User talk:Lectonar

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Talk Archive 1, Talk Archive 2, Talk Archive 3, Talk Archive 4, Talk Archive 5, Talk Archive 6, Talk Archive 7, Talk Archive 8, Talk Archive 9, Talk Archive 10, Talk Archive 11, Talk Archive 12, Talk Archive 13, Talk Archive 14,Talk Archive 15, Talk Archive 16

Silly and funny stuff can be found here

Please post new messages to the bottom of my talk page. I will respond here unless you request otherwise.

I prefer to keep communications on-wiki if possible, but if you need to discuss something privately, please send me an email.


What the heck[edit]

I only have one edit an I get blocked how (talk) 21:23, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

A beer for you![edit]

Export hell seidel steiner.png And you don't have to settle for German pilsner... Drmies (talk) 15:23, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks a million......but...isn't Pilsner Czech? Lectonar (talk) 15:29, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Sure, but not from my Dutch perspective. I was mainly thinking of the image in the barnstar--whoever picked that one is complicating things. The beer is, apparently, a Dortmunder Export but in the style of Munich, not Dortmund. It looked like a pilsner to me, and it has aspects of that, apparently, but its very classification is a matter of some dispute. Ah well. Cheers. Drmies (talk) 17:02, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
After taking off my glasses to beer/peer at the image of the glass, I have ascertained that the beer is from (listen to the startling special-effect at the start), lost somewhere deep in Bavaria. Anyway... beerology... Cheers. Lectonar (talk) 17:53, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Help request on F1 articles[edit]

You recently protected the Fittipaldi F8 page. Not sure how you became involved but trust me the F1 project are grateful. I wonder if you could also consider protecting the March 87P and March 761 pages. Both these pages are (I think) currently re-directs but pages have earlier been created from the re-directs by the same disruptive IP editor involved in the F8 page. He is well-known to the F1 project and constantly creates pages for non-notable cars (which are also not up to Wiki standards) and will not accept it when project members re-direct them. That's less than 10% of his unhelpful activities and he's been blocked three times. Blocks are awkward as his IP changes daily (sometimes more often). Would appreciate any assistance you can give us. Thanks. Regards, Eagleash (talk) 09:40, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome; I just watch RFPP, so no special interest in F1 pages. Concerning your query: pages are not protected preemptively. If she/he really creates new articles out of redirects repeatedly, ping me please or list at requests for protection. Cheers and happy editing. Lectonar (talk) 09:45, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
OK fair enough; the 761 has only recently been put back to re-direct and he has yet to react to that. The 87P has already been subjected to some of the same to-ing and fro-ing as the F8. He originally created it out of a re-direct for the 87B (same car, different category) but when it was twice reverted he made a draft for the 87P, which has been rejected (possibly more than once). Then he requested a re-direct for the 87P which enabled him to transfer the wording to mainspace. Not only does the car have zero notability but the page is very poorly written. And yes he's been doing this sort of thing for months. Eagleash (talk) 10:10, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Sorry to bother you again... I note that you later protected the March 87B page, but this one has been untouched since the 2nd reversion noted above as far as I recall. My 'colleague' on the F1 project (I think) meant to ask for the March 87P to be protected. This is the page recently created after requesting a re-direct and has suffered from the same 'warring' as the F8 page. Do we have to place another request at WP:RFPP? Thanks. Eagleash (talk) 13:04, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
It was a request from yesterday, reported by someone else....I just processed it only today. Lectonar (talk) 13:08, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
And all are done now. Lectonar (talk) 13:09, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
You beat me to it! I was just checking that the link was right (from the request page) and saw your protection. Many thanks. I would like to say that the small group of editors who work on tidying up after this IP don't see RFPP as the ideal solution... far too many pages involved. Thanks again. Regards, Eagleash (talk) 13:18, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
A rangeblock might be the solution; unfortunately, I am not savvy enough to do it...and actually, the vandalism is, in comparison to other pages, low-level anyway. Lectonar (talk) 13:28, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
He's been blocked three times but other people are using the ranges. I agree the v'lism is low level but it's the constant disruptive editing and refusal to listen that is a problem. Another ed. and I try to make something of the stuff he submits but some of it is just completely unusable. Others, would rather just delete everything he does. Anyway... happy editing. Eagleash (talk) 13:39, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Similar situation here. A re-direct has been created despite the fact that the target page is itself a re-direct (and comment to that effect). (See para above). The IP will like as not create a page for the 8D now. Eagleash (talk) 07:09, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Zodiac Killer protection[edit]

