This user has administrator privileges on the English Wikipedia.

User talk:NeilN

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


Information.png
Unless I specify otherwise, any uninvolved admin may undo any of my admin actions without checking with me first if they feel my input isn't necessary. NeilN
Information.png
If you feel that I have reverted an edit or issued a warning in error, please let me know. I am human, and I do make mistakes. Please don't interpret an error on my part as a personal attack on you. It's not, I promise. I ask you to simply bring it to my attention; I am always open to civil discussion. Thank you. NeilN
The Signpost
27 January 2016

Contents

Please protect Cho La incident, Capitals00 is back vandalizing that page again[edit]

Hello admin please protect the page Cho La incident.

--162.74.52.147 (talk) 17:00, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Hate speech posted on Tommy Sotomayor article[edit]

This editor has been posting hate speech on the Tommy Sotomayor article, as seen in the second link:

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tommy_Sotomayor&diff=prev&oldid=690585101

And this editor has also been vandalizing the article as well:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/100.33.36.252

Neptune's Trident (talk) 23:30, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Upgraded PC protection to semi. --NeilN talk to me 17:16, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Church of Saint Sava[edit]

Renew PC? --George Ho (talk) 07:41, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Not with one revert in the last month. --NeilN talk to me 17:18, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Please See Talk:Jeff Brown (entrepreneur and investor)[edit]

Please see WP:OUTING work by user SRepetti on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jeff_Brown_%28entrepreneur_and_investor%29 Thanks SelgeBrown (talk) 15:06, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Libel issue:[edit]

Hello; I'm not a regular user and probably made a mistake of not including the point reached about the "controversies section" of the talk page of Aziz Sancar. The dispute was taken to discussion page to solve the dispute; I've added the portion to talk page; can you help with the matter? Thanks Mulkhan (talk) 20:40, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Mulkhan, actually I helped by protecting the page and not blocking you for edit warring. --NeilN talk to me 21:32, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

André Marin[edit]

Hey Neil. CheckersBoard is again making inept edits to the André Marin page: [1]. This edit is redundant to content that's already on the page under the "Office complaints" subsection. Also makes no sense why this is in a new section when the content is about his time as ombudsman. FuriouslySerene (talk) 20:45, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

FuriouslySerene, inept is right. Reverted. --NeilN talk to me 21:37, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Neil. I don't think the community should have to constantly police the page from this editor, perhaps some sanctions are in order if he/she continues with the COI/inept editing. FuriouslySerene (talk) 14:52, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Cemile Sultan[edit]

Vandalizm You removed her descendants

Sources here https://archive.org/stream/GenealogyOfTheImperialOttomanFamily2005#page/n13/mode/2up — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nalanidil (talkcontribs) 22:10, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Nalanidil, I strongly suggest you read what is not vandalism. Your document is not a reliable source: "This genealogical study is the first publication of our family association..." --NeilN talk to me 22:27, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but the other SO CALLED sources of the article from Mahfiruz, Halime Sultan and so on...is also Not reliable source. It's a selfmade story from the User Retrieverlove, This user always wrote Circassian noble and relations to all woman from different cettury. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nalanidil (talkcontribs) 22:30, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Why are this Book are not a reliable source ? This was made by the member of the former Ottoman Dynasty https://archive.org/stream/GenealogyOfTheImperialOttomanFamily2005#page/n13/mode/2up — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nalanidil (talkcontribs) 22:33, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Nalanidil, no peer review, no editoral oversight, no academic acceptance indicated. I could write up a book claiming my ancestors and current relatives are members of the British peerage and it would be about as reliable. --NeilN talk to me 22:38, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

ok, than all selfmade Historians like here in Wikipedia as this Retrieverlover who created nonsense articles about the womans in the ottoman harem is more trustworthy? there also no any reliable sources...OMG...No...

Nalanidil, random functionaries in the Turkish government are also not reliable sources. --NeilN talk to me 23:00, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Evader[edit]

I believe this might be another one User:166.171.123.86. -- GoodDay (talk) 00:34, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Fragment semi[edit]

There were also lots of other edits that stack from the vandalism from October 6th 2015. Still then, no one had EVER noticed but the IPs. That is a significant amount of disruption. Looks like socks to me. 115.188.191.246 (talk) 06:25, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

No, it's really not. It was a brief spate of vandalism occurring over a month ago. The page won't be protected because of that. --NeilN talk to me 06:58, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Criticism of the Israeli government EW[edit]

[2]. VQuakr (talk) 06:40, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

IP editor you blocked back causing trouble[edit]

86.25.147.52 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is back after being blocked. I just reverted some very annoying vandalism of theirs on the Battletanx article; changing release dates so they don't match the source given. Seems they're also forcing through earlier edits on other articles where they were previously reverted. Eik Corell (talk) 14:36, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Eik Corell, blocked 3 months. --NeilN talk to me 14:40, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Re reverting this[edit]

this last example of what was a serial reverting or blanking without talk page participation over several articles, which was then sanctioned a few minutes later for edit warring, I wonder if this can be reverted without my falling on the IR tripwire? The source introduced Michael Sells has been discussed on the talk page: there seems to be no substance in the objections, there is nothing controversial about that scholar -and the edit was the kind of drive-by support revert which plagues the I/P area. I think it vandalism, because it was so blind, that the editor even elided totally uncontroversial fixes to the bibliography, like authorship links, merely, I assume, because I did them. Thanks for your consideration.Nishidani (talk) 15:27, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Nishidani, I wouldn't revert. Make your case on the talk page and see if someone agrees. This also pushes the currently blocked editor to respond instead of just reverting when the block expires (assuming their revert is undone within the next couple days). --NeilN talk to me 15:47, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Quite correct,and I won't revert but there is no point in arguing this because there is no argument to be made that would justify drive-by removal of academic sources by specialists in the fields. The source though of impeccable scholarship is of the kind disliked at sight. The argument was summed up by this exchange:
User:No More Mr Nice Guy asked Where's Zero, who demands only the very best sources for historical articles?
And User:Zero0000 replied to the effect that it was the best source around
There should be some rule that disallows drive-by removal of sources of such high quality, esp. by edit warriors who never address the talk page. They plague that area of wiki. Still, your call is technically correct, even though the blocked editor is an obvious sock, though I can't prove it, and they are even more unamenable to rational persuasion than the average editors in that abandoned area, so talking to them is pointless, or rather a formality required by our protocols. Thanks.Nishidani (talk) 17:15, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
One final point before I drop this. I suggest the page be locked as it stands. A revert war has begun, and while 3 editors have restored the last version as I left it, they had legitimate reasons for at least a partial revert, because the 3 reverters named below are consistently removing material that has nothing to do with Michael Sells, since they cancelled not only yesterday's material, but tweaks I made to take into account talk page objections, and edits made to fix errors on the page or provide uncontroversial links. I.e. they elided this,this,this, this,this,a spelling correction, for God's sake!,this,this, an authorlink, bibliographical corrections, this,this and some others, none of which have anything to do, despite the edit summaries, with the contested source.To me, this reads as though the objection is not to Michael Sells, but to my editing that page, and thus is not policy based, but personal.
I.e.,
These are behavioural problems because all 3 drive-by editors are removing totally innocuous fixes like (a) my correcting the wrong publication date (2011 =2010); (b) my addition of the full title for Hitler’s Shadow; (c)reverting the delinking the second reference to Philip Mattar, and Zvi Elpeleg, since they are linked up page;(d)reverting my bibliographical links to Peter Beaumont, Israel Gutman, David Kenneth Fieldhouse, Gudrun Krämer, Klaus-Michael Mallmann, Moshe Pearlman (e) reverting even the most innocuous correct of the name of fr:Eric Rouleau to Érik Rouleau; (f)reverting my correcting of Joso to Jozo in Jozo Tomasevich and then delinking it. I feel a certain responsibility since I wrote most of the page, and I regard periodic fixes and minor improvements, wholly uncontroversial, to be part of my work here. None of these 3 editors has ever added a drop to that 200,00kb page, All three have automatically elided even the spelling and link corrections, without examining the text, nor addressing the talk page. The provisonal consensus on the talk page User:Pluto, User:Zero0000, and myself against two other editors who have never participated significantly in the composition of the page, says Sells fits the RS criteria, and yet the edit summaries by the reverters says we must gain consensus? The whole procedure in this shenanigans has no resemblance to normal rational wiki protocols on editing practice.Nishidani (talk) 20:29, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Somehow, Nishidani missed the following "drive by editors", who also reverted without discussion:
Some casual observer of this might come to the conclusion that this is simply because those drive-by reversions were to Nishdani's favorite version, but surely that can't be it - as such one-sided, misleading and tendentious appeal on an administrator talk page should be grounds for a swift topic ban. So what do you suppose caused it? As far as I can tell, Wikipedia policy is WP:BRD - Nishidnai introduced a bold change, it was challenged and reverted. Now we are supposed to be discussing it , seeking consensus for inclusion. Instead, we have Nishidani's supporters using their numerical advantage to force their favored but contested version into the article w/o discussion, apparently with some tacit approval from adminstrators. Bad Dryer (talk) 23:21, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Bad Dryer, please note I addressed both sides in my talk page post. --NeilN talk to me 03:49, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Just to get the record straight - here (I/P) even the 'abc' gets disordered by chat - when the claim is made that

'Somehow, Nishidani missed the following "drive by editors", who also reverted without discussion',

the editor is ignoring the fact that I mentioned them above:

