User talk:Airplaneman/Archive 40

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Airplaneman. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 35

←

Archive 38

→

A Favor

In November, you semi-protected List of Ice Age characters as per a request to stop an anonymous vandal obsessed with inserting original research (and edit-warring to protect its OR). Would it be possible if I could ask you to protect List of Ice Age characters again because that same vandal as returned? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apokryltaros (talk • contribs) 05:54, 6 February 2016

It's done. Cheers, Airplaneman ✈ 05:26, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Edit-a-thon at the School of the Art Institute of Chicago!

Come join us on Saturday, March 5th between 12PM - 5PM for the Art+Feminism 2016 edit-a-thon at the School of the Art Institute of Chicago! We'll be focusing our efforts on women involved in the arts, and a list of articles for artists in Chicago and the U.S. Midwest has been compiled at the project page. The event is free, but only if you register at the project page ahead of time. I'll be there, and I hope to see you there too! I JethroBT (talk) 06:31, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

The Rain song

Seems the IP created an account and is now harassing my talk page, any chance of blocking that user or semi my talk ? Thanx, Mlpearc (open channel) 20:10, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't see it until it died down. Let me know if you continue having trouble. Airplaneman ✈ 16:05, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

No problem, seems they've gained a mentor so all's well for now. Thanx, Mlpearc (open channel) 16:13, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Jackky Bhagnani

Dear Airplaneman,

I'm writing on behalf of Actor/Producer Jackky Bhagnani. Our company, CA MEDIA represents the actor and all his Media Management.

For the last 4 days, we have been constantly editing his Wikipedia page and have now also added reference articles, citations for all his career + award related information.

Request you to please assist in helping us maintain the same.

Warm Regards,

Hardik Katira Sr. Manager - Artist Alliance CA Media (India) Digital Pvt. Ltd.

mail: hk@camedialp.com

Bavisimegha (talk) 10:28, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Hardik, thank you for your note. It seems like you have a strong conflict of interest in this topic. I'd like to point you towards Wikipedia's Conflict of Interest policy, where conflict of interest "editing is strongly discouraged. It undermines the public's confidence in Wikipedia, and risks causing public embarrassment to the individuals being promoted." I urge you to read the policy page for yourself to see why Jackky's publicity team is discouraged from directly editing his page. Please see the paid editing guideline for more information. Thank you for taking the time to contribute to the improvement of the encyclopedia. All the best, Airplaneman ✈ 19:56, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Can you protect my User page?

Can you protect my User page with Semi Protection that is permanent? I can't do it with my computer because it won't allow me to send a request on the normal page for requesting protection for pages. Also it's to prevent any possible vandals from editing my user page. Thanks! DatNuttyWikipedian (talk) 00:53, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

@DatNuttyWikipedian: so sorry I didn't get back sooner; seems like Acdixon (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has taken care of it. Happy summer (hope you're all better from heat stroke), Airplaneman ✈ 19:35, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Request to be emailed content from the recently deleted article: Fred Joyal

Hi Airplaneman -

Wonder if you could help me. I'm trying to find the content from the recently deleted article: Fred Joyal. Any help would be appreciated. Not sure if you have access to may email address. If no, it's towens149@gmail.com. Thanks in advance.

Cheers

Towens149 (talk) 00:11, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Hey Towens149, sorry it's taken me so long to get back to you. I have been busy in real life and hadn't checked my talk page for a while. Interestingly, this site seems to hold the content you're looking for.

Some notes to myself, so I don't have to go digging again if I ever need to: Fred Joyal was created by Aalkenni (talk · contribs). Deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fred Joyal.

Cheers,

Airplaneman ✈ 19:28, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

nice move— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cybersister27 (talk • contribs) 16:32, 2 April 2015

I am new editor please help

Sir i want to create an articleSecrets of universe,Can i start this article,i am requeting you please guide me (Agoodboyfrom (talk) 04:01, 10 April 2016 (UTC))

Kids Off The Block

Thanks for the warm welcome and feedback on my entry, Airplaneman. Diane Latiker is a true inspiration. Appreciated the helpful links as well. Cheers 2602:306:8B68:770:6432:2E0A:400E:789E (talk) 03:07, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

My pleasure. I hope you stick around! Airplaneman ✈ 18:57, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Continuous edit warring and distributive edit on Sino-Vietnamese War page by Spartacus

Admin.