Just checked the level of protection. Your post on RPP said it was on semi-protection but the article is under full - only admins & template-editors can edit - protection for next few weeks. Was that your intention? Shearonink (talk) 19:51, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Shamefully i must admit I forgot to wear my glasses...fixed. Lectonar (talk) 19:52, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Heh, happens to all of us from time to time. I just wasn't sure if maybe I had missed some other vandalism. Got so tired of dealing with the ongoing ohsofunny Twitter'ers... Shearonink (talk) 20:30, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
You're very gracious. Lectonar (talk) 20:34, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

March to WrestleMania: Live from Toronto[edit]

First of all, I would like to thank you for protecting the NXT TakeOver: Dallas article. Could you also do the same for March to WrestleMania: Live from Toronto? It has been getting vandalism as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:19, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Semiprotected 3 days. Lectonar (talk) 07:48, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Request for the content of a deleted page which i have created on 24 FEB around 6 'o clock' goes by name 'Raks Effect'[edit]

Hello sir, i am in favor for the speedy deletion of this page and regret for wasting your vital time but content of this article will be necessary for a hypothetical topic on which my team is working on.can you please mail me the deleted page content at .And i promise we will never post the hypothetical theories on Wikipedia again unless we have a proof.

Thank You — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maverick2k16 (talkcontribs) 07:01, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I do not restore attack-pages, however veiled they might be. Regards. Lectonar (talk) 07:54, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

You misjudjed my intention I just want the content so that we don't have to compile it again and I don't request to restore it just wanted the content — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maverick2k16 (talkcontribs) 11:39, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

You misunderstood: to give you the content, I would have to restore the "article". That I won't do. Lectonar (talk) 09:43, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Jonathan Mitchell[edit]

There have been reverts this month. Extend PC? --George Ho (talk) 19:45, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

I count two attempts, and I usually do not extend before it expires. I prefer to look at an article after a protection expires, how it develops in terms of editing. When it's bad, we can always reprotect. Pending changes protection should not be used as a preemptive measure against violations that have not yet occurred. Lectonar (talk) 19:50, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Michael Felgate[edit]

Hello , I am contacting for the article of Michael Felgate and why its not available? i am willing to edit it myself but its protected... i have noticed most pages about professional footballers use the source of website Soccerway [[1]] but if needed more sources let me know.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brap14 (talkcontribs) 20:44, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

I have restored the article after a request at REFUND. It was previously deleted at AfD because the Cypriot First Division was not considered fully professional, but it is now accepted in the list at WP:FPL, so the player meets WP:NFOOTBALL. JohnCD (talk) 20:55, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks John Lectonar (talk) 20:57, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Donetsk People's Republic[edit]

Hello. I would like to thank you for stepping in and protecting the Donetsk People's Republic article. It seems, however, that you are protecting the wrong version. Before this nasty edit war began, the country infobox was used, as seen here This is an older version, but the infobox is the same. So, rather than showing favoritism to one side, however unintentional, could you please restore the article to the pre-edit war version. I feel this is of particular importance, as I suspect that some of the very users pushing for a change were behind a prior edit war that lasted over a year before consensus was reached. Please do not show such behavior favoritism. You appear to share my views regarding bias, POV, and the aforementioned favoritism. Please restore the article to the pre-edit war version with the country infobox. Thanks in advance, and my sincerest apologies for bothering you. Anasaitis (talk) 23:35, 1 March 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anasaitis (talkcontribs)

Usually, it is always the wrong version of an article that gets protected. As protecting adming it is exactly not my place to show any "favoritism" as you call it, the article is just frozen in the actual version, without making any calls about who is correct or not; that is the task of the participating users who are encouraged to find consensus.In short: I see an obvious edit-war, I protect. I am not here to judge your arguments. Regards. Lectonar (talk) 07:47, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Turkish Insurgency Detailed Map[edit]

So there's this map:

And it is full of wrong information and it's being used to spread wrong information in a article. You can even see senior wikipedians calling this map a "anti-Turkey propaganda map" at the talk section for this map. Could you do something about this shit-show? Thanks in advance.