A revert war has begun, and while 3 editors have restored the last version as I left it,they had legitimate reasons for at least a partial revert

I.e. (a) I oppose mindless revert wars (b)unlike those 3, you and the other two did not examine what you were doing,to distinguish reverting Sells from reverting my corrections of spelling errors, wrong dates, and my fixing of personal links. The editors you mention restored my later tweaks, which are not imputable or controversial, and thus their restorations were of material elided by careless automatic reverters. This whole episode exhibits all the pathologies of that area. No research, no examination of the merits of each edit, false edit summaries, but mere mechanical reverts of contributions on sight out of dislike.Nishidani (talk) 08:04, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Possible sock at Amaninder Singh (director)[edit]

Hi Neil, I have been trying to improve this article. There is a "new" editor of just a few days who made his third edit at wikipedia by putting a PROD on Amaninder Singh (director). I thought that was a bit curious so I searched the article subjects name. I came up with a SPI page here. [3] Please scroll to 21 July 2015 and look at the bolded section. Do you think this new 10 edit editor could be a sock? His contribs are here. [4] I saw your name in the report I found, so I thought I might ask you about this. I hope you might have time to look this over and let me know how to sort it. Zpeopleheart (talk) 06:18, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Zpeopleheart. The articles was created by a sockpuppet of the editor you linked to. Given that there were no substantial improvements to the article by other editors, I have deleted it as a WP:G5. If you think you can substantially improve it, I will restore a copy to your user space for you to work on. --NeilN talk to me 06:38, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
I wold appreciate that if you would do that. I have been doing some research about the article subject, and I hope to improve it to where I can show notability so I could add it back to the main space at sometime. Thanks so much for your time and help! Zpeopleheart (talk) 06:44, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Zpeopleheart, now at User:Zpeopleheart/Amaninder Singh (director). --NeilN talk to me 06:54, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Again, thanks so! You are quite nice! Zpeopleheart (talk) 06:57, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Irreligion by country[edit]

After your block of 217.22.190.233 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), 141.8.61.233 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) continues his disruptive editing and edit warring [5]. It looks like block evasion to me. Thanks JimRenge (talk) 19:53, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

JimRenge, up to 1 month now. --NeilN talk to me 20:15, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
217.22.190.233 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) continues to evade his block. Thanks JimRenge (talk) 07:54, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Blocked, reverted. --NeilN talk to me 14:57, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Reeves.ca[edit]

CounterTime and Reeves.ca are both new accounts, both are now actively and simultaneously editing the Jizya article, and CounterTime is signing off on Reeves.ca talk page with no content, as if it is CounterTime's talk page, after first wiki edit by Reeves.ca. There is an IP account in the middle of their Jizya edits. Is this unusual? RLoutfy (talk) 03:08, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

G8s[edit]

Was tagging redirected talk pages and one actual talk page. One has to follow the redirect and then go back. Sorry. Legacypac (talk) 09:34, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Bill Cosby[edit]

The Judy Huth case is extremely well-sourced in the sub-article as is all the other content that is summarized in the opening paragraph. I don't understand the issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdude04 (talkcontribs) 15:10, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Mdude04, did you read my post here? --NeilN talk to me 15:12, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes. Please explain to me why it is correct that there are no other citations in that entire opening paragraph. It looks weird to only source the child sexual abuse claim.. Mdude04 (talk) 15:30, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Mdude04, we're making simultaneous posts. [6] :-) --NeilN talk to me 15:33, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Keep an eye on this IP[edit]

User talk:216.207.69.66, this IP is doing the same thing [7] that got them blocked a month ago. I gave an 4IM warning. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:25, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Knowledgekid87, blocked 2 months. Thanks for keeping a lookout. --NeilN talk to me 16:32, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Welcome, looking at it now I just saw all the edits made (More than just the one). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:33, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Portal:Current events/2015 November 17[edit]

That page is a frequently edited page. It's not a good idea to enact full protection on it for an extended period of time - rather, one should be keeping watch and lifting the protection as soon as the situation is resolved. I hope you understand now. Samsara 19:01, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Samsara, I understand why you put the indef on the page but don't agree with that technique. I thinks it's better to protect heavily edited pages for a short period of time and then block the edit warriors if they resume, even if the SPI isn't handled yet. I handled the SPI because I was around and familiar with the matter. Other admins would have probably looked at the mess and moved on, leaving the SPI open for an extended period of time. --NeilN talk to me 19:11, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
I was aware that you had agreed to look at the SPI and did not expect you to take long in doing so. Was I wrong? Samsara 19:13, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
And just to be absolutely clear about that - I was aware of all those facts well BEFORE the user messaged me about them. Samsara 19:15, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Samsara, probably a misunderstanding. I was advising the IP on how to write a SPI report so it wouldn't get rejected for lack of evidence. I didn't intend to look at it (at least not immediately) until I saw you fully protected the page and decided to get off my butt. As it is, the diffs the IP provided are not that convincing and the report could still have been rejected. I had to do a more in-depth investigation to see socking. --NeilN talk to me 19:23, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Alright, well thanks for looking at it in such short order then, so that the page could be unprotected in a timely manner. Regards, Samsara 19:26, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Insults[edit]

So how long are we supposed to wait for someone to finally get around to mentioning that all of the insults are not okay? Abel (talk) 23:03, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

@Id4abel: If you're referring to things like "fanboy words" and "fanboy type lists" - these are hardly terms that deserve admonishment. --NeilN talk to me 01:20, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Now I see why there are so many words written about why women and other people who identity with other underrepresented groups feel unsafe joining this community. Abel (talk) 01:47, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
@Id4abel: This statement does nothing to help your cause. --NeilN talk to me 01:55, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
@NeilN: I do not have a cause. I just learned that editors insulting other editors is acceptable behavior as long as the people doing the insulting avoid key words. That was useful to learn, sad, but life can be like that at times. Abel (talk) 02:05, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

TAKE ISIS OFF WIKIPEDIA.ORG[edit]

TAKE IF OFF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Removeisisfromthegrid (talk) 04:58, 18 November 2015 (UTC)Removeisisfromthegrid

[1] [2] [3]

@Removeisisfromthegrid: While I sympathize, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and will have articles on all notable organizations like the KKK or the Taliban. --NeilN talk to me 05:03, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
That, and WP:Wikipedia is not censored.--Mr Fink (talk) 05:06, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ www.ora.tv/offthegrid/article/2015/11/17/opparis-anonymous-takes-down-5500-isis-twitter-accounts-isis-responds/
  2. ^ http://www.ora.tv/offthegrid/article/2015/2/11/grid-anonymous-takes-isis
  3. ^ http://www.techinsider.io/the-ways-anonymous-could-wage-war-on-isis-2015-11

DIAFYT[edit]

Hi Mr. Neil,,

I would like you to reconsider the deletion procedure since it is a commercially usable name.

This is not a generic name. hence may be considered.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suxus ventures (talkcontribs) 05:54, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Suxus ventures, I'm not the one who put the article up for deletion. I, however, have unfortunately blocked you as you haven't put in for a user name change as requested. --NeilN talk to me 06:10, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Suggestion[edit]

Filing here Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Swarop9_reported_by_User:Vin09_.28Result:_.29 is appropriate or it should be in WP:ANI?--Vin09 (talk) 06:25, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Vin09, it needs to go to ANI as you're not reporting edit warring. --NeilN talk to me 06:33, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. I reported Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Chandrala at this place.--Vin09 (talk) 06:36, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
@NeilN:Could you address Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Chandrala?--Vin09 (talk) 12:23, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Found a sock[edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Syed_Ali_The_Muslim is almost certainly https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Humanidk per WP:DUCK 65.209.62.115 (talk) 12:34, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I believe you're right. Blocked. --NeilN talk to me 15:07, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

hmmmmmm[edit]

that hart you n you know why cuz your the failure person who can not do anything and can not do a good thing for people n become a hero so you use your bullshit time to disturb people and you find the batter way to do this kind of thing is wikipedia your fail person and that why you wanna show off is your right but remainder your not a right and can not be a good that way — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.253.25.252 (talk) 15:25, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Yay, me? --NeilN talk to me 15:34, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Nothing like a well-written stream of consciousness to boost your self-esteem. LjL (talk) 15:42, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Blank AfC CSD sanity check[edit]

Hi NeilN, could you just sanity check something for me? I've been going through a couple of the AfC categories trying to clean up old, rejected as blank and rejected as test articles for creation, and don't really know what CSD to use for a blank AfC. I'm going with G6 (non-controversial maintenance) at the moment - does that work? See Draft:AyandaThandanani for an example Face-smile.svg samtar {t} 20:57, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

samtar, yes, I would go with a G6 for anything that's more than a couple months old. --NeilN talk to me 21:02, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Wonderful, thanks for that :) apologies for filling up the G13 backlog as well! Face-smile.svg samtar {t} 21:06, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
samtar, 117 pages up for speedy deletes. I've seen longer backlogs :) --NeilN talk to me 21:09, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Full move protection of templates[edit]