Spartacus! keeps vandalizing the Sino-Vietnamese War page.

I have refuted him in the talk section but he just does not get it! He provided a economy article with a 1 page blurry picture to support his claims. I have added solely war dedicated article, yet he keeps on trolling and vandalizing them.

Please block him and protect the page.

Thank you,

--67.175.16.150 (talk) 14:38, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Refer to here. Airplaneman ✈ 16:55, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Contacting admins in emergency situations

Hi, following up on this request, is there a way to contact an admin when there is no response to a very urgent page protection or block request on a dedicated project page? For example a list of admins who are online, or a Wikimedia email address. In the past two days, on two occasions it took 45-60 minutes before a page with rampant vandalism was protected, which even made the news. Thanks, Gap9551 (talk) 15:23, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Hey Gap9551, I've given this request some thought and have decided to extend protection. I do think my original request was too by-the-book and understand that this is a unique situation. As for this making the news—that can't be helped. The nature of this encyclopedia that anyone can edit leaves it vulnerable to abuse, and the trend of shoddy "journalism" or "news" like yahoo sports certainly can feed off that for a cheap laugh. This open-contribution editing philosophy is something we spend countless and sometimes frustrating hours defending. Unless there's a fundamental change in either Wikipedia editing policy or the quality of so-called "news," situations like this will keep occurring.

As for contacting admins, I don't know of a quicker way than WP:RFPP or WP:AIV. WP:IRC exists, but not everyone uses it; I don't. The question of contacting admins quickly for urgent matters is something I've asked myself as well and haven't really figured out an easy solution to. A central place for admins to view anti-vandalism requests in real time, or a way to provide push notifications to admins on requests for help might be interesting. Right now, I have to check my watchlist or the actual WP:RFPP page to see what's going on. It's definitely something Wikipedia could work on to make editing a smoother experience. All the best, Airplaneman ✈ 15:52, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks for extending. The original request probably could have asked for a longer protection, but I hadn't thought of that either at the time. Also thanks for your explanation. You're right that making 'news' can't always be avoided but I was mostly concerned about the long response time. Gap9551 (talk) 16:29, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Chobe District (Separated from North-West District listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Chobe District (Separated from North-West District. Since you had some involvement with the Chobe District (Separated from North-West District redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 19:11, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Article might no longer need protection

User:Widr has issued an indef block of User:Chevyoncé for socking. See block. You had previously done a full protection of the article per this 3RR complaint. Though both parties broke 3RR, it seems that This Is What the Truth Feels Like might no longer need protection. The article was promoted to be a Good Article on August 3 and it's possible that some editors might be standing by to improve it. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 13:30, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: Thanks for the note. I've unprotected the article. Best, Airplaneman ✈ 16:32, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

1948 Palestine war

Hello. Why isn't this called 1948 War of Independence? I don't want to edit-war over this, but the current name sounds bizarre, to say the least.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:44, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

@Zigzig20s: Good question. I'm honestly not sure. For context, I instituted 30/500 protection as per a request at WP:RFPP. Looks like the page has been under its current title since this move in 2010. Here's the page's move log. There's also a note on the talk page from December 2015 that asks the same question you just asked. It may be worth starting a discussion on the talk page, or, if you think there's a more neutral name, start a move discussion. Best, Airplaneman ✈ 01:27, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Could you not move it to 1948 War of Independence? This is what everyone calls it.Zigzig20s (talk) 01:29, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I can, but I won't at the moment. I'd prefer determining consensus, first. Airplaneman ✈ 01:33, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

India at olympics

page marked as protected. But wrong information................ PV Sindhu won silver, not gold — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baluperoth (talk • contribs) 15:34, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

