits? I have done my best to add valid references to the false claims that they had made, and in the talk page itself, there are previous users who had already "talked" about the extreme prejudice represented in the page, so much so that other users had given up editing the page. Because the information will be deleted by you know who. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ccctttttt (talk • contribs) 15:29, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Ccctttttt. Please see WP:DRR for various options you can use to get uninvolved editors to look at the content dispute. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:20, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi NeilN,

first of all , Do apologis for causing this mess.

whoever is trying to edit jun hong lu's page is more than welcome. They have accrused the content for being biassed misleading and simply not ture. i was very careful with editing, every single awards, what jun hong lu have been doing , any related assocations has all been cross referenced and linked compared to whoever ( does not even have the gut to sign in) simply being nosence nothing more than a rumor. Seemed like jun hong lu page is the only one get them exeicted makes me wonder why. Please protect this page from wrong editing or simply let me know whichever part of the content has been any less true! Zyw333 (talk) 22:51, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Zyw333. I have semi-protected the article for one week to stop the edit warring from IPs. I'll make the same suggestion to you as I made to Cccttttt above - see WP:DRR for various options you can use to get uninvolved editors to look at the content dispute. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:01, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi NeilN,

Will do and thank you for all your help and time Zyw333 (talk) 23:03, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi NeilN, If you do realise, his cross referencing are mainly from associated pages. Guan Yin Citta, Australian Oriental Radio all belongs to Lu Jun Hong and using them as references are not valid. Many orthodox Chinese Buddhist associations have raised doubts on Lu Jun Hong, and Guan Yin Citta is banned in China, yet he dismissed these as just rumors. Just because there is a lack of references in English does not make the entries on the controversy regarding Lu Jun Hong less valid. If you are able to prevent him from deleting my entries as soon as I put it up, I will substantiate the claims with valid comparisons with what Lu has preached and the actual entries in Buddhist scriptures that are translated into English, which was what I had formally intended to do. If he is not willing to allow the contrasting viewpoints then I will suggest its better to delete the page because there cannot be a unbiased representation if Zyw333 does not budge. In any case, shouldn't Zyw333 be the one punished because he reverted my changes without seeking any classification from me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ccctttttt (talk • contribs) 02:06, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Robert Young

You're allowing a sound bite from an article that doesn't include the full sentence and you dismissed my edit whereby I quoted the first line in the article that calls him a hero and I was accused of vandalism. You are deliberately blocking positive changes to this wiki and I'm bemused as to why you are allowing this to happen. You are allowing someone to be called a cheat when the article doesn't say that, it says "That is, unless he's a massive fraudster" please amend it and include the opening line "Robert Young is a hero. He has an incredible, emotional backstory , and he's trying to accomplish an unprecedented feat of athleticism." UncleSamUSofA (talk) 23:46, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

UncleSamUSofA, your sarcasm detector needs work. Please read the source again with this in mind. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:53, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

It needs no work, the article does sarcastically question it, the edit you allow on the page, states that he is a massive fraudster, not Unless he's a massive fraudster..... UncleSamUSofA (talk) 23:57, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

I tell you what I won't amend that line, but I'm sure I can add the opening lines as that doesn't affect anyone else's edit, right? UncleSamUSofA (talk) 23:58, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

UncleSamUSofA, please do not do that unless you want to be blocked for edit warring and general competence issues. Use the article's talk page to propose your changes and wait for feedback. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:01, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I just added an extra line from the very same article, I didn't notice your message until after I had added some factual reporting, my apologies UncleSamUSofA (talk) 00:04, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

So you're allowing a partial sentence, but not the opening line of the article. I'm bemused as to why you would allow this to happen and the overall integrity of Wikipedia. I'm Britush, I don't need a sarcasm detector, I write the handbook. Whereas you appear to be American as you are following the rules like a robot. Good night and God bless, I hope for sake Mr Trump doesn't get in, that will just finish you guys off UncleSamUSofA (talk) 00:42, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

UncleSamUSofA, it does seem your detector needs adjusting. Do you really think the author wrote "Robert Young is a hero. He has an incredible, emotional backstory, and he’s trying to accomplish an unprecedented feat of athleticism." with a straight face when it's followed by "That is, unless he’s a massive fraudster who has been lying about the whole thing and secretly traveling in an RV at running pace." and eight plus more paragraphs throwing doubt on Young's claims? P.S. I'm not an American. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:53, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

NeilN, thank you for blocking this user. Do you also think his last edit to the article should be reverted? —C.Fred (talk) 01:04, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

C.Fred, it's been (rightly) reverted by another editor. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:08, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I had no idea wiki was so biased, I emailed the author of the article you claim sarcasm was used, he wasn't being sarcastic. So I found out this week that wiki is run by people unaware of the real world works Enjoy your online lives UncleSamUSofA (talk) 14:39, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you...