Was the full move protection of {{Db-meta}} and {{Infobox racehorse}} intentional? Alakzi (talk) 22:00, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Alakzi, I only adjusted the edit protection (as requested) and did not touch the move protection. Do you want me to drop it to template editors and admins? --NeilN talk to me 22:04, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Oh, right. Well, I can't think of any reason to forbid TEs from moving either page (though I'd not think to move Db-meta without prior discussion, especially), so I suppose that'd be good. Alakzi (talk) 22:10, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Alakzi, done. --NeilN talk to me 22:13, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Curious where the request was made? I keep an eye on infobox racehorse and didn't hear word that moving it was a potential problem (?) (We moved it quite a while ago to the current title... just wondering if there is a drama that I didn't know about; not that I really am in the mood for drama right now, more like avoiding it...). Montanabw(talk) 23:40, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
@Montanabw: Ugh, that template was moved around a lot. Tracking this down, moves were limited to admins in September 2010 and that protection stuck through all subsequent moves. --NeilN talk to me 23:53, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
We folks at the equine projects moved it with consensus to its current name a while back and I do recall some drama of someone moving it around or something a few months later, I was just wondering if there was some new drama recently. (Often, wikipedia project space drama is totally off the radar of article space editors...) Montanabw(talk) 01:30, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you![edit]

Cup-o-coffee-simple.svg Thank you for stopping that guy who was posting disgusting videos on User talk:GeneralizationsAreBad! Eteethan (talk) 01:44, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
I second that. Thanks again. GABHello! 01:59, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
I third, fourth and fifth it!! One way and another it has been a busy day for you N. Thanks for all that you do. MarnetteD|Talk 02:06, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
It was a quiet day up until now! --NeilN talk to me 02:15, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Better make that "sixth." GABHello! 02:34, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for all the work you do. I have a feeling this guy will strike again...Eteethan(talk) 02:38, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry[edit]

I'm sorry Tsarisco (talk) 03:17, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Administrator Barnstar Hires.png The Admin's Barnstar
Thanks for your help with that IPv6 range earlier. You are awesome! Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 04:09, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Diannaa, hope you had a relaxing yoga class. --NeilN talk to me 04:40, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
It was! I am off work this week and will be going to yoga again in the morning. So glad you were around to help with the range block. Best, -- Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 04:43, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

direct democracy ireland[edit]

user(neiln) i have used reliable sourced material to update the Direct Democracy ireland page and it have been reverted back to the original there is clearly a conflict of interest with user snappy and murry1975. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Railsparks (talkcontribs) 17:58, 19 November 2015 (UTC) and now goaRailsparks (talk) 19:33, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Article : Morocco[edit]

Hi I don't know if you read the recent modifications of this article, but just the last time, a user removed the citations related to the " ethnic groups" and put some totally absurd and false informations without even putting citations to approve his/her claim, and then went to "native language" and removed term "Hassaniya" the native language of the Moroccans living in the South of Morocco and in Western Sahara and changed the term "Moroccan darija" with "Arabic" ignoring the fact that "Arabic" isn't a moroccan native language. I do totally respect other Wikipedien views on this subject but I think they need to put informations with citations not removing informations and citations without replacement. I don't really know what this is called but for me it's pure vandalism and this is why I think that this article need a full protection at least for one month, thanks. Tsarisco (talk) 23:30, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Tsarisco, this does not look like vandalism but rather a content dispute. You will have to engage the other editor on the article's talk page. --NeilN talk to me 23:38, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello again did you read the section related to "ethnic groups" he removed all the citations without replacing them and put some informations not verifiable because they weren't sourced , long before the series of vandalism a user put this just after the tittle "ethnic groups" don't you think that when putting an information it should be sourced ? Tsarisco (talk) 00:04, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

ethnic_groups = Tsarisco (talk) 00:05, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Tsarisco, again, bring this up on the article's talk page and/or warn the editor for adding unsourced content to the article. We're not fully protecting an article (let alone for a month) because of one editor. And you seriously need to use the "Show preview" button before posting. You are now affecting other editors' posts. --NeilN talk to me 00:13, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Unsourced edits from Fodbold-fan[edit]

Could I get you to make good on a warning you left on this user's talk page about a month ago? In the intervening month Fodbold-fan has received a week-long block and two further warnings for adding unsourced material to articles, and yet the behaviour persists (most recently at Rheda Djellal where the claim that he has played for RFC Seraing is unverified.) I have already reported the matter to WP:AIV where it was promptly ignored, probably because the edits in question aren't actually vandalism, which is why I'm coming to you with this directly. Thank you. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:54, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Sir Sputnik, isn't that fact present in here? --NeilN talk to me 00:05, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

If it is, I'm not seeing it on my end. This is what I'm seeing (copy/paste /w line breaks added after the fact):

2015/2016 Racing Mechelen THD ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
2013/2014 Grimbergen THD 180 5 3 2 3 0 0 1 0 0
2011/2012 Excelsior ERE 95 2 0 2 0 4 0 0 0 0
A word search for "Seraing" returns "Phrase not found". Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:39, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Sir Sputnik, sorry, I gave you the wrong link. It's the other one. --NeilN talk to me 14:53, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough. I'm not sure how I managed to miss that. We all make mistakes I guess. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:07, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Chicago Fire Soccer Club[edit]

Renew PC? --George Ho (talk) 02:56, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Cemile Sultan (again)[edit]

Why you are changend the children and descendants of her? If you cangend her children and descendants than you should removed from all ottoman sultans, princes etc the descendants ? Isn't it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nalanidil (talkcontribs) 03:07, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Nalanidil, again, you are not using a reliable source. --NeilN talk to me 04:55, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

If the own Family is not a reliable source, so the whole biography of her is witout any reliable source sorry...you should deletet all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nalanidil (talkcontribs) 20:05, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Nalanidil, that article has independent sources. --NeilN talk to me 20:10, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Remind[edit]

Could you check User_talk:NeilN#Suggestion. Reminding you if you might have not seen.--Vin09 (talk) 05:04, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Short blocks[edit]

Hi, could I ask you to revisit some of your blocks. As you know, a very persistent troll is systematically vandalising 50 or so articles and user pages, and harassing dozens of users. Other admins have given either indef blocks or at the very least one week. Your blocks of 36 hours let the troll resume from previous IPs, as is happening right now with 81.95.151.207. Jeppiz (talk) 10:00, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Links:
Johnuniq (talk) 10:18, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
The IP was blocked while I was posting the above. Johnuniq (talk) 10:19, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, one IP of the user was blocked but several other IPs of the same user have received very short blocks and are already unblocked, for example 91.233.116.79 (talk · contribs), 189.196.129.102 (talk · contribs), 192.71.213.26 (talk · contribs), all of whom belong to the same troll and were given much shorter blocks than the other 20-30 IPs the troll uses. Jeppiz (talk) 11:05, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Jeppiz, if someone rapidly hops IPs like this person does, I assume they're using throwaway IPs that are assigned randomly. If they return to the same IP, the next block is much longer. --NeilN talk to me 14:50, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
NeilN, if I've understood DeCausa right (as he's been harassed much longer) this person seem to reuse some IPs even though hopping rapidly. Jeppiz (talk) 14:57, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
No I haven't noticed that. I don't know whether that happens or not. DeCausa (talk) 15:01, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Even if someone can re-use an IP it does not help to block it a long time if they have more IPs to use. Blocking it a long time can result in innocent users being denied access, while not preventing the troll who has more IPs. If the IPs are in a range and contribution history over that range shows it to be the same person then it may be the one person in control of a range of IPs then a range block may be useful. HighInBC 15:05, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

HighInBC, the IPs are scattered in this case. It's similar to Vote (X) for Change. If he reuses an IP, admins usually block for three months. --NeilN talk to me 15:11, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
On that, this is the first time this person posted on my talk page. It was a proxy - and I noticed that the admin blocked the range for a year apparently on the basis that the range was acting as a proxy. Is there an exception to the collateral damage problem where it's a proxy range being used i.e. by definition if it's a proxy range they most likely are up to no good and will block for longer. Are ranges identifiable as purely being used for proxy purposes? DeCausa (talk) 15:19, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
DeCausa, see WP:NOP. Kuru will need to answer your question about the other ranges as I'm not familiar with open proxies. --NeilN talk to me 15:24, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
The person's IPs are randomly from any location in the world - except a batch of dynamic IPs from Emirates Telecom in Dubhai which I've assumed are his actuial "home" IPs. Doesn't WP:NOP mean that all his non-Emerirates Telecom IPs should have long block's per Kuru's block whilst the "normal" short ones reserved for the Dubhai IPs? DeCausa (talk) 15:34, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
DeCausa, they might not be all open proxies. There needs to be a determination for each IP used. --NeilN talk to me 15:46, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Ban evading sock at AN/I on my talk[edit]

Hi NeilN, could you put this sock back in the draw? They made this edit restoring what the previous sock did to my talk Face-smile.svg samtar {t} 15:36, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

samtar, done. Mentioning him in the above thread probably conjured up some bad mojo. --NeilN talk to me 15:40, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Saying his name three times whilst spinning clockwise should do it... Face-smile.svg samtar {t} 15:48, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) samtar I know that works for the Scottish play but using it in other contexts must be done with care so that you don't conjure up this fellow :-) MarnetteD|Talk 16:06, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Darn, another appeared on my talk page. Looks like you were right MarnetteD! @NeilN: Face-smile.svg samtar {t} 16:16, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
samtar, already blocked. --NeilN talk to me 16:18, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Cheers :) no more Wikipedia rituals for me! 2spooky4me Face-smile.svg samtar {t} 16:22, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

My actions at Metrojet Flight 9268[edit]

Hi NeilN. I would be interested in your take on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Metrojet Flight 9268. --John (talk) 19:17, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Forgot to remove the pending?[edit]

Ah yes, I have seen that Cleopatra article semi-protected indefinately once again. However, I would like to remind you to always remove the pending change protection if the semi-protection is indefinate. It seems that you have forgotten this. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 22:33, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

@Qwertyxp2000: Done, thanks. --NeilN talk to me 02:11, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Please help redirect a duplicate film page[edit]

Hello. I can't seem to figure this out myself. There is a duplicate page on Wikipedia for one film, a Western.