I don't care who is right or wrong. You are edit warring. Heed the warning, or I will block you. Lectonar (talk) 20:06, 2 March 2016 (UTC)


Why did you disable talk page access? I see no abuse. User's are allowed to blank their own talk pages. I will undoing that part of the block unless you can justify it. -- John Reaves 21:03, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Do as you please, but I remove talk-page access when the block notice is removed, being aware the editor must have read it. I find it easier to process. Lectonar (talk) 21:08, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

No problem....[edit]

I didn't ever even read and check the grammar there:D Ilya Drakonov (talk) 15:04, 3 March 2016 (UTC).


When I left this comment I didn't realize you deleted Einstein Syndrome in February 2016. Einstein syndrome is at WP:UND, and it was deleted in December 2015.

My point, if the versions deleted as G4 in 2015 and 2016, were substantially different from the version deleted at AFD in 2007, then didn't the nominators lapse, because a new version of the article required a new AFD? I am afraid you and the other administrators who didn't recognize that the G4 were bogus also fell short, by not recognizing the G4 as bogus. But I would not have left that comment, that might give the appearance I was outing you, at ANI, if I had been aware that you too had deleted an article under G4 that didn't qualify for deletion under G4.

Am I wrong that you deleted an article under G4 that didn't meet the criteria for deletion under G4?

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 23:53, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

No apologies needed. I have commented at WP:UND. Lectonar (talk) 00:21, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Master of Puppets[edit]

Can you reduce the protection of Master of Puppets? It was vandalized because it was the TFA. Thanks. © Tbhotch (en-2.5). 17:51, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Done. Was out for dinner, sorry. Lectonar (talk) 19:59, 4 March 2016 (UTC)


I'm not sure how that was nonsense? Adam9007 (talk) 19:31, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

The progression the article took made it started with a sentence in Spanish, with a question in Spanish in the edit summary, which was answered by the same user in English after you added the notenglish tag....would you prefer vandalism as reason for deletion? Lectonar (talk) 19:48, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure; I can't remember exactly what it said, but nonsense hadn't even occurred to me, so I'm guessing it wasn't. Adam9007 (talk) 19:50, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Depends on definiton; I prefer that one: sometimes in ordinary usage, nonsense is synonymous with absurdity or the ridiculous...which the whole thing was. Cheers. Lectonar (talk) 19:53, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
I think G1 means nonsense as in incomprehensible. Absurdity would fall more into vandalism I'm guessing. Adam9007 (talk) 19:58, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Frankly, what do you expect me to do? Every time you answer you include that "you're guessing"..... Lectonar (talk) 20:01, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
That's the impression I'm getting from my understanding of the criteria. Of course, I could be wrong. Adam9007 (talk) 20:04, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Then let me repeat: what do you expect me to do? Lectonar (talk) 20:07, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Well, nothing. I was just confused as to why you thought it was nonsense, that's all. Adam9007 (talk) 20:10, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
I though I did explain why...let me see...yup, I did. So I am a little confused by the whole ecxchange here. Lectonar (talk) 20:12, 6 March 2016 (UTC)


Mistake? Thanks. -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:03, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

blushing...yes Lectonar (talk) 22:05, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi[edit]

Another clash. This one was caused by a delay between when I protected the page and when I posted to RfPP. Although the most recent vandalism was all one IP, there is a history of vandalism by different IPs, going back to the point the page was automatically unprotected on the 3rd of Jan. So I thought PC would be a good move. Yaris678 (talk) 09:57, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

No problem...I saw your protection shortly after I posted...pending changes is fine with me. Lectonar (talk) 09:58, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

You set the bar too high for enabling page protection[edit]

I disagree with many of your recent decisions to decline protection for pages suffering vandalism, saying that recent vandalism levels are too low. Such decisions waste the time of established editors, as well as negatively affecting readers while the vandalism is unrepaired. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 11:59, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