... I´ll go back to killing nazis in Wolfenstein: The New Order. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 03:28, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Please delete User:Dobbyforführer. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 04:03, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi The Quixotic Potato. It's just a nonsense user page from 2007. Wikipedia probably has thousands of them, which can be blanked, but probably don't contain content requiring deletion. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:23, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I assume it was made by a classmate and used to mock someone who is underage. Dobby is not a nice nickname. I have blanked it. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 04:27, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Edit notice

Hi, Neil. Welcome back. We missed you.

On the page 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting since the alleged perp is Afghan and since the PoPo is already mentioning Islamic terrorism, can you please add this type of edit notice to the page? Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 15:38, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

@Checkingfax: Let me ping Slakr on this. The restriction mentions ISIL, broadly construed, but I'm not sure that stretches to "all acts of suspected Islamic terrorism". --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:50, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

@Checkingfax: You may be interested in Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#GS.2FSCW.26ISIL_clarification_sought --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:19, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Neil. Ouch. Now I have a headache. Somebody added a 1RR template to the Talk page but I do not think it is official because there is no Edit notice in place. Ping me back. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 23:25, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

@Checkingfax: I've removed the talk page notice. It was very questionable to add it in the first place as the restriction specifically applies to ISIL, broadly construed, and not, Islamic terrorism (suspected or otherwise), broadly construed. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:39, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Neil (with cc to Slakr). I hear you. What about the 2015 San Bernardino attack page? How do they differ? The authorities say they were both ISIL inspired. In Orlando Mateen made a 911 call proclaiming his allegiance to ISIL just prior to the attack. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 00:24, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

@Checkingfax: Here's my thinking: Discretionary sanctions are a tool Arbcom has given us to damp down disruption in problem areas and articles. Apply them if needed and if applicable but don't use them to play gotcha with neutral editors just trying to improve the article or to scare them away from making uncontroversial edits. Now, in this article, has there been any significant ISIL-related disruption? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:35, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Neil. In a sly way, yes. There are sockpuppets posting that are preventing us from building out a neutral article. They are blowing off the good editors who want to put their shoulder to the wheel and get something useful up. They enjoy disrupting these articles to the point that it is difficult to get a constructive edit in edgewise.

Articles like this should automatically be granted 1RR status or at least extended confirm status. 1RR still allows us to remove patent vandalism. This is more insidious. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 00:51, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

@Checkingfax: in other attacks, the ISIL has officially claimed responsibility (through their print organs for instance). Someone just calling 911 and saying "I did it for ISIL" isn't their claim, it's just his own, and so you cannot claim the ISIL was responsible for the attack, you can only allege it. LjL (talk) 01:47, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Hmmm.... I think I added it in response to some WP:AN3 issue. Based on my edit summary I wasn't 100% certain at the time of its inherent applicability, but I bet there was edit warring over ISIL claims, and someone wasn't explicitly warned, which caused a sort of "might as well apply the notice to the page so people know" reaction from me. I think the general consensus with things related to SCW/ISIL as being "broadly construed" is due to the inherent volatility of apparently every topic ISIL is involved in. That said, it doesn't look like that's being edit warred over (currently), though I haven't investigated. With these sorts of pages, I'd be much more tempted to avoid using the broad "1RR for everything" notice unless things devolved. Besides, there's a reasonable shot that there's going to be a veritable buffet of WP:ACDS options the page could end up being covered by (e.g., WP:ARBBLP, WP:ARBAP, WP:ARBGC) depending on whether any of them become (or have become) sources of contention. I, personally, would be more comfortable with applying, "1RR on things related to (ds topic) until (expiration)," as it otherwise has high visibility and is being rapidly edited in other areas. I've done that with temporarily-political things (like the mountain renaming thing), for example, when people started edit warring over it. --slakr^\ talk / 05:42, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Congratulations for over 100000 edits

		100000 Edits
		Congratulations on reaching 100000 edits on English wikipedia.The Wikipedia Community thanks you for your continuing efforts.Keep up the good work!

you can added this template to your user page.