This is the new page that was created:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Django,_A_Bullet_for_You

Could you redirect it to this page, it is the same film, same actors, same director, it just is listed under a different title, thanks:

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

Or could you please DELETE the article in the first link. Which is ever easiest, I just want to avoid confusion. Thanks. Neptune's Trident (talk) 22:35, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Neptune's Trident, you got the redirect link right. You just have to delete everything else. [8] --NeilN talk to me 02:18, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Image Vandalism[edit]

The extreme levels of vandalism using the same image had me wondering: Is there any way the offending image in question could be removed for good? I'm afraid I'm not a technical expert on Wikipedia's file policies, but it was just an idea. GABHello! 01:48, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Hey GAB. Ask an admin to do what was done today and a couple days ago. Add the file name to the WP:BADIMAGE list. --NeilN talk to me 02:13, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Sorry for my ignorance. As I said, I'm not a genius on the technical aspects of Wikipedia. GABHello! 14:55, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
GAB, no need to be sorry. Lots of admins aren't geniuses on the technical aspects of Wikipedia either :) --NeilN talk to me 19:35, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Edit Warring behavior, please take a look[edit]

Sir, currently, on both the following pages: Criticism of Hadith and Hadith, user freeatlastchitchat has started an Edit War. He is not talking on the TP ( Talk:Hadith#Recent_cleanup_of_huge_chunks ) , even though he created the entry, and is now just reverting. I've opened content dispute case as well. This will escalate into a continual edit war if no intervention is made. Please take a look, thanks. cӨde1+6 LogicBomb! 05:31, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Muzaffargarh heating up again[edit]

This looks to me like LanguageXpert warring against himself [9], or perhaps there are many like him. - Kautilya3 (talk) 15:26, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Drunken Email?[edit]

I seem to have sent you an email while inebriated within the last week. Did I? if so, did you treat it with the correct response? I need to know, sorry. -Roxy the dog™ woof 19:30, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Roxy the dog™, yes you did and I did nothing, which seemed to be the response you desired. --NeilN talk to me 19:33, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
A good outcome. thank you. -Roxy the dog™ woof 19:50, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Need a bit of advice[edit]

Hi Neil, You were giving me advice on the Saffron terror page a year ago. (I miss that side of you these days!) Anyway, I need some advice now. I have been working on Jammu and Kashmir and Article 370, both of which have been in quite deplorable state given the importance of these topics. Both of them have to deal with the autonomy granted to Kashmir and how it has been diluted over the years. So, there is a lot of politics involved here. The question is how much of it can go in the Article 370 page, which is ostensibly on a little article in a big constitution? Viewing it that way masks the importance of the issue. Most other Indian Constitution pages have practically no content. But this one will need a lot. So how much of the politics can be put in here? If not here, where else can it go? Also pinging Abecedare and Vanamonde93, if they are around. - Kautilya3 (talk) 22:42, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

My gut feeling is to say that Jammu and Kashmir should be modeled after other high-quality articles about regions, with not much weight given to the conflict, while the article should cover the political disputes around that article (such as various promises to repeal it/strengthen autonomy), and rest of the dispute needs to be confined to Kashmir conflict. However, I've been a dilettante editor for a couple months now, thanks to RL busy-ness. I'll try and get back to normal editing soon. There are an unfortunate number of articles on the topic to wade through, too; Kashmir, Kashmir conflict, Azad Kashmir, Jammu and Kashmir, Article 370. That's probably unavoidable, though, given the complexity of the issue. Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:46, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Well, most articles on States are written by enthusiasts of those States. In contrast, Kashmiris are conspicuous by their absence here. Rather, it is the Indians and Pakistanis who write about them. It is a pity. By the way, you have left out Gilgit-Baltistan, and the history articles on each of the regions. So there are even more articles than you imagined. But, the point is that none of them covers the issue of the autonomy of J&K. If I go by the rule book, Article 370 has to cover what the reliable sources say about the subject, and I have in front of me a 500-page book on it. So this material has to go there, right? - Kautilya3 (talk) 00:52, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi Kautilya3. I'm guessing Article 370 is a particularly contentious or notorious article? Can the content be modeled after Second Amendment to the United States Constitution? --NeilN talk to me 03:44, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Good analogy. I will do that. Thanks! - Kautilya3 (talk) 09:18, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Cho La incident[edit]

Hi NeilN, I see that you protected Cho La incident because of content dispute. Please be aware that the "content dispute" is really about two confirmed sockmasters (who could well be the same person) removing content supported by academic sources and restoring an old version with unreliable, partisan sources. See discussion here. -Zanhe (talk) 20:58, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Zanhe. Who are the confirmed sockmasters? Is there a SPI report? --NeilN talk to me 03:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
See block logs of the two users reverting to old versions: [10] [11]. They had both been blocked for sockpuppetry and other disruptive behaviour (D4iNa4, the user who made the page protection request, was recently unblocked after more than a year). They often back each other up in disputes, and I may file an SPI if I have the time to gather more evidence. -Zanhe (talk) 21:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Assistance requested![edit]

Hi Neil, congratulations! I'm here to trouble you once again! I'm having constant trouble with the persistent promotion and other POV crap at Indian cinema articles. Like, I'm almost certain that I'm dealing with editing rings (not that that surprises me). Currently I've got one editor, Aslishiva who, despite many notes from me about POV content, subjective wording, promotional tone, editorializing, still adds editorial crap like "Prem Ratan Dhan Payo took an excellent opening at the box office all over." I already blocked them once for blatant promotion (in retrospect I should have taken your advice and gotten uninvolved help...which is what I'm doing now. I'm still learning.) and parroting as fact some opinions presented by sources. This editor doesn't seem to get it, and everything's a record in need of immediate reporting! The film made an all time record in Saurashtra curcuit by collecting 5.25 crore (US$770,000) in its extended first week by beating the previous record of Happy New Year. There's no discrimination happening here. They think everything reported is worth including. And although I've had to teach them to capitalize days, they still have trouble" with "saturday" and "sunday".

I also have RAGHUallen who has attracted my attention for plagiarism, unsourced summary of critical response, promotional language, editorials, etc. This user still has a little more rope with me, but I'm getting close to the end. No request for help here, but maybe eyes?

It's frustrating because it seems like as soon as I get one problem editor off the chart, another one pops up and I have to start the education process all over. Are Indian cinema articles covered by the Arbcom discretionary sanctions? I'm guessing no because they're likely not controversial, but maaaan, this world is giving me a shitload of headaches. Your input/help is requested please, sir! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:19, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Cyphoidbomb, no discretionary sanctions I'm afraid. One out of the box suggestion: Get the people at Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force to get together and come up with a content guide for Indian films. Cover how our policies and guidelines apply specifically to Indian movies, cover good sources, cover sources to stay away from, cover style issues (like WP:MOSFILMS) and cover anything else that's a chronic problem. Try to provide Indian specific-film examples but make sure the document is rooted in general policies and guidelines. Try to keep hands off as much as possible when this document is written and get as wide a consensus as possible so you can enforce this consensus as an admin. --NeilN talk to me 03:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
As always, grateful for your feedback. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:15, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
And as if by magic, Raghu was indeffed by Diannaa. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:20, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

My Arbcom candidate preferences[edit]

  • Support: Drmies, Calisber, Opabinia regalis, Keilana, Callanecc, Kelapstick, Timtrent, GorillaWarfare (somewhat)
  • Oppose: Kevin Gorman, Gamaliel, Krill Lokshin, MarkBernstein

--NeilN talk to me 16:11, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Mihir Shah[edit]

Dear Neil, I think we have discussed that case of the proposed deletion of Mihir Shah already and this has again come up. There is another user WikiMadhyaPradesh who is trying to delete the article. I requested for semi protection but I understand when you mentioned that I need to settle it using dispute resolution. I am trying but the other person is not relenting and I do not understand what he has against Mihir Shah. He has again brought up the issue that I have conflicting interest, which I do not. Is there a way, you could please prevent the deletion of the article? It is currently minimal as it is.