IMO, I stick to the Protection policy. Maybe we read it differently. Using protection to prevent vandalism is a last resort, not the norm. We have AIV for that, amongst others. And while protection may prevent vandalism, it also prevents constructive edits by IPs and unconfirmed editors, which should not be discouraged. Thank you for your feedback, though. Lectonar (talk) 12:04, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps see here: Wikipedia:Rough guide to semi-protection. Lectonar (talk) 12:07, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
We do it read it differently. Wikipedia:Protection policy does not mention "last resort". More specifically, the relevant language is that semi-protection "is useful when there is a significant amount of disruption or vandalism from new or unregistered users". "Significant" is not a precise term, of course. For me, the rule of thumb would be, if there have been five reverted edits by new or unregistered editors, without a useful edit by such an editor, then semi-protect. What is your rule of thumb? I would remind you of the concerns about the shrinking population of active editors--to what extent do you want us to waste our time tidying up after unconfirmed editors doing nonsense?--Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 19:59, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Five reverted edits in what amount of time? If in one or two hours I would concur, especially if there is already a history of vandalism. If 5 reverted edits in as many days...not a case for semi-protection. Please have a look at Arizona Wildcats men's basketball before I protected the article: that imho is significant vandalism. So I think we must agree to disagree. Lectonar (talk) 18:13, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Um, so your bar is, what, 35 vandalism & reversion edits in a 24-hour period? And you don't think that's too high? The issue is the amount of time wasted reviewing and reverting vandalism and needlessly complicating edit histories, versus the inconvenience to unconfirmed editors. If 5 reverted edits in as many days...and that's the only activity...then who is inconvenienced, other than vandals? But I don't seem to be making any headway with you, so I'm have removed French from my watchlist, which only got on there in the first place in the course of cleaning up vandalism elsewhere. As you don't seem to find it a nuisance, I'd appreciate it if you took my place and put French on your own watchlist. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 10:55, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
The disambiguation page? I did. And there is not much movement on the page afais. Lectonar (talk) 11:22, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. --12:04, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Deletion of Philippins Urban Living Solutions[edit]

Dear sir / madam,

We have been trying to upload a wiki page for Philippines Urban Living Solutions and have been rejected 3x for "unambiguous advertising or promotion." We apologise for this and have sincerely tried to make it neutral and objective with ample reference to third party sources. To our opinion the article is no longer advertising in nature, but you still seem to disagree :). As such, could you please be specific and let us know what we need to change to get our company piece accepted? Your advice / assistance is much appreciated. Thanks, Steven Zwaan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Idolzyp (talkcontribs) 06:03, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

As you use a "we" in your post here, it is implied that more than one person is using the account. See our username policy. I have therefore blocked your account. Also please disclose any conflict of interest you might have in regard to the subject of the article. Lectonar (talk) 09:02, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Ricardo Munguía[edit]

Hi Lectonar, I wanted to let you know that I boldly re-added the murdered International Committee of the Red Cross aid worker's name to the above dab page. Although he does not have his own article (looks like it was PROD'ed) I found he is mentioned in at least five articles (including the one I linked in his entry). I found a reliable source, which I added to all of the articles. If you have any concerns about my approach please let me know. Regards, Accurizer (talk) 16:00, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Already did ;) Lectonar (talk) 16:00, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

O.K. My thought was he seems notable because of the circumstances of his death and the ICRC's reaction to it, but not sure that warrants his own article if there is nothing to add beyond what is contained in the ICRC article. (I've seen this approach taken with other murder victims.) Can you make the PROD'ed article text available to me so I can see if there is anything else there that would influence my decision on whether or not to write an article? Thanks. Accurizer (talk) 16:08, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, no worries. Thanks! Accurizer (talk) 16:54, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Received, thanks very much. Accurizer (talk) 01:02, 9 March 2016 (UTC)


Gute Nacht. The article you are protected , in this thank you. Now what do I personally advise ? Or are you willing to make me a scapegoat and lock ? Solaire the knight (talk) 21:28, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Я не понимаю, извините. Я не против того, кто прав. Я вижу, редактировать воюющих, Я запираю статью. Ваш английский не является хорошим, Это проблема. (I do not mind who is right. I see edit warring, I lock the article. Your English is not good, this is a problem.) Lectonar (talk) 21:34, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Do not write in Russian , I read well in English, but the writing is bad :) But rather than give advice or to ask is not to big revisions , his trying bully me. Solaire the knight (talk) 21:52, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Ok...I was only trying to be friendly. See: from what you wrote above, your last sentence makes no sense, and the second one only partly. Anyway, as administrator who protected the page I will not comment on the content of the disputed article. Use other venues for that please. Lectonar (talk) 21:57, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Well, I 'm telling you, I'm very bad writing big complex text. The fact that I did not ask you to discuss the article , I was afraid of such persecution because of one article. Well , have a nice day Solaire the knight (talk) 22:04, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

London Eye[edit]

There has been vandalism. Extend PC? --George Ho (talk) 05:33, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Let's see how it evolves; it is on my watchlist. Lectonar (talk) 11:07, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Vasilije Pejović[edit]