This user has been awarded with the 100000 Edits award.

- CAPTAIN RAJU ^(✉) 20:42, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

CAPTAIN RAJU , thank you! --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:46, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Vandalism by banned sockmaster

Hi,

Can you please watch Gutian people and Gutian language? The articles were vandalised by banned sockmaster Escoperloit (talk · contribs) again. He use both ip and his new sock there. Tommy91br (talk · contribs) and the ip 85.252.66.150 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) belong the same sockmaster.The articles were main targets of this sockmaster (See banned Persiskbruker (talk · contribs), Elham1a (talk · contribs), Solhjoo (talk · contribs) and his other socks). Their page creation style (using only one character), editing style (disruptive editings via major content deletions regarding particular ethnicity), targeted articles...All the same. Regards, 46.221.201.188 (talk) 08:56, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

P.s.: Maybe @JamesBWatson:, @Materialscientist: and @Wario-Man: may also comment too. 46.221.201.188 (talk) 09:08, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I found a good deal more evidence, in addition to the points mentioned by the IP editor here, and there is no doubt whatever that this is the same sockmaster as before. I have blocked the sockpuppet account indefinitely, and the sockpuppet IP address for a month, and I have semi-protected the articles for a year, as the abuse has continued over a long period. In fact, I regard that as a fairly short protection, since similar editing from the same point of view, with similar use of both sockpuppet accounts and IP editing, has gone on to my knowledge at least since June 2013. (The editing back then may have been from a different sockmaster, judging from the geolocation of IP addresses used, but it makes no difference: if the same kind of disruptive edit-warring and sockpuppetry persists year after year, protection has to be used, whether it is one sockmaster or more than one.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:10, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you so much, Mr. @JamesBWatson:. Kind regards, 46.221.201.188 (talk) 10:30, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Your user page

Hello. I wanted to let you know that on May 28 User:Citrus Party committed page-move vandalism on your user page and as a result the page lost the indefinite semi-protection. —MRD2014 T C 12:09, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

@MRD2014: Appreciate the heads up! Fixed. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:58, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Yowza N. Where was this excitement while you were gone? I hope you are well and welcome back. It is good to wee your name on my watchlist again! Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 14:55, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Hey MarnetteD. Yes, I never thought to check my user page history until MRD2014 pointed it out. Shake of the head, re-apply protection, and move (ahem) on. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:09, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Royale Kim Jong Un

Just to let you know this user is a sockpuppet of User:Supreme Genghis Khan (see his edit summaries) TheCoffeeAddict talk|contribs 14:24, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

President of Brazil

Howdy. I would've much rather that the other fellow go to the talkpage of that article & get a consensus for the changes he wants to make. But so far (6 rvt in 1-2 hrs) he's not willing to listen to anyone. His tampering of my posts at WP:AN was getting annoying as well. Due to his (self-professed) poor grasp on the english language, we might have a competency issue here. GoodDay (talk) 16:18, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I've opened an Rfc at the article-in-queston. PS- Perhaps a 1-month protection on that article will be required, in the meantime. GoodDay (talk) 16:46, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

GoodDay, the article is on my watchlist. If disruption resumes, a longer protection period is likely. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:49, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Ok, NeilN. I've also noticed looking at his contributions, that the individual has focused entirely on this topic, for several weeks now. GoodDay (talk) 16:52, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Malan Breton page protection

Hi, I hope you are well, I'm not a wiki editor so I'm sorry for my html errors, but I noticed as soon as a page protection was lifted for Malan Breton the same unknown IP address jumped back onto the page to add anonymous and inaccurate information. This same IP address was part of the warring that had the page protected in the first place. Is there any help you can give? I'm thankful for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.163.120 (talk) 17:10, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi 66. Protection expired on June 6th. On June 13th an IP added this. While unsourced, it is consistent with Project Runway (season 3). What's the issue? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:18, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi thank you, I guess if you look in the notes you'll see this anonymous IP address erased all documented biographical information on paragraph one of this topic at one point before the page was protected. And also wrote the word cunt in the charity section. Please excuse the profanity.