@Baluperoth: As an autoconfirmed user, you should be able to edit the page! Looks like the fact you mentioned has been corrected since I protected the page. Best, Airplaneman ✈ 19:01, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

RfPP

Hey Airplaneman, I saw that you indefinitely semi'd my user page User:LuK3. Would it be possible to fully protect my main user page instead? Thanks! -- LuK3 (Talk) 19:56, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

@Luk3: It's been done. I originally didn't full protect just because, along the spirit of the protection policy, pages aren't protected pre-emotively. Looking at your page history, I did not see a large need for full protection and thought it would be a bit heavy-handed to proceed with full protection (though I do understand that there was at least 1 case of confirmed account vandalism). Having given this more thought and upon seeing your note—in addition to taking a look at the protection policy—I don't see why full protection would be disallowed, so I've applied it. Please let me know if you need anything else. Cheers, Airplaneman ✈ 02:53, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

I just saw this note as well. It's true that the SOP is to only semi-protect user pages; I think I've only run into one other fully protected user page in my entire time here. The instance of auto confirmed vandalism, though only one-off, could establish a "need" here. I'm sticking with my current decision to fully protect at this time. Airplaneman ✈ 02:58, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Second opinion

Could you check/add a second opinion here? Please feel free to protect the article if you want. Not event 50 edits in 2016, non-constructive edits in every 1-2 month(s) -- I am a little reluctant. --Tito Dutta (talk) 04:48, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

@Titodutta: I can understand your reluctance here. I've decided to pending change protect for a month and have provided further reasoning on the RFPP page. I do consider myself a little more liberal when it comes to requests for protection because I've definitely been in the position of the requester at RFPP, where disruption significantly hampers editing productivity. I see this, as with most requests on RFPP, to be in good faith and good judgement, and in my view there's enough disruption and no evident construction (from non-autoconfirmed users, at least) such that some level of temporary editing access restriction is a net benefit. Airplaneman ✈ 19:31, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. --Tito Dutta (talk) 20:29, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Protection request on the Amatrice page

Thanks for the protection request on the Amatrice page. I couldn't figure out how to do it. The agenda of the disruptive edits is quite odd if not annoying. Thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrakTalk (talk • contribs) 15:34, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

@BrakTalk: No worries, I'm happy to help! To protect pages, you have to have administrative privileges (yep, you have to apply to be a janitor at this place... which is a whole discussion in itself). Let me know if you need anything at all. Cheers, Airplaneman ✈ 16:25, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Page protection

Please have a look and consider my request for page protection for the page Björn Kuipers! Please help! Cricket246 (talk) 16:08, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I've looked. All the best, Airplaneman ✈ 21:20, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

@Cricket246: Take a deep breath and calm down. You're not doing yourself any favors by canvassing administrators when your requests are declined. I don't mind being asked to reconsider. I do mind being asked to reconsider both at my talk page and at RFPP in this panicked tone you're using.

Airplaneman has given you sound advice. Start talking to the other editors instead of exhibiting ownership issues on these articles. We are an encyclopedia anyone can edit and we take that seriously. IPs are human too and they have the absolute right to edit unless they're being disruptive. I don't see that in this case. Neither does Airplaneman, and we have both been administrators for a long time. Unless there are serious, repeated BLP violations or repeated vandalism, take my advice and don't ask us about these articles for a while. Katie^talk 01:40, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

@KrakatoaKatie: Ok thank you! I was trying to confirm and clarify the things and nothing else! I'm not trying to contradict you in any way either! Not necessarily I agree with your decision but I obviously respect any decision taken by you because you are an administrator whereas I'm not so your decision is final... So don't misunderstand! Anyway it's sorted as it is now! Thanks for the help! 😃 Cricket246 (talk) 09:27, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

@Airplaneman: Thanks a lot for your help! You are always so helpful! Can you please tell me the process how I can request a review for the article to obtain a higher status for it after some more work on it? Cricket246 (talk) 09:36, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