Hi, I just saw you have deleted Vasilije Pejović in the past and it has now been recreated by the same editor. Just wanted to let you know, perhaps it could be CSD or something and removed immediately. Qed237 (talk) 13:12, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I forgot to say that they left phonenumbers and emailadresses in the article. Qed237 (talk) 13:13, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
I saw....just trying to make my mind up as to how to delete....the phone number and youtube link make it spam...Thanks for the head-up. Lectonar (talk) 13:14, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
I have deleted as self-spam; leaving the phone number of your manager doesn't really help. Lectonar (talk) 13:17, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Bayley (wrestler)[edit]

Would two reverts this month justify PC renewal? --George Ho (talk) 08:25, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Not imho...but as I can see at WP:RFPP, different admins decide differently in these cases. Cheers. Lectonar (talk) 09:14, 21 March 2016 (UTC)


There have been reverts, especially in the past seven days. Extend PC? --George Ho (talk) 05:16, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Michelle Fields[edit]

Thank you for protecting Michelle Fields earlier today. I'm sorry to bother you about this page subsequently, but as Talk:Michelle Fields#Today's edits describe, there is a concern over violations of WP:BLPCRIME, as well as WP:SYNTH and WP:NOTTABLOID, and editor intimidation. Perhaps you could take a look about the BLPCRIME issue particularly?--Tenebrae (talk) 17:53, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

@User:Tenebrae I did, and I do not see something which is of immediate concern; what I see ist that the articles talk-page is used...which is good. The "new" user has already conceded that "your" version stays in place or can be reverted to. What I do not see so far is a real SPA from his part, more a newbie with strong opinions. I think you need to get some more people on the talk-page, essentially someone who is not involved; a 3rd opinion would be good. As I protected the page(s), I consider myself involved, so will not comment on the topic. Cheers, and thanks for the heads-up. Lectonar (talk) 18:16, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
I appreciate your taking the time to look; I can't imagine being an admin and having to field these kinds of requests all the time. It seems exhausting to me and I admire al of you for doing it. The BLP concern is from the redlink intimating that the prosecutor is violating ethics laws. And since he was still arguing in favor of that snyth a minute ago, I dread where this is going. Still, you admirably fielded a good-faith request, and for that I thank you.--Tenebrae (talk) 18:25, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Yes...he insinuates...but that makes it NPOV...something he has been warned about of sorts, and can get his nose rubbed in at need. And thank you, you're gracious...but as you might see I am not one of the busier admins, I just hang out a lot at page-protection. Oh...and thanks for the userboxen for 10year veterans. Lectonar (talk) 18:34, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
And: the sources he cites might include said information, but as you so succintly put it: it's cherry-picking...because the sources include more than the info he wants in. Lectonar (talk) 18:37, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
@User:Tenebrae I am (still) following the discussion on the's on a good way imho. Cheers. Lectonar (talk) 08:56, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Gavin Dawson[edit]

Maternal parents are humorous but incorrect. Linda and Cole are his parents Awesome1986 (talk) 23:30, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Please use the article's talk-page. Lectonar (talk) 06:35, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Hardcore punk[edit]

There have been reverts, including self-reverts. Extend PC? --George Ho (talk) 23:14, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

My ususal answer...let's see what happens if the protection runs out :). Lectonar (talk) 12:18, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Administrator Barnstar Hires.png The Admin's Barnstar
Cleaning RFPP with 28 pending requests isn't something most admins do, many just do what they can which is usually 5 or 6 but I like that you did so many in one go so here's a barnstar to stick on the wall. tutterMouse (talk) 13:19, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. I just happened to be around. Lectonar (talk) 13:21, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Page protection[edit]

Hi! How is there not enough "recent disruptive activities" in List of Lip Sync Battle Philippines episodes to justify protection when there is obviously a persistent addition of unsourced or poorly sourced content on the article? From March 30 to present, 5 unsoruced edits has been reverted and undone already. I hope you can re-check the page again and reconsider. MBdemigod (talk) 09:39, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

If you have not done so, please read the protection policy: 5 unsourced edits in as many days is really not very much. We don't tend to lock articles for something like that; have a look at the edit-history of WWE Women's Championship (2016–present): that is disruptive and had to be protected. Regards. Lectonar (talk) 09:46, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Economy of Italy[edit]

Two out of three edits by IPs and newly registered editors were reverted. Extend PC? --George Ho (talk) 19:07, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Very scarce editing overall; let's see how it works unprotected. Lectonar (talk) 07:39, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

List of Girl Meets World episodes[edit]

Loads of reverts and a few self-reverts. Extend PC? --George Ho (talk) 19:44, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Here I have extended for another month. Lectonar (talk) 07:40, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Foundation for Economic Education[edit]