Vidhya — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vidhyahere (talkcontribs) 03:19, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Vidhyahere, I declined the proposed deletion earlier. The only way the article can be deleted is after a full full deletion discussion (i.e., no quick deletes). --NeilN talk to me 04:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Ararat arev again[edit]

Thanks for semiprotecting several of his target articles in the past few days. He's now at Akhenaten and Rosetta Stone. A. Parrot (talk) 04:30, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Protected three more. --NeilN talk to me 04:35, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Now Osorkon II and Esoteric Christianity. A. Parrot (talk) 20:54, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
MusikAnimal Any chance an edit filter can stop him instead of protecting a wide range of articles? --NeilN talk to me 21:13, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Khruner suggested the same thing to Doug Weller, who said to ask Favonian, so I'm just pinging all of them to put the discussion in the same place. A. Parrot (talk) 21:23, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes this seems straightforward. Working on it MusikAnimal talk 21:27, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Meanwhile, Psusennes II and Amarna. A. Parrot (talk) 23:35, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes, beside of a IP-range block, his adds are always the same: maybe one who is able to do that, could introduce a rule in ClueBot which can recognize and revert the line. He behaves like a bot, then let a bot fight him. Khruner (talk) 08:28, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
By all means, let the bot do as much of the grunt work as possible – otherwise I'm quite willing to semi-protect every Egyptian god, pharaoh, pyramid etc. Favonian (talk) 17:34, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
He's tweaked his style slightly now: Atum, Benben, Hatshepsut, and Thutmose III. A. Parrot (talk) 04:34, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Latest IP blocked, articles protected. --NeilN talk to me 04:41, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Bennu and Nu (mythology). A. Parrot (talk) 04:53, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Don't forget these two, 166.176.56.41 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · checkuser (log)), and 166.170.50.213 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · checkuser (log)) too.--Mr Fink (talk) 04:55, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Protected. Mr Fink, blocked one. It's no use blocking older ones as the bozo has already moved on. --NeilN talk to me 05:01, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Understood.--Mr Fink (talk) 05:19, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Ennead. A. Parrot (talk) 07:44, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Davefelmer block[edit]

In view of comments posted at User talk:Drmies#Cowboy unblocks, revisited about pings being missed, I am letting you know that I have posted at User talk:Davefelmer again. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:02, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I have just noticed that when I removed my previous post on this, you had already replied here, and I removed your post with mine. I thought I was removing a section with nothing in it except my own message. After all the times I've posted template messages about not removing another editor's talk page post, that is really a bit embarrassing. Confused.png The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:07, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

JamesBWatson, no worries, your edit summary clued me in as to why you deleted. --NeilN talk to me 15:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

IP-hopping blocked user[edit]

Hi. I'm not sure what you can do about it given the IP hopping, but just notifying that since you blocked the user before and then blocked them again due to block evasion, this diff shows they have jumped onto yet another address. LjL (talk) 18:16, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

LjL, blocked yet again. --NeilN talk to me 18:21, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Now sockpuppeting on the talk page of the article originally under contention. LjL (talk) 20:06, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

A cookie for you![edit]

Choco chip cookie.png Tracking cookies are helpful to identify IP-changing users. LjL (talk) 18:39, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Feel free to un-protect if you want to collect a broader range. Acroterion (talk) 19:30, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

IP for you[edit]

79.178.97.55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · edit filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - reported at AIV but is now giving me the ol' one-two personal attack crap. samtar whisper 21:50, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Blocked. --NeilN talk to me 21:54, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Cheers. samtar whisper 21:55, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Neutral position?[edit]

I just made an edit to Barbra Streisand's wiki page -- and nothing that was written was subjective. It is a fact: 1) she has 10 #1 albums on pop charts -- with Broadway Albums, High Ground, Love is the Answer, People, A Star is Born, Guilty (all different genres) 2) she is the only female artist in RIAA top selling artists 3) She and Frank Sinatra were voted: "greatest voice of 20th century"

It appears to me that you are NOT being neutral, in fact, you are being anything BUT neutral. I have listed facts and apparently you don't like them?

Please explain or ask for sources to substantiate things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marco34la (talkcontribs) 00:47, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Marco34la. Much of what you added is already in the article and "What makes Streisand's accomplishment more impressive..." reads like it should be on a fan page, not an encyclopedia. --NeilN talk to me 00:52, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

if that is the line that bothers you, then just take that out. the other info that I added, that you say is already there, would be better in the place where I put it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marco34la (talkcontribs) 00:58, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Marco34la, if you want to rearrange content that's up to you. But you shouldn't add (unsourced) content when there's the same thing three paragraphs down with references. --NeilN talk to me 01:05, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

JDL and Pamela Geller[edit]

Ah, it's extremely common knowledge and I was too distracted to look up a source (that's focused and doesn't wander off into all sort of other topics which most on JDL do). But I did find a few and added one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.162.42.114 (talk) 15:55, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for adding a source. --NeilN talk to me 16:00, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

History of India[edit]

Hi Neil, I think History of India needs attention. It is being attacked by edit-warring IPs. - Kautilya3 (talk) 19:55, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Myanmar vandal[edit]

Hi NeilN - thanks for blocking 111.84.193.160 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). There have been a range of IPs from Myanmar undertaking sophisticated vandalism for the past month or so. Creating fake infoboxes, adding inaccuracies to Singapore and Hong Kong MRT/MTR system articles and railway templates, etc. I have collected some of the IPs below:

I am not sure how this works - is it possible to block a range of IPs to preempt more vandalism? It is really a nuisance and he has been warned many times. Thanks, Citobun (talk) 04:17, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Citobun. I did check if I could block an IP range but I think the rangeblock needed (111.84.193.0/24) would block too many other editors. Have a look. --NeilN talk to me 04:22, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
I understand, thank you. Citobun (talk) 04:27, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

S. P. Jain Institute of Management and Research[edit]

Why are you trying to redo my edits. I have noted your concern. And the list has wiki articles, I am including them in your "noted format", in order to do that I have to bring the original changes back, and then edit it...Why don't you understand that!!! Hope you reply to this as fast as you replied to my edit... — Preceding unsigned comment added by VismayH (talkcontribs) 08:51, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

VismayH, I randomly chose seven names. One had a (puffed up) Wikipedia article. --NeilN talk to me 08:54, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

See, the companies' name are valid, the alumnis have LinkedIn pages, so can I incorporate that? If so, how? These are the list of alumni the college has, it has been carefully selected. THe data is easily available on public forum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VismayH (talkcontribs) 08:59, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Lulu Raghavan: Landor : Here is the link 'http://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/private/person.asp?personId=142098759&privcapId=698805&previousCapId=698805&previousTitle=Landor%20Associates%20LLC'

Here is what is written......Ms. Lulu Raghavan serves as Managing Director of Mumbai Office at Landor Associates LLC and served as its Country Director of Mumbai Office. Ms. Raghavan leads the Mumbai office of Landor Associates and is responsible for overall client and employee satisfaction. Her key clients are Hindustan Construction Company, Mahindra, Taj Hotels Resorts and Palaces, and Tata Global Beverages. As client leader, she plays a vital role in helping her clients create profitable growth by building, leveraging, protecting, and managing their brand assets. she works closely with the consulting and creative teams to ensure a synergy of rigor and creativity in all of Landor’s deliverables. In her more than 10 years at Landor, she worked in the San Francisco, New York, London, and Mumbai offices. She led corporate and consumer branding programs for a wide range of clients, including Alcatel-Lucent, American Express, Dow Corning, Fidelity Investments, Hewlett-Packard, Jet Airways, One&Only Resorts, Panasonic, Samsung, and Sony. she serves as a Member of Landor’s global naming network. Before joining Landor, she served as a Brand Consultant at Ogilvy Consulting in Mumbai. She has a BA in Economics from Davidson College in the United States and an MBA in International Business and Marketing from S.P. Jain Institute of Management and Research in India

So are others if you allow me to make the change. How can you decide which alumni should be included on the college page? ~VismayH — Preceding unsigned comment added by VismayH (talkcontribs) 09:06, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

How do I incorporate your suggestion, without undoing your edit and then working on it? There are notable entities on that table, but you won't even let me do them...You are engaging in edit war, not me!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by VismayH (talkcontribs) 08:56, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

VismayH, the last time you put back the list you bluelinked a company. Notability is not inherited - the person has to have an article. And LinkedIn and corporate profiles are useless. Please read WP:BIO and WP:BLPSELFPUB. Suggest you work on the list in your sandbox. Honestly, you should not be touching the article at all because of your conflict of interest. --NeilN talk to me 09:09, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel_articles_3#General_Prohibition[edit]

This user - Trinacrialucente - is repeatedly violating the restriction. When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 15:51, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Take a look at https://tools.wmflabs.org/supercount/index.php?user=Trinacrialucente&project=en.wikipedia.org&toplimit=10 , for example. Where are you seeing more than 500 edits? When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 16:12, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
When Other Legends Are Forgotten, weird. When I looked at the contrib list and specified 500 edits it showed two pages. It doesn't any more. I'll handle it. --NeilN talk to me 16:18, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Neil, please be aware that the user who made this complaint is perma-blocked editor NoCal100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · SPI confirmed suspected). 2601:14C:0:F6E9:4DAA:D779:8046:F1B3 (talk) 17:26, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello Mr. Anon. We'll see what the SPI says. --NeilN talk to me 17:34, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Neil, please be aware that the above Mr. Anon also posted this. LjL (talk) 23:20, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
@LjL: Obviously not a new editor. Blocked for evading scrutiny. @LjL: Messed up ping --NeilN talk to me 23:26, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
I don't need to be pung, I see everything. LjL (talk) 23:32, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
I need to keep a list of who doesn't want to be pinged. So far it's you and Flyer22. --NeilN talk to me 23:38, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
I was just being silly, you can ping me. LjL (talk) 23:42, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Neil, it's a shame that, like most registered Wikipedians, you don't have a clue about how it works when one edits as an IP. "Evading scrutiny"? Not at all. Every time I turn on the computer, every location I edit from, I get a different number. It has never been my intention to evade scrutiny, and what I do isn't even described by WP:SCRUTINY. (You might want to re-read it before you misuse it again, because it deals with the registration of multiple accounts.) Cheers, 66.87.80.83 (talk) 23:43, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