@Cricket246: Please speak with the admin who made the decision when you try to "confirm and clarify things". You did indeed do that, albeit in a way that came off as disingenuous (as explained by Katie at the beginning of her post). By additionally posting on my talk page, you made it seem like you were unsatisfied with Katie's decision to the point that you were hoping that I would make a different one to override hers. I hope you understand that this is what we had a problem with, and that confirming and clarifying is fine to do. Check out peer review for article feedback. I warn you that there's quite a big backlog there (as there has been for many years) so it may take some time before your request is filled. All the best, Airplaneman ✈ 18:40, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Actually I wrote in your talkpage almost 4 hours before I saw Katie's decision!! I wrote in your page (earlier when there was no response to my request) so that you might take a look at my request!! 4 hours later I posted on Katie's talkpage when I saw her response to my request for the protection!! So these 2 posts are completely unrelated and I've been terribly misunderstood by both of you here... Its just two different posts at two different times and never intended to be linked to one other!! I just wrote here way back so that you see my request and Katie hadn't responded there that time... Four hours later, when Katie responded I saw it and wrote on her page to clarify the matter!! These two can't just be linked and there was no question of any expectation whatsoever of getting Katie's decision overruled... I have been terribly misunderstood here!! Interpretation of my posts by both of you has been absolutely wrong to be honest... Anyway I hope the matter is sorted now do don't want to drag this on and on!! 😃 But please don't misunderstand like this!! 😃 And thanks for the information on peer review... I intend to do some more work on the contents of the page to improve it and then I will make a request for peer review... No problem in waiting... When time comes someone will surely have a look at it... Thanks for helping!! Cricket246 (talk) 18:56, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

@Cricket246: My apologies; I misread the timestamps. Happy editing, Airplaneman ✈ 19:00, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

No problem Airplaneman!! Never mind!! Misunderstandings happen!!! No big issue... We are all acting as a team with a common goal of improving Wikipedia and I hope that goes on!! Best wishes for all your duties as an administrator!! Will ping you for some more times if I need to know about any process!! Thanks!!! 😃 Cricket246 (talk) 19:09, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Julian Draxler

Hi Airplaneman,

The editing from this page has continued to be disruptive past your protection period... Would you consider protecting it again with a longer duration? Thanks. MeowMoon (talk) 19:27, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

@MeowMoon: I've protected it for another week. All the best, Airplaneman ✈ 22:04, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

What a lovely name

Came across you at RPP. What a lovely name (almost out of a Disney movie, in a good sense). I forget to mention, my closest cousin used to call himself that. So this note. Ciao Lourdes 15:14, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

@Lourdes: Thank you! And nice to meet ya. Who knows, maybe I'm your closest cousin's long lost twin… Airplaneman ✈ 15:19, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Ha ha ha ha. Yes. True that. You don't want to be him. The family can only withstand one of him :D Lourdes 15:36, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

I'll be sure to stay away! Airplaneman ✈ 15:46, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

PP on Conspiracy theories of the United States presidential election, 2016

Thanks for the PP. However I fear you arrived just a bit late. The article was blanked again and the version you have protected is the one that is being sharply condemned at ANI and elsewhere. There is no consensus in favor of blanking the article. Could you please restore the full version until after the AfD is finished? Thanks... -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:10, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Hey Ad Orientem, thanks for making the RFPP request. I do think full protection will help out here. What I'm not as sure about is restoring any said version of the page. From my cursory 20 minutes of reading into this argument, I'm not convinced that restoring the previous text would be helpful here, or that there is any consensus to do so. I think that's what discussion is for. Take a look at the template note I've left at the top of the page; WP:WRONGVERSION also applies here. I've got to head out, otherwise I would spend some more time trying to understand what's going on. I'd like to add that I really appreciate the effort you and others are putting into this. I think it's an important topic that deserves close attention. Best, Airplaneman ✈ 17:17, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Just a note: if any admin thinks restoring the older version is appropriate, they should feel free to do so. Airplaneman ✈ 17:23, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. At this point the AfD is so lopsided that I think the end is not really in doubt. The blanked version kept in place by very aggressive edit warring may have prejudiced the AfD but its quite possible, perhaps even likely, the end would have been the same even if the older version had been up for people to look at. The first AfD was very close. While I will be disappointed with the outcome, I can accept it because this is how articles are supposed to be deleted. It's a (mostly) fair system. What I can't accept, is the gross abuse of the system found in the recent editing history of the article. That has been simply scandalous. As I noted on the talk page, in the end the real losers will be our readers who have been ill served in this sad affair. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:10, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