I don't know whether reverted edits were of vandalism or in good-faith. Would you extend PC in any case? --George Ho (talk) 06:06, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Most of the IP edits come from the range; I would say it was in good faith, but there might be COI-editing. We'll see how it turns out when it is unprotected.. Lectonar (talk) 07:42, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
The page protection for Foundation for Economic Education has ended. Pending changes seems to have slowed down the disruptive editing not at all. The anonymous editor continues to make edits that violate policy. When another editor corrects the changes the anonymous editor just rants endlessly about edit waring and violates even more policies by abusing warnings. Many administrators have explained policies yet the anonymous editor just tells them that they are wrong and goes right back to ranting. The anonymous editor constantly makes grammatically invalid edits, yet labels that with things like "write good grammar now." So since pending changes failed to change any of the disruptive behavior, what would make for a next logical step? Abel (talk) 00:18, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Actually it did none of the (scarce, I count about 10 edits in 30 days) IP-edits went "live"...and that is what pending changes is for. I will not comment on the quality or merit of the edits, as that would make me involved. I would invite the participants in this slow-burning edit-war to seek a third opinion. Lectonar (talk) 06:52, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Already did that. The anonymous editor filed a dispute resolution where multiple administrators explained policies in detail. The anonymous editor told them all that they were wrong. The dispute was closed as nonsense. Then the anonymous editor proceeded to pepper the talk page with why all the administrators were wrong. Administrators have issued multiple warnings about the anonymous editor's disruptive editing, which the anonymous editor assumes are for other people. I would chalk the entire ridiculous saga up to a combination of incompetence plus a complete disregard for gaining competence by learning, but the constant change of IP address, sometimes in the middle of editing, is all kinds of shady. The anonymous editor constantly makes fake edit war, conflict of interest, and personal attack claims. It really comes down to, "How much nonsense must people endure to keep a good article within the good article criteria?" Keeping a good article good should not require constant vigilance. Abel (talk) 15:35, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
I have reinstated the pending changes protection and will watchlist myself. Lectonar (talk) 15:51, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. Help is very much appreciated. Abel (talk) 16:22, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Sir, can you please look at FEE page and talk the months sinc Nov? I feel user Abel is trying to Own the article, and making personal attacks. Also he might have Conflict or connexion with FEE and he argues on other pages, like 'Irvington' Thankyou. (talk) 02:35, 8 April 2016 (UTC) User Abel has just again undone my new edit on FEE article. And he continues unkind remarks here with no truth or evidence. (talk) 03:55, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Case in point, here "unkind remarks" literally refers to "Improper grammar." Incompetence is absolutely expected from new editors, but new editors labeling ever tiny correction as a personal attack is beyond ridiculous. Abel (talk) 12:55, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
no,ubkind personal insults here, above 8 April. What is bad when i added college undergratuate? Not bad grammar at all! (talk) 03:25, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

The anonymous user made a giant deal out of including the phrase "think tank" in the lead of the Foundation for Economic Education article. More than a week ago RaphaelQS deleted that phrase. Yesterday the anonymous user made changes to the Foundation for Economic Education article, yet completely ignored the deletion by RaphaelQS. Yes, this all could be a case of incompetence combined with an attitude of assumed expertise. However, the IP addresses that changes often, sometimes during editing, and only taking issue with what I have touched is all very suspicious.Abel (talk) 20:45, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

I have semi-protected for some lomger time; let them register accounts if they want to edit. Lectonar (talk) 20:59, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Appreciated.Abel (talk) 22:12, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
The article is not currently protected. Think something went wrong. Abel (talk) 13:57, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
It is semiprotected until August 2nd...that is what it shows in the log. I just lifted the pending changes and inplemented semi-protection. The bot just removed the pending changes template from the page. Try editing the article while logged out, and you will see. Lectonar (talk) 19:12, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. I will trust your far superior understanding of the mechanics of the process. Semiprotection sounds like a better fit than pending changes.Abel (talk) 20:50, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

List of Naruto: Shippuden episodes[edit]

Vandalism still occurs; extend PC? --George Ho (talk) 20:26, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

KKK titles and vocabulary[edit]

What does it mean "I will watchlist"? Does that mean the article is on a list, and if so how can I access it.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 15:28, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I will watch is on my watchlist. This will extend the number of eyes watching the article. Lectonar (talk) 21:27, 4 May 2016 (UTC)