If the IP has changed its behavior I can't exactly protect the article because of valid edits. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:37, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi:) thank you, I just saw that a whole chunk of sourced biographical information was removed from this page, check this out https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Malan_Breton&diff=721661994&oldid=721661829 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.163.120 (talk) 18:04, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, in May, before the protection. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:12, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi, please look at the dates, that was a day before the protection and warring began. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.163.120 (talk) 18:18, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that's what caused the protection. Timeline:

1. Disruption in May
2. Protection in May, expired on June 6th
3. One valid edit on June 13th

Not sure what you expect here. Protection doesn't last indefinitely and there's no valid reason to re-protect because of that one edit. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:47, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for fighting the good fight.

I was following the Odysseus vandalising by that IP, even reverting one time. I was just about ready to throw them into AIV, when I saw that you had already blocked them! I'd just like to thank you for working tirelessly on keeping this amazing thing afloat. --Sincerely, Marksomnian. (talk) 21:50, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

@Marksomnian: Thank you. Just fortuitous timing as I was glancing at the top of my watchlist and saw what was going on. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:42, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

User: RobinColclough

Hi NeilN. You indefinitely blocked User talk:RobinColclough back in October 2015. This edit by an IP seems to be the same editor per WP:DUCK trying to add the previously removed content about Colclough to OWN TV. So far, the IP has made only a single edit so not sure if an SPI, etc. is needed. Anyway, please advise whether something needs to be done or this should just be ignored for now. Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:41, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Marchjuly. Thanks for spotting this. I will keep an eye on the article and act if necessary. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:56, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

It seems I wasn't the only one who noticed based upon Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/RobinColclough. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:29, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Wannabe vandal-fighter with CIR issues

Neil, when you have a moment, could you take a look at this? I'm trying to make a mental connection to (I think) a globally-blocked editor who (I think, based purely on behavioral evidence) is now editing as an IPv6, and hoping your memory is better than mine as to who the blocked editor is. Thanks. General Ization ^Talk 14:50, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

P.S. - This is probably irritating me more than it should mainly because the blocked editor's username escapes my memory; probably not a priority but would give me some relief if you recognize the behavior as I did. General Ization ^Talk 14:53, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

@General Ization: I'm looking at this (need to have " Allow /16, /24 and /27 – /32 CIDR ranges on Special:Contributions forms, as well as wildcard prefix searches" gadget on) to see if I can spot anything. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:58, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. The blocked editor I'm thinking of was a registered editor, not (obviously) an IPv6. General Ization ^Talk 15:00, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

@General Ization: Yes, sometimes you get lucky and find an admin has blocked an IP in the range and identified the sockmaster. Haven't found anything. Sorry. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:04, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I'm definitely seeing the exact same behavior on the part of some other members of that range, but nothing that helps to make a connection. Thanks for your help. General Ization ^Talk 15:12, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

A third party needed

Hello,

For a while I have been having a content dispute with another editor on Aristo. To avoid repetition, I made this complaint at ANI sometime ago here. The article was protected, but afterwards, the editor started once again. Here is an extensive and cyclical discussion at the talkpage that is not heading anywhere. My major problem with this editor is he/she is unwilling to compromise. They want the entire definition out of the page and that is final. They have even proceeded to remove other valid entries on the dab page, still using the reason "undocumented". I will appreciate if you can look into the dispute and help in resolving it. I think I'd most probably be comfortable with a rational/guideline based decision of any fair administrator. Thanks.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 22:17, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Jamie. I'm out of town until Tuesday and have limited Internet access. If you wish, I'll have a look at what is happening then. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:00, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks a lot for the reply! Atlast someone who is willing to help. Please do look at the page when you're back. Thanks again.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 12:45, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Parsley Man