_{Don't mind my last edit I'm an idiot Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 18:28, 5 September 2016 (UTC)}

I got involved in this AfD because I !voted at the last AfD. I endorse what Ad Orientem says in terms of the scandalous level of gaming and abuse that has occurred here. I would suggest you extend PP to the Talk page as it appears even that has come under attack (I restored the comments of two different editors who had their comments deleted [1]). If the Talk page itself is compromised the entire process, including AfD, is compromised. (Were !votes at the AfD also deleted? I haven't combed through the entire edit history yet.) Deleting of comments, combined with off-wiki canvassing, essentially spoils the AfD. BlueSalix (talk) 23:48, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

@BlueSalix, Ad Orientem, and Panyd: Thanks for your note. Although I do not deny evidence of system-gaming, I am not sure that full protection is the best way to go on the talk page. I understand that the RFC was blanked, and a cursory look from my end agrees with your assessment that it was wrong to blank it. It looks like the blanking isn't a chronic issue, and I believe discussion, however heated and possibly unproductive, needs to be had somewhere. If the talk page and maybe even the AfD were protected, where would that discussion happen? Sure, the process isn't squeaky clean, but I'm not convinced that because there is possibly some bad faith editing, that all hope is lost. Airplaneman ✈ 00:38, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

There was a lengthy discussion on this issue at ANI that is still waiting to be closed. I'm getting the feeling no one wants to touch it. In any event I have said my peace and am moving on. I expect to lose this fight but it was one that needed to be fought. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:21, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

USSR Premier Basketball League

Re: USSR Premier Basketball League (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) You did a full protection, leaving the IP's removal of flags. Was that your intent? BTW: I have no interest in the article or subject whatsoever and just doing my usual RCP. I'll leave the state of the article up to you and have removed the article from my watchlist. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 17:15, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

@Jim1138: I couldn't find a solid policy basis for the inclusion or removal of the flags, so I personally don't think that continued reversion is the right call. So yes, full protection was my intent, as it appears to be a content dispute. From my cursory research, MOS:FLAG could be interpreted to both support or discourage flags as they are in the article (see my post on the article's talk page). I'm also not really familiar with the subject area and the SOP relating to its articles. Airplaneman ✈ 17:47, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Much of the problem stemmed from the lack of any discussion. I've unwatched, so I won't be editing unless it pops up on Huggle as some other obvious vandalism. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 17:52, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Greco Italian War conclusions highly misleading.

I submit that the page protection be immediately lifted from the Greco-Italian war article as the article itself is heavily biased and misleading to its readers in that it is written as if the war was a victory for the Greeks whereas in reality, it was an Italian victory. The Greeks signed a surrender document to the Italian General, Ferrero two days after they surrendered to the Germans. The article is totally misleading to its readers and I request an urgent review to make it clear to the readership that it was the Greeks who surrendered to the Italians instead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.174.4.14 (talk) 13:14, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

The article history indicates that the situation isn't as straightforward as you say. Airplaneman ✈ 17:03, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Really? How so? There are only two changes that need to be made:

a) that the pejorative statements about the Italians as "macaroni boys" is deleted and

b) that a clear statement be inserted, an historically accurate statement, that the Greeks finally surrendered to the Italians.

What is so unclear about it?

Zoro — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.174.4.33 (talk) 22:20, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

There is something wrong with the Greco Italian War article

Hi airplane

Until the pejorative statements made of the Italians as "the Macaroni boys" are deleted and a clear unequivocal statement is inserted that the Greek Epirus Army actually surrendered to the Italians two days after the surrender to the Germans, then I am afraid this article will know no peace.