Hi Lectonar, I hope you don't mind but I unprotected Sun Vandeth a couple of weeks early per this request on my talk page. Please let me know if you foresee any issue with the early unprotection. Cheers, --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 19:52, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

No problems...I would have unprotected as well. Cheers and happy editing. Lectonar (talk) 20:41, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Please reconsider RPP @ Hun Sen[edit]

I ask you to reconsider this decline. There has been more activity today from yet another IP and all IPs in question have been "properly warned", but they blank their talk pages immediately after being warned.--William Thweatt TalkContribs 16:44, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Sorry to come late to the party....seems to have died down now. If it picks up, ping me please. Lectonar (talk) 10:17, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

The Brave Little Toaster (film)[edit]

I saw attempts to uppercase indefinite articles and prepositions. Also, I saw unsourced additions reverted. Is PC extension needed? --George Ho (talk) 19:54, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Not for now; pc is doing its job just fine. Lectonar (talk) 10:18, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Amandla Stenberg[edit]

People keep changing pronouns because of the nature of this person. Upgrade to semi? Extend PC otherwise? --George Ho (talk) 20:14, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

I don#t see enough disruption for semiprotecting; for pc...let's see after it expires. Lectonar (talk) 10:19, 16 May 2016 (UTC)


Can you also remove the things added onto the AQA page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DJRiver123 (talkcontribs) 18:24, 17 May 2016 (UTC) I am not an expert for that, I'll leave it to others. Lectonar (talk) 18:28, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Mount Washington Observatory[edit]

Hi I saw you protected the page. Maybe the page should do what Materialscientist did before. Protect it for a few months, if the few day protection fails. Etimena 14:29, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Actually I protected for one year....Cheers. Lectonar (talk) 14:33, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Template talk:RC-stub[edit]

Hi, would it be possible for you to close the discussion on Template talk:RC-stub? I would, but I'm an involved editor. Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:15, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

I am one of the older admins who does not stand that much on formality ;) (IAR and so forth), so do not think a formal close is necessary. But with this snowy outcome, no one will object you closing it if you really see a need to do so. Lectonar (talk) 11:19, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

LieInfo for Kosovo national football team Award[edit]

Trophy.png LieInfo for Kosovo national football team Award
The reason you need you to take this prize is that you specify false information for the citizenship of the trainers of Kosovo national football team. ERHaxhiu (talk) 07:30, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
I will keep this prize in high Honours :D. I think we should be beyond nationalities by now, so...better to be proud of your own achievements than to need to define your honour and personality by proclaiming this or that nationality. Actually I pity you. Btw, I only protected the article, and I really do not care about your puny disputes. Have a lovely day. My mood couldn't be better. :D. Lectonar (talk) 08:02, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you![edit]

If you would, In Stereo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) as well? Thanks! Jim1138 (talk) 09:41, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

@Jim1138: done. Lectonar (talk) 09:47, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Noticed! Lots of vandalism. Some "let's go out and vandalize something" group. Thanks again! Jim1138 (talk) 09:48, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 June 2016[edit]

Salinger (film) protection[edit]

I don't know if this is the appropriate place to alert you but I'm not sure my comment on my existing Protection Request is enough. You declined semi-protection for Salinger (film) due to no recent disruptions. A day after your decision, someone removed all of my changes to the page with a single post. Link to diff.

Note that this change was done with a post, not a reversion, so I did not receive an alert. Several additions to the page that I had added were also removed.

Abuse of this page has been going on for a year now. Originally, the reversions were being made by user RoobyRinkyRoo.

All of the edits by RoobyRinkyRoo were either to the Salinger page or the page for the writer-director of Salinger, Shane Salerno.

RoobyRinkyRoo also uploaded the headshot of Shane Salerno used on his Wikipedia page. Note that the page has been flagged (by someone else) for reading like a news release.

Please read the Talk:Salinger_(film) page for a more complete idea of what is going on.

Here is a tweet by film critic Dave Chen when I tried to alert others to what was happening a year ago, just to be clear I'm doing this in earnest.