Hi, Neil. I went to Parsley Man's talk page to invite them to edit an article I have launched in my user space for now and found out they have been blocked. Maybe this article will be a good way for them to ease back into being a collaborative Wikimedian. I hope they agree to help as they are a good editor and they know a lot about this niche. PM has some quirky habits and maybe we all can help keep them between the rails and they can learn to keep themselves between the rails better. Their input will be invaluable to me and it will further the project. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 02:37, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

DanDud88 sock

Neil, a while back you indef. blocked User:DanDud88 for copyright violations. Well, he's back, now socking with the username User:DanDud17. User:MelbourneStar opened a case at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DanDud88, but checkuser was refused, and we could turn old and grey waiting for someone to get through the line and act on the behavior evidence (he's admitted the two accounts are both his), so I thought I'd give you a heads up in case you'd like to take a look at the case and perhaps give him a sock-block. Cluelessness has not improved. --Drmargi (talk) 19:01, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Drmargi, sock blocked. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:26, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Excellent. No less than the little toe-rag deserves! Thank you! --Drmargi (talk) 03:35, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Thank you for dealing with the vandalism on my page so quickly. I don't work on Wiki all that often, but decided to update my user page. When the page was immediately attacked, I was trying to figure who did that and why, but you'd already fixed the problem. Thanks again. Rhondamerrick (talk) 03:10, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Rhondamerrick. It's actually HighInBC who should get this barnstar. They fixed the vandalism, I just nailed the vandal's coffin shut. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:15, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I've shared a star with you and HighInBC. That nail was important as it kept the lid firmly closed. Hopefully, that person won't open a new account straightaway just to keep causing trouble. Rhondamerrick (talk) 03:43, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Rhondamerrick, already taken care of :-) [1] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:52, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Why I edited Jesus(as) in Islam

First of all in Islam jesus(AS) is NOT THE son of God so stuff like "You are my son and my beloved......" under Jesus(as) tracing the characters of light should not be there secondly casting out demons is a miracle that I have not read in the Quran and it appears to be from a christian source reference 12 and so i removed that also ahmedi's are non-muslims because they don't believe that Prophet Muhammad (saw) is the last prophet and so their view should be on a different page there is also some confusing text under the heading of theology and a picture showing a river where Jesus was said to be baptized which has no source nor is it confirmed on the page whether or not such a concept exsists in Islam so if it does not then please remove the pic. The heading of preaching also gives no sources and the text under the heading of theology gives a confusing view using the old testament to make a distinction also surah al baqrah verse 87 says: "And We did certainly give Moses the Torah and followed up after him with messengers. And We gave Jesus, the son of Mary, clear proofs and supported him with the Pure Spirit. But is it [not] that every time a messenger came to you, [O Children of Israel], with what your souls did not desire, you were arrogant? And a party [of messengers] you denied and another party you killed." i dont think it says that he was filled with the holy spirit but supported by it so if you are right about him being filled with it then please give another reference form the Quran or another reliable source. Also under the heading of preaching there is information with no source given which appears to be biblical information and so it is not fit to be there as of yet please get it verified also there is a heading foreknowledge i don't understand that one well so if you can fix all of this soon i will be gratefull for now i am reverting it please don't mind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Littleoldmanandball (talk • contribs) 04:31, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Littleoldmanandball, I see a lot of personal opinion in your post and no reference to sources. Please read WP:NOR. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:38, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Leaving messages at the top of the page? Insisting that the article says that Jesus is the son of God when it very clearly says that Islam rejects that claim? Looks like User:Obaidullah_ak figured out how to turn off capslock. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:42, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Ian.thomson, thanks for the heads up. I looked into the socking and was about to block but you beat me to it. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:49, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Obvious sock is obvious. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:09, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

And remarkably oblivious to instructions. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:13, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I keep getting reported and auto-messaged warnings by a user, I'm not sure how to report them for abuse

EvergreenFir is pushing a pro-racism agenda on the "White pride" page. This is the first time I'm ever seeing a page under control of such people, and I am unsure of how to handle it. It seems natural that "white power" people would do this to the "white pride" page, but he's "trusted" and therefore able to bypass the lock.

I reverted their changes, then was told to talk to them instead. Then I was told not to talk to them, probably because I didn't handle myself well (didn't expect such from wikipedia) but I don't know where to go next.

Could you look into it? My edit was literally copypasted from another page on a similar topic, it is fully factual.