It may have to be locked indefinitely.

Zoro — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.174.4.33 (talk) 22:16, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Ping

Ping won't work without adding a new signature in the same edit. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:53, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I had no idea. Cheers, Airplaneman ✈ 01:54, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Still won't work. The software looks for a signature ~~~~ in the post. I usually do something like: @Whoever4321: Muffed ping --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:58, 12 September 2016 (UTC) --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:58, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

I did retype the four tildes in the edit of mine that you linked, but the diff doesn't show it, apparently. Thanks for the help here, I've been going for… at least a year? without knowing this. On another note, I'm foresee myself going into semi-hibernation in October. I'm gonna miss clearing the backlogs—am gonna miss being around RFPP and the like. August/September have been real nice. Airplaneman ✈ 02:06, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't think that's allowed. Didn't the super-sekret admin contract you signed stipulate you were chained to WP:RFPP? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:11, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Oh right… we're all chained. :( Airplaneman ✈ 02:25, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

My Account was Deleted

Dear Wiki Admin Panel,

Please do consider & give me back my WiKi Profile. I am using my Authentic name here same as my passport. I am not using any abusive content picture or video here nor any fake name. So why you should Delete my profile? Please consider it & give me back my profile again. This is a humble request to you please.

Thanks Razu Rahman

My Other Authentic Social Profiles. links redacted by Airplaneman — Preceding unsigned comment added by Razurahmanbd (talk • contribs) 08:58, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Razu, you must look no further than the notices at User talk:Razurahmanbd for the rationale. The page you created about yourself does not meet our criteria for inclusion. I do not doubt your authenticity, but Wikipedia in an encyclopedia, not a directory and not a web host. All the best, Airplaneman ✈ 14:31, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Clarification request

re Special:diff/739170055 I understand objections were made to my creating redirects but I don't understand why it includes non-create edits to them. This would, for example, prevent me from tagging something with template:r with possibilities or putting an existing redirect into categories. I don't believe any objections were made to any edits I made like that, just creating them.

In special:diff/739164532 you mention "the only opposition coming from the editor in question" but there was some selective opposition from another editor which I would like to highlight.

In special:diff/738469264 the ANI was opened by User:LM2000. In special:diff/738499441 the User:Ryk72 advised caution in tracking my edits in response to my protest of LM following me to articles he hadn't participated in before. In special:diff/738539135 Ryk also pointed out two objections which I share regarding broadness:

1) a prohibition on creating/editing redirects is not required due to lack of evidence of this being an issue outside of pro wrestling. Obviously a topic-ban would would still prevent me from creating/editing pro wrestling redirects. I would like to request this modification as no objections were made to my editing/creating redirects on other topics.

2) that explicitly "professional wrestling" (and/or "pro wrestling" shortform) rather than "wrestling" would be more specific to the nature of the dispute. No objections have been made regarding my editing on the topic of Olympic wrestling, for example.

In special:diff/738669392 the User:Lankiveil advises building a solid record of uncontroversial editing in other topic areas for months before possibly appealing the repeal of the indefinite restrictions. I would like to do this but by making the above 2 modifications it will give me more freedom to do so while still keeping outside the area of contentment (pro wrestling).

For example I just did special:diff/739201235 and it occurs to me that this would support redirecting Pal Read to List_of_Arthur_characters#Animals_and_pets but I would not be able to do so under the wide scope of this ban, even though it has nothing to do with pro wrestling. Ranze (talk) 10:28, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Just letting you know I've seen this. What you say has merit. I will investigate further when I have a longer period of free time. Best, Airplaneman ✈ 14:12, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I was pinged here. I made an argument against allowing him to create redirects outside of the wrestling spectrum in the spectrum and nobody, including Ryk72, said that the proposal should be changed to exclude non-wrestling redirects. I have no intentions of deliberately following Ranze, but as I said we often overlap (the Talk:Donald Trump edits showed up in my watchlist). I had planned on asking a question here at some point, @WarMachineWildThing: asked me how this topic ban will effect any redirect or talk page discussions he is already in. Also, Ranze had continued to create problematic redirects even as a topic ban became imminent, these will have to be brought to RfC at some point, I'd like to know whether or not I should post a notification on his talk page when I do.LM2000 (talk) 18:19, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I was just wondering how this topic ban effects any conversation Ranze was involved in. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 03:24, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