Danwroy (talk) 03:52, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

@Danwroy: When you read our protection policy, protection is not the way to go here, as the disruption is simply not high enough. RoobyRinkyRoo has not edited since April 2015, and the IP you mentioned above has edited other pages as well, so I would not say it is the same person. Anyway, to deal with this, you would have to engage the IP on the IPs talk-page, and tell them what you think is wrong with their edit. If it is obvious vandalism, warn them and report to WP:AIV later. Lectonar (talk) 06:49, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
@Lectonar: Please read this carefully: when I tried to make the page NPOV a year ago, I got into an edit war with an account which only edited the Salinger page, and the page of Salinger director Shane Salerno, including uploading the headshot used on Salerno's page. That should be plenty of evidence that there is something fishy going on and the page needs some form of protection.
I had given up because my changes kept getting reverted. But when I tried again recently, my numerous edits were reversed by an unknown IP in a single post with scant justification, which would have been prevented if the page were semi-protected. And while that IP had multiple edits, all were a) on the 22nd, after the protection was declined, b) within less than an hour, c) to the pages for: the Salinger movie, the accompanying biography of the same name, the upcoming biopic based on the movie and the book, a page about one of the author's books, and there was one additional edit to a page about a TV show.
I can argue with an IP address that is likely no longer be in use, but it would make more sense to read the page as it is and see it has a clearly promotional tone, and compare that with how I left it, and consider my entire edit was undone with a single post.
I'm asking for assistance, this page has been in bad shape for more than a year now. Danwroy (talk) 11:13, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
I am no expert on the topic, so place a note at one of the appropriate wikiprojects and ask for assistance. Page protection is not the way to go, as the disruption is really not that great compared to articles which really need protection. Semi-protection is not be used to keep the articles at stable versions, as this is still the encyclopedia that everyone can edit. Sorry to be not more helpful. Lectonar (talk) 18:05, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[edit]

Hi, (talk · contribs) is still disruptively editing. Could you please block them? Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:25, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

@Anarchyte: Done at 12.24 :). Cheers. Lectonar (talk) 12:28, 24 June 2016 (UTC)


Hi Lectonar,
I just noticed you deleted Fritz-Kola per WP:G11. Would you please take a look at the last version and clarify how this article was "exclusively promotional and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic"? Given the fairly good article at de:fritz-kola and the large number of language versions, it is hard to believe that there was no properly sourced content that could have been copyedited. Please ping me, so I don't miss your answer. Thanks, --PanchoS (talk) 18:57, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

@PanchoS:...actually I said it was G11 and A7...should have been the other way round. Content was: "Fritz-Kola is a soft drinks company from Hamburg, Germany. They are mainly known for their high caffeine cola and lemonades with a caffeine amout of about 25mg per 100ml. Coca Cola and Pepsi has a caffeine amount of about 10mg per 100ml. Fritz-Kola was founded in 1973 when the Fritz brothers (Herman and Karactacus) had a disagreement with their former employers Munchen-Soften-Trinken over the branding on their newly invented product. Karactacus died in 2005 following a fatal sneezing accident, since when Herman has taken total control of the company." + a link to the company's website. Unsourced and tagged as such. Probably the company-link and the comparison to the main brands was the cause I used G11, but I actually do not remember. No problems if you want to work on it; I can easily restore the article. Lectonar (talk) 19:20, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

List of WWE pay-per-view events[edit]

Hi. I noticed you put a full protection on this page. I've been an editor on that page for years and have been clearing it of vandalism any chance I get. A fully protected page doesn't do anybody any good. As it stands right now there are several things on the page that are incorrect that need to be changed. Most notably the number of PPV events should be 322, not 310. Not sure who changed that. Semi-protection to eliminate IP users and vandals is much more acceptable and practical. Thank you. OldSkool01 (talk) 20:24, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

I have protected because of a request at requests for protection; as it was, there was indeed....let's call it slight disagreement about the content. Communication by edit-summary is never helpful for any side, so all parties are invited to use the article's talk-page to have a nice talk about sources and content. Cheers. Lectonar (talk) 20:49, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

IP disruption[edit]

While I greatly appreciate the effort, blocking a chronic IP-hopper (without a range block) doesn't seem to be an effective solution. A little history on that editor. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 22:31, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

With all due respect, but a range-block is not possible with the range of IPs involved, semiprotecting all articles he targets seems like shooting with cannons at sparrows...and so sometimes playing whack-a-mole is the only solution left. Lectonar (talk) 06:32, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
I agree that there isn't a perfect solution. I hope the vacation time is awesome. Best regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 18:01, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 August 2016[edit]

The Signpost: 18 August 2016[edit]

The Signpost: 06 September 2016[edit]

Extended confirmed protection[edit]

Padlock-blue.svg Hello, Lectonar. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

  • Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
  • A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.
Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:47, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 September 2016[edit]

The Signpost: 14 October 2016[edit]