@NeilN: Please have a look at the ANI report about Trinacrialucente, as there is a DUCK case of someone with an IP like the blocked editor above making just about the same claim. LjL (talk) 17:26, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

LjL, I saw it, just figuring out what to do. For now, I've removed the post. --NeilN talk to me 17:39, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, "they" change IPs a lot... I'm not sure it's a single individual who's developed an affection for me, I think it might be two. They think they are important enough for me to be able to keep track of which is which, but they either aren't, or my brain is too slow to do that (which I'm sure is what they think). LjL (talk) 17:47, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

@LjL: I can tell you first hand (not that you were respectful or courteous enough to ask) that I have much better things to do than WP:HOUND you or use another IP. In fact the only reason that I caught you slandering me here is because I found it odd that YOU started editing pages that I had edited. It would be great if more editors would act like adults to try and settle disputes rather than go behind others' backs and make baseless accusations. How many disputes do you have open now? I think we've all lost count. Maybe one day the admins will get tired of them? Just speculation.Trinacrialucente (talk) 07:08, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Trinacrialucente, pretty sure LjL was not referring to you. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Admin_oversight_required_-_WP:PA.2C_WP:VAN_and_WP:SOCK_suspected_in_Talk:Racial_segregation. --NeilN talk to me 07:13, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

What you are "pretty sure" of is irrelevant since it calls for your opinion-- and judging from the exchange between you and LJL he will no doubt jump to support it. Were I to employ the same tactics as he, I would point out how he just today edited here, shortly after I did https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beta_Israel And you won't see him editing previous to my edits (under his current name anyway). Of course you will say this isn't WP:HOUNDING behavior, just like talking about me on other boards or suggesting that I have been using different IP addresses is not bad behavior. It's all becoming a little too transparent, FYI.Trinacrialucente (talk) 07:27, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Trinacrialucente, all right, let me make this clear - anyone with some common sense would, after looking at the link I posted, see they weren't talking about you. Drop the persecution complex please. --NeilN talk to me 07:36, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Implying someone does not have common sense is not at all civil. How can I make a report against you as an admin for not behaving in a civil manner? Is it the same Arbitration link you designated above or are there separate ones for admins? Trinacrialucente (talk) 07:46, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Trinacrialucente, WP:ANI. You should read WP:BOOMERANG before your report. --NeilN talk to me 07:48, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm sure this individual's pinging me here is not at all a roundabout way to annoy me after I asked them not to post on my talk page... LjL (talk) 15:08, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Stanley Holloway[edit]

Maybe you can tell me what the problem is? 84.92.221.70 (talk) 17:12, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Maybe you'd like to log in and stop harassing Cassianto? --NeilN talk to me 17:14, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

This space reserved for a barnstar[edit]

In the meantime, have a Happy Thanksgiving. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:55, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Admin Barnstar.png The Admin's Barnstar
For all your great assistance. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 20:47, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

PLEASE Help.[edit]

Hello, NeilN. Please delete FAJAR LAZUARDI .. I have tagged it many times for speedy deletion but the tags have been removed many times. I've also opened up a SPI. It has existed for WAY too long. When you reply, please ping me. Thanks, Ethan. Eteethan (talk) 22:16, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Face-smile.svg Thank you. Eteethan (talk) 22:25, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
@Eteethan: Took care of the SPI as well. --NeilN talk to me 22:29, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks again! Got to go to thanksgiving dinner :) --Eteethan (talk) 22:51, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Renew PC for... (26 November 2015)[edit]

...Johan Andersson (game programmer), Dylan Sprayberry? --George Ho (talk) 23:42, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Deleting pages[edit]

Ravna Gora is just a peak and does not separate mountain. When Kamena Gora mountain page exist, why that needed duplicate exist. Debelo Brdo is not a village already mountain and Debelo Brdo village does not exist on this world. Please check it and delete those two pages. Jovan741jov (talk) 02:12, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Jovan741jov, regardless, you did not create these articles so "a page where the author of the only substantial content has requested deletion in good faith" is plainly incorrect. Please read WP:AFD on how to nominate articles for deletion discussion. --NeilN talk to me 04:01, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Asking to Block IP address, 111.84.193.190[edit]

Hi, we have all your edits on 111.84.193.160 which were very disruptive and vandalism, we had been decided to do blocking the IP address user which was not correct to be edited onto Wikipedia Pages.

Today, we will blocked the user 111.84.193.190 immediately.

Unsigned comment by 119.74.47.12 on 27 November 2015 at 14:25

Hi. That IP address is already blocked for a week. --NeilN talk to me 06:30, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Please do not change existing posts. 111.84.193.190 hasn't edited since Nov 21. --NeilN talk to me 16:46, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Asking to block from account making user Rebelwhiteapes, Whitewikiforwhiteviews, and Endwhiteaperule[edit]

I suspect they're all the same person, since they have all made the same edit to different articles that imply as their username states white racism. If it's possible to block the IP from wikipedia or to block that IP from creating accounts, it would help Wikipedia. Dat GuyWiki (talk) 16:42, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Rebelwhiteapes doesn't exist; did you spell it right, Dat GuyWiki? The other two have been blocked. They're obviously the same person, yes, but they don't seem to be here to promote white racism — actually the opposite. And, no, the way Wikipedia works and the way accounts are created, we're pretty much at the mercy of vandals until they get tired. Bishonen | talk 17:00, 27 November 2015 (UTC).
Thanks Bish. Dat GuyWiki, these accounts have been hardblocked which means the underlying IP has also been blocked for a period of time. Unfortunately this person is changing IPs to create new accounts. Please see this. --NeilN talk to me 17:03, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Editing conflict... anyways @Bishonen:, the username is User talk:Repelwhiteapes. @NeilN: Okay, thanks for telling me. Dat GuyWiki (talk) 17:06, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Also, found another one User talk:Westernhipocracy. Dat GuyWiki (talk) 17:08, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Dat GuyWiki, blocked. Will you add it to the Quick SPI report or should I? --NeilN talk to me 17:11, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
@NeilN: Already done, from now on I'll report them there for an admin or you to come by and check on. Also won't add TB here.
Dat GuyWiki, for quick blocks please report to WP:AIV as well. Also, pings/replytos won't work if you don't sign the post and there's no need to ping/replyto an editor on their own talk page (they get a new message notification no matter what). --NeilN talk to me 17:19, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Noted, kind of forgot the part that this is your talk page. Forgot to sign it. Regards, Dat GuyWiki (talk) 17:23, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Warning Deletion Template?[edit]

Since I know you're online, I want to know if there is a template for editors that have vandalized and then blanked their talk page. Do I just undo it, or do I leave it since it's their talk page? Dat GuyWiki (talk) 17:17, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Dat GuyWiki, editors are allowed to remove most things from their talk page per WP:BLANKING. If you have questions after reading that, please ask. --NeilN talk to me 17:21, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

OPEN THE OLD PAGE AGAIN[edit]

My name is Irene Tandry. I don't care about you, your job and your warning to me, but I hate you blocking my account in Wikipedia so that you didn't give second chance to fix the page I made. I ask you, can you open See Me (novel) into the new page so that I describe that page in my own words?

IreneTandry (talk) 20:28, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Replied here. --NeilN talk to me 20:49, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Two Topics - Bayern and your Blatant Disregard for Accurate Information[edit]

FC Bayern official Roster: http://www.fcbayern.de/en/teams/first-team/

So, I'm sick and funking tired of being corrected for ONLY trying to present accurate information. There's the proof. It was included in my edits. And you, for whatever insane reason, have opted to block edits.

What's wrong with the collective Wiki editors that they have no regard for other people's time, especially when things are done legitimately.

This is outrageous. It's like you are all collectively power-hungry sick little children. What gives??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.58.72.94 (talk) 21:43, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

As I said on the talk page, you need to work out this dispute on the talk page without edit warring. --NeilN talk to me 21:50, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Makoura College[edit]

Can you look to edit, i suggest that will be quliafly for RD2 because it seems grossly offensive to me and also it probaly written an attack like creating attack pages which is G10. Can you revision delete a page that User:CockShitter97 wrote it think looking that so long makes me want to vomit. This is breathtaking. --Angry Bald English Villian Man Chat 01:41, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Angry Bald English Villian Man, it's run of the mill vandalism which does not really qualify for revdel. --NeilN talk to me 01:46, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Okay Neil, but Iif i find a revision that is grossly offensive (makes me want to vomit so hard) next time will talk to you immedately and Revdel straght away. It will be a long time unitl find the one that will qulafily for Revdel. Also Neil will give you a beer on Monday from wikilove. --Angry Bald English Villian Man Chat 01:55, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

The increasingly tiresome Wakefield talk page[edit]

Good evening. Quick question, since I know you're familiar with the above-referenced talk page and its recent nonsense -- would I be within guidelines to simply revert this diff, since it's just non-contributory trolling and personal attacks? Not sure what the rules are in these situations. BTW, both this troll and the other one (RealSkeptic) are really begging for a longer block, or even a topic ban, IMHO. Neither is here to improve the encyclopedia, both are POV-pushing to increasingly annoying levels. Thanks, DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 03:18, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

DoctorJoeE, removing that is going to cause drama. The editor in question sometimes lends support to other editors wishing to remove fringe-criticizing sources but is careful not to make these edits themselves. See Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)/Archive_13#Why_is_a_discussion_about_QuackWatch_here.3F for example. I've been watching the discussion and I doubt the article is going to be affected by it as the reverted changes were too radical. --NeilN talk to me 04:35, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, that's why I asked before doing anything. I'll just answer, civilly. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 18:53, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

OPEN THE OLD PAGE AGAIN[edit]

Can you open See Me (novel) again into the new page so that I describe that page in my own words? Because there's the other user closing that page again.