@WarMachineWildThing: They need to stop participating in any and all conversations about wrestling. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:33, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

The courtesy of informing me as usual would be appreciated. If I am addresses in any present discussions I may as a courtesy contact via userspace whoever does so to inform them of why I am not able to reply on the articlespace talk page. I hope I am not being prevented from discussing past behavior though, as that would interfere with the potential future appeals process I may do next year once heads have cooled and recent edits show more good editing and less having to constantly rebut a dozen commentators. Ranze (talk) 03:38, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Ranze, if this courtesy is anything more than "I cannot discuss this because of my topic ban" you'll likely be blocked. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:45, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the consideration APM. Best as I can recall all the areas of contention had to do with wrestlers or titles in the WWE and its subsidiary NXT. I am wondering if it would be possible to restrict the topic ban to just them so that I would be able to edit other companies like National Wrestling Alliance or Impact Wrestling or Ring of Honor or New Japan. As best I can recollect no examples of my edits to these areas was introduced in the ANI discussion. I am hoping I could demonstrate an ability to edit these smaller promotions responsibly as a means of over time showing learned lessons so as to be given another chance at WWE content. I would like to help construct a template to search WP:PW approved sites but a PW block prevents participating there to keep attempting to familiarize myself with their classifications.

Given that the disputes have to do with recent content under the WWE name I would also like to know if it would be okay to edit older WWWF/WWF/WCW/ECW related things.

Going back to check the sourcing of older content would still keep me out of discussing present championships (though at this point with a universal champ in place on raw the background of smackdown's world title isn't as fascinating) and present wrestlers. Like for example on Big Show he is alleged to have been called "Big Nasty Paul Wight" prior to Big Show in WCW in the 90s and there did not appear to be a reliable source next to the CLIM supporting it. I would be able to avoid discussing Big Show in recent years (due to objections to my referencing nicknames others do not feel were popular enough to suit their tastes) while focusing on improving the quality of less recent data. Ranze (talk) 03:38, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

As this was a community topic ban, an admin doesn't get to change what the community asked for. The accepted proposal was an "indefinite topic ban from wrestling articles, broadly construed, and from creating or editing redirects." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:02, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, I've been out and wanted to take enough time to be able to respond adequately to your request. I read through the entire ANI post again just now. It is true that Olympic wrestling is different than pro wrestling. However, as per NeilN's comment directly above this one, there was clear consensus for an "indefinite topic ban from wrestling articles, broadly construed, and from creating or editing redirects". That is what was decided by the community. This is my first ANI close, and I do think that I can improve upon my closing statements in the future. Particularly, it can indeed be argued (as you did in your original post) that the clarifying questions asked by Ryk72 were "selective opposition". Yet, that does not change the fact that consensus asked for "indefinite topic ban from wrestling articles, broadly construed, and from creating or editing redirects". On ANI and here, I have sensed a strong feeling of exhaustion on this matter from the community. Taking a clear step away from this matter (broadly construed) is the first step in the recovery process.

Re: your three points, I will not be modifying the topic ban. As per the original topic ban proposal, which was supported by consensus, "This user clearly understands neither sourcing nor redirects." This means staying well away from wrestling-related articles (broadly construed) and redirects. It is completely possible to demonstrate, as per Lankiveil, "a solid record of uncontroversial editing in some other topic area," without touching either wrestling-related articles (broadly construed) or redirects. Your topic ban covers but a small fraction of the over five million articles on Wikipedia. As per NeilN's comment, it's simply best to stay away, as asked. Airplaneman ✈ 04:52, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Specifically it was KrakatoaKatie who mysteriously asked for this out of the blue, even though all examples were WWE pro wrestling (not pro wrestling) and then 'support' piled in, with very little actual discussion by these out-of-the-blue voters, leading me to wonder how much was due to reviewing the presented diffs versus other factors.

The only true consensus here was for a pro wrestling topic ban, Ryk72's objection means there was not consensus for a redirect ban or a non-pro wrestling ban. The discussion of a topic block was on the table less than 4 days, and the people voting to close it were Katie (the block nominator) and the second/third was by LM/Crash who were already WP:INVOLVED in content disputes with me.

The policy page section WP:NOTDEMOCRACY says this:

Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy or any other political system. Its primary (though not exclusive) means of decision making and conflict resolution is editing and discussion leading to consensus—not voting

The concept of discussion leading to consensus would mean actually discussing the issues before reaching a conclusion. In many cases this isn't visible at all. For example:

Jauerback: "Support - I'm sorry that you've all had to deal with this for so long."

Dennis and Rick and Only_in_death simply say "per Katie". That's not discussion, it's voting. Ryk is really the only person who visibly attempted discussion leading to a consensus, everything else was a call to action without discussing the underlying issues at all. My attempt to discuss was overall ignored, and even scorned, as if it shows ill will to defend one's edits. I get accused of bludgeoning when really, it's clear that people are trying to bludgeon me and this was defense.

Did you examine the behavior of some of these voters? (special:diff/738667475 even admits that!) FIM gives the impression of polite detachment in special:diff/738667260 but 6 minutes prior you can see prior coordination with Crash and NeilN at special:diff/738666683 and later incivility at special:diff/738807839. The problem here is you're not getting neutral parties coming to ANI independently, they're noticing their buddies talking about it and coming to support their buddies.

Given that you're ignoring objectors to consensus and did an early close of a vote I think you should respect the closer consensus (taking into account Ryk's input) to affix "pro" (banning me from editing Olympic wrestling doesn't make sense) and exclude non-WWE redirects. Ranze (talk) 22:23, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

This thread is evidence of why there aren't more "neutral parties coming to ANI independently". I came to ANI independently looking to do what was best (remedy a conflict by generating a situation vastly less amenable to conflict) for all parties involved. I hear your arguments. I read the discussion, including all diffs presented. I have also told you why I was not modifying the topic ban at this time in my last post. Please see Seraphimblade (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)'s post on your talk page as well. Airplaneman ✈ 01:04, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Made Made Snana

Thanks. I just found one of the IPs calling a prominent Indian academic a Naxalite despite the fact that he had explicitly stated he didn't support them. Nice photo of the 737 by the way - and I do love McCarran for its setting - landing there looking down was fascinating. Doug Weller talk 14:59, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

No worries! And yes, flying Southwest (in the southwestern US) and looking over the vast and rocky desert is very beautiful. Airplaneman ✈ 15:05, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

The Not Vandalism of Liger

Hi! I made a message to Richi, but he says it is not him. I see you opposed the Ligers for the popular cultural reference of Napoleon Dynamite. I feel it is very needed and not vandalism. I cannot see why you call this vandalism. I had friend check grammar, I used all effort to clear the article. But you keep it vandalism. This is real. Not vandalism because Napoleon describes Liger as breed of Tiger and Lion bred for skills in magic. Many many other pages keep cultured references. Why is this a vandalism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.178.110.82 (talk) 14:05, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for posting; I understand what you're saying. Unfortunately, just because something is real or true, doesn't automatically qualify it for inclusion in certain articles. In the case of Liger, many users have tried to tell you why this information should not be included. See here, for instance, or the editing history of the Liger article. As for this edit, the "vandalism" referred to the entirety of the article's editing history, wherein chronic issues of blatant vandalism have plagued the article. It is true that your edits were not vandalism; they were simply disruptive because others had objected and you insisted on re-adding the material. Best, Airplaneman ✈ 14:40, 19 September 2016 (UTC)