IreneTandry (talk) 12:31, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

IreneTandry, please look at the history of the article to see why your changes were removed. You will need to show the book meets WP:NBOOK. And to edit the article, just follow this link. Perhaps next time don't be so hasty in deleting useful information from your talk page? --NeilN talk to me 16:43, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Coruptia on Google Earth[edit]

Hello again. Around a week ago you blocked them for edit warring on Google Earth (the page used to get repeatedly semi-protected because of Coruptia and some IPs, but now, Coruptia is no longer a "new account" I believe). Fresh out of their block, they did their usual revert again.

I see they now also expanded from their single-article activities to making a bit of a mess on this related article too, although they subsequently self-reverted (but they had also done this silly thing which was immediately reverted by another editor). LjL (talk) 17:35, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

LjL, as you were adding this, I was posting to Coruptia's talk page. I'll see how they respond. --NeilN talk to me 17:42, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. I should know you're usually on top of things, but keystrokes are cheap. LjL (talk) 17:44, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
LjL, yes, please don't assume I've seen something involving my past actions that might suggest they need to be looked at again. Such posts are welcome. --NeilN talk to me 17:51, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

A warning that includes a spammer how-to[edit]

Hi Neil, this discussion (and the related ANI case) tangentially involves you. In this block notice you included a link to a Forbes article editor The Avengers feels teaches spammers how to spam Wikipedia better. He doesn't think that's a great idea. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:48, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

And The Avengers turned out to be a sock of CosmicEmperor. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:16, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Progress of Cho La incident[edit]

Edit warring has taken place again,[12] there is consensus on talk page that it was an Indian victory and only unreliable source was Gyan Publishing that has not been used on the previous version. However, this user[13] continues to game system and this time he removed reliable sourced content by misrepresenting them to be published by Gyan Publishing. What to do? Seems like this user's only purpose is to disrupt this article. D4iNa4 (talk) 10:27, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

D4iNa4, I see no consensus on the talk page. Far from it. What I do see, however, is a good suggestion from Sitush to take the matter to WP:RSN. --NeilN talk to me 16:56, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
That was not my point. Instead I was saying that how an SPA can come and disrupt the whole environment? We have to make rounds of all noticeboards just because of an SPA who's motive is not to contribute to encyclopedia, but make ethnic/nationalist lines. Just like you have seen on Caste-related articles before.[14] What you think about that? D4iNa4 (talk) 14:06, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
@D4iNa4: However Zanhe, who is definitely not a SPA, also supports that edit. They are also concerned about irregularities in your editing. --NeilN talk to me 14:22, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes he happened to support them, although he is watching the article for four years. He had just thought that me and other user are same person, although we are not.[15] D4iNa4 (talk) 14:39, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Renew PC for... (30 November 2015)[edit]

... Leigh-Allyn Baker, American Horror Story: Hotel? --George Ho (talk) 00:10, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard[edit]

I'm moving this discussion here, since you apparently have issues with my conduct and not the discussion on the other board. 1) has the issue been discussed extensively? Yes. That is a subjective term that has no time limit (i.e. 24 hours). There is a such thing as "beating a dead horse". I can see when we are at an impasse and neither side is willing to concede and there is no new information to be had. 2) The instructions on DNN say "Check that a notice was delivered to each person you add to the filing." I assumed I should wait until the automated process occurs before I check as I see the parties are mentioned. If you recommend I put their names manually I can certainly do that. You might want to think about actually being constructive rather than being so passive-aggressive in your administration. You will find people are much more receptive to helpful advice rather than the style you seem to prefer.Trinacrialucente (talk) 05:39, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Trinacrialucente. There were some issues with the filing of the DRN case, but I've fixed them up manually now. Everything's all sorted, and we are waiting for statements from other parties. Myself or another volunteer may take the case in a few days. Thanks, JQTriple7 (talk) 05:51, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Once again, much appreciated. As you can see, the above administrator could have simply pointed out the issues and helped/informed me through them as this was my first time filing...but chose not to. My apologies for any extra work created. Should be an interesting discussion though.Trinacrialucente (talk) 05:55, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Trinacrialucente, you did not add any parties. Also, JQTriple7 is new to DRN (and it seems editing in general) and may have been hasty in accepting the case. Indeed, I see one named participant has already said the case is premature. --NeilN talk to me 06:14, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes...I said I didn't add anyone but was waiting for the process outlined in the description to take place. As I mentioned, I was unaware I was supposed to add anyone manually. Since you opted not to tell me this until I asked how how this was filed incorrectly, once I was informed I said I would add them if that was the process. But just as I started too, I saw that JQTripple had beat me to it. That should be very clear for you now, after the second time of explaining.Trinacrialucente (talk) 06:30, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Trinacrialucente to be clear, filing a dispute gives you the instruction: "Who else is involved in the dispute? Enter them into the below box, without the User:, separated by commas: e.g. Example, Example2. (Please remember to notify them of this discussion)" --NeilN talk to me 06:34, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Just to clarify, I never actually accepted the case. I'm already involved in another case, and I don't take more than one at a time. I merely clerked it, meaning I fixed up the filing issues and notified parties. Accepting/denying the case would be up to a free moderator, not me. JQTriple7 (talk) 06:51, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
JQTriple7, you're right, but I still raise an eyebrow at this. --NeilN talk to me 06:56, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
I may have been a little hasty with my scan over the talk page. Thank you for pointing that out, anyhow. JQTriple7 (talk) 07:02, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Well, I guess I would like to point out that as a "first timer" I would like to have had some guidelines specifying what was an adequate duration or length of a discussion as a guideline of when to post. If the matter could have been resolved on the talk page, I would have MUCH rather taken that route, as my own history will attest (I have resolved several discussions on edits that way). However, as mentioned, this was very evidently an impasse as it deals with religion (as is often the case). In other words, there is no more evidence to be presented and neither side willing to concede. Ergo, this is the next logical step. But once again, if there is some unspoken time or character quota to be met, this should definitely be put into the guidelines so as not to appear subjective.Trinacrialucente (talk) 07:09, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

DRN Case[edit]

Thanks for letting me know. I have removed you from the list of involved editors. JQTriple7 (talk) 05:44, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

iNetClean[edit]

Thanks Neil,

I see that COI is also about possible bias. My attempt to write will remain under criticism, so I will not try again.

Wikipedia environment has changed since I started writing. Threshold of suspicion is lowered. Earlier it felt "keep improving", now it feels "discourage altogether". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sureshkrshukla (talkcontribs)

Hi Sureshkrshukla. You're absolutely right Wikipedia is more strict in discouraging COI editing. However if you want to write about things other than your company or your company's products you would find that is highly encouraged. --NeilN talk to me 06:39, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Technical query[edit]

Is it possible to blacklist this name Komail Shayan from being added to Wikipedia articles. Till now i have reverted 35 edits. --The Avengers 09:21, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

The Avengers, see WP:RAF --Fauzan✆ talk✉ mail 10:55, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
I suspected and I am right https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Komail_Shayan Actually if we count reverts by Cluebot NG and other users, the number might be higher. He only replaces the name of the lead actor and adds his name. It's becoming long term abuse. Materialscientist blocked many IPs, but now even he has stopped blocking IPs as this user uses wide range of Ips. When it stops for five days, i believe it has stopped, but no, he returns again. He is not some school kid, he is an actor. The Avengers 04:01, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
The Avengers, have you taken this to WP:RAF? --NeilN talk to me 04:04, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
How i will put my arguments, many requests are pending. If they ask me give link of all reverts? The Avengers 04:06, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
The Avengers, four or five different IPs should be enough. --NeilN talk to me 04:09, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

does an indefititely blocked editor have the right to post on user pages[edit]

does an indefititely blocked editor have the right to post on other user's talk pages or are such edits by bad users fair game for anyone to remove - even on other's talk pages?--68.231.26.111 (talk) 13:23, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
re: WP:BLOCK EVASION https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Spliff_Joint_Blunt/Archive --68.231.26.111 (talk) 13:37, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RaqiwasSushi&diff=693096024&oldid=693095784 --68.231.26.111 (talk) 13:42, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RaqiwasSushi&diff=693096125&oldid=693096024 --68.231.26.111 (talk) 13:43, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
I see this also has to do with RaqiwasSushi. If you are sure it's a sock, their edits can be reverted on articles and article talk pages. Their edits can also be removed user talk pages. If the user protests, explain to them that it's a sock of a blocked user (be prepared to give evidence). If they still protest, you can either drop the matter or raise it with an admin. RaqiwasSushi, I see you've been asked to edit on someone's behalf. Please be aware of WP:PROXYING. --NeilN talk to me 14:36, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
RaqiwasSushi here. NeilN, have a few questions. (1) Is 178.135.80.151 "indefinitely blocked/banned" as alleged? Unaware if I could have found answer by myself. (2) When can someone post the "WP:Block Evasion" tag on my talk page? (3)Can a user remove information, not posted by said user, from my talk page? ... FYI- Have recommended to 68.231.26.111 we get 3rd party resolution on the content dispute. RaqiwasSushi (talk) 17:45, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

-- NeilN: RaqiwasSushi again. Disagreement with 68.231.26.111 over an item in 11/27 current events and one in 12/1 CE. 68 recommends we discuss it here. (see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RaqiwasSushi&diff=693108829&oldid=693108657)

Ergo.
Summary
The references for my post on glacier retreat were news items about US Glacier National Park which included information from Dan Fagre, a scientist with the U.S. Geological Survey, and about the Himalayas with info from Ann Rowan, who led the field study team from the universities of Sheffield and Leeds. 68.231.26.111 deletes this saying it's propaganda and requires a published peer-reviewed source. [A third reference from New Zealand was added later.]
The item concerned two Belgian astrophysicists' assessment on the RU-24 take-down, concluding both Russia's and Turkey's explanations "be taken with a grain of salt." 68.231.26.111 deletes this one, with revised statement about propaganda and lack of source that's been "pier-reviewed" from a respected organization. FYI-The text for each item is below.
QUESTIONS
  1. Deletion of the 11/27 item is cited as propaganda. I'm guessing political views are involved because it supports international climate change assessments. Scientific findings, not propaganda.
  2. When, if ever, is a peer-review source required for a news item on a current events page?
  3. Same issues with 12/1 item on scientists conclusions about RU-24 shoot-down.
  4. Can a user remove information, not posted by said user, from owner's talk page?
  5. I don't know what resulted in indefinite blocking of users 178.135.80.151 and 94.187.75.183. I, for one, support removing these blocks. More than "their actions attempted to help me." Based on this recent experience, think both handled themselves responsibly and calmly. I didn't see evidence linking either to Xk9 in this reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Spliff_Joint_Blunt/Archive
  6. I don't think 68 intends to do harm.
Appreciate your assistance. If need any information or have questions, please let me know. RaqiwasSushi (talk) 20:16, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Text
(1) Glaciers
Science and technology
Deletion comment
endless polical propaganda crap mascrading as science not suitable for an "encyclopedia" - i read both secondary citations and NO WHERE AND I MEAN NO WHERE is there a statement of any published pier-reviewed source!
(2) Astrophysists - RU 24
    • Two Belgian astrophysicists place in doubt both official accounts of how a Russian military plane was shot down by Turkey. The University of Leuven scientists question if Turkey could have issued 10 warnings in the time the jet was in their airspace, or that an SU-24 jet could have made a 90 degree turn after it was hit. "According to our calculations, it is clear that both Turkey's and Russia's stories should be taken with a grain of salt," they write. (The Independent)
Deletion comment
more propaganda = please explain in no uncertain terms where this item has been published in a "pier-reviewed" and respected organization

RaqiwasSushi, I will not address content issues here but I will address sockpuppetry issues. There is enough behavioral evidence to link the IPs and Xk9 to Spliff Joint Blunt. Please note what I said in the SPI: "I've carefully gone through the editing histories of the master and puppets and there are enough similarities to convince me Xk9 is a sock." That is, I did not just rely on the evidence given but conducted my own investigation. Spliff Joint Blunt is indefinitely blocked so they are not permitted to post anywhere using other accounts or IPs, no matter how "helpful" they are. Article edits can be automatically reverted (except fixes for vandalism and BLP violations) and talk page posts can be removed. You may restore their article edits and talk page posts on your own talk page but be aware that you are now taking responsibility for these edits (for example, if you restore talk page post that is attacking another editor then it will now be seen as your attack) and that many editors take a very dim view of someone constantly restoring the edits of a sockmaster. If you have further questions about this issue, please ask. --NeilN talk to me 20:52, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

NeilN Thanks for the quick response. Where/how/with whom go content disagreements? That's what I've been trying to resolve. Sockpuppetry is very tangential. Not germane to my issues. Except, how can I know a block applies to user I converse with?

I did see your statement, "I've carefully gone through the editing histories of the master and puppets ..." I did not question the Xk9 decision. But did not understand it's connection to 178 and 94. Maybe if I researched more effectively and efficiently I would have, but I did not. BTW, have no idea what BLP is or how one violates it.

Here, attack is a term used in situations where I don't think it applies. Stating the facts about who and what happened is not close to an attack in my world. How it's presented and language used could be. Is it an attack when another user removes my work for what I judge are invalid reasons? Is it an attack when I write what and with whom stuff happened? Only got to this talk page when you kindly linked to me.

I've spent all of today, hours last night, and lot of time since Friday on this but my problem isn't any closer to resolution. I haven't been able to do much of what I've intended. Please send me in the correct direction to resolve these content disagreements. so I can attempt to get an answer to, "Should my items on CE pages have been removed?" Little sleep in the last 2 calendar days, can't say last night since closed PC somewhere @5amET today. Eyes closing again. .... HELP RaqiwasSushi (talk) 22:17, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

RaqiwasSushi, BLP refers to WP:BLP. When I wrote "for example, if you restore talk page post that is attacking another editor..." it was a hypothetical example and not meant to imply this had happened. To get the content dispute resolution process started, I'm going to assume you want to take responsibility for the potential sock's edits and invite 68.231.26.111 to respond here. --NeilN talk to me 00:18, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

3 December 2015

NeilN Wow, did I get off-topic by writing here. I have NO wish "to take responsibility for the potential sock's edits," or get involved in anything dealing with sockpuppets. How users are classified (sock, etc.) is of zero interest to me. Like anyone else, that changes if a "sock" is destructive. I expect whatever Wikipedia has set up takes care of things, known or not even thought of, that could do harm. ... What I need is help from someone/thing elsewhere that resolves my problem. To cap:
Should these two items from current event pages be restored? Secondary questions involve comments about propaganda and peer-review. Need a third party to help. (Presently, my options seems to be limited to restoring items that will probably be reverted, or to drop the issues. I will not do something that has edit war potential. Dropping these two items puts off today's problem, with hope it never happens again, i.e., "kick the can down the road." That doesn't work either. I need to know.)
Appreciate any advice on where/how/what/with whom to get decisions/resolution on the above. Thanks for your time. RaqiwasSushi (talk) 18:50, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
The IP has provided reasons for reverts. Have you answered them? --NeilN talk to me 22:21, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Hey NeilN. A link at the top of this page got me to WP:DRR RaqiwasSushi (talk) 23:32, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
P.S. I don't understand your question. What IP? Where? RaqiwasSushi (talk) 23:32, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
RaqiwasSushi, in a post above you listed the deletion comments the IP provided when deleting the material. Have you addressed those comments? --NeilN talk to me 23:37, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Will do third party referral tonight. IP posted on my talk page after reading my 18:50 post here. Replied and advised will refer at 11 pm ET. Contest applicability of explanations included at revert time, i.e., first 3 questions in my list (second post though unsigned, above your 20:52, 2 December 2015 comment). Thanks.
BTW, a good friend is publishing a series of children's books entitled "The Sock Kids." http://www.amazon.com/The-SOCKKIDS-Help-Ben-Franklin/dp/0991154193/ref=pd_rhf_ee_s_cp_1?ie=UTF8&dpID=51Epwq52FuL&dpSrc=sims&preST=_SL500_SR108%2C135_&refRID=0ZTPKM7XXVVJXJ7ZTWBD :) RaqiwasSushi (talk) 00:08, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
LOL! "Where Do Our Missing Socks Go?" They all come to Wikipedia!! SFriendly.svg --NeilN talk to me 00:13, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
NeilN FYI: Request made here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Third_opinion#Active_disagreements,
Text:
"Disagreement about two current event postings, one on 11/27, the other 12/1, uploaded by me and reverted by another user contending each is "propaganda' and that each isn't properly sourced without one that is "published in a 'pier-reviewed' and respected organization" 13:58, 4 December 2015 (UTC) Update: Discussion: (1) Summary of dispute--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:RaqiwasSushi#Summary_of_current_events_dispute (2) Current event comments, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portal:Current_events/2015_November_27&action=history, (3) Current event comments, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portal:Current_events/2015_December_1&action=history; (4) one reply, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:RaqiwasSushi#as_per_your_request; and, (5) Talk page, User talk:NeilN#does an indefititely blocked editor have the right to post on user pages 14:31, 4 December 2015 (UTC)"
One more question. Is there a page listing all active disputes? BTW, SockKids is really well done, great for elementary school. RaqiwasSushi (talk) 14:41, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
RaqiwasSushi, the page where you posted will list all the current open disputes. Right now, there's only yours as third opinion requests are handled fairly quickly. --NeilN talk to me 14:45, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
NeilN Wow, what a non- bureaucracy RaqiwasSushi (talk) 14:48, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

Thanks for protecting Botai culture, Urheimat and other articles after Tirgil34's IP socking. I noticed the tools displayed on your userpage for calculating IP ranges and checking IP range contributions. Does the IP range contribution checker work with IPv6 ranges? If not, are you aware of any tool that does? Krakkos (talk) 13:56, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

@Krakkos: This one does. --NeilN talk to me 14:15, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Unblocked Sock Users[edit]

Hello Neil, ı was going to ask about what is your point of view and what are you planning to do about those socks creating edit wars every night and what do you think especially about their ip number ressemblance.

User:2607:F358:21:68:6C63:E2CF:9657:84A6.
User:2607:F358:21:BE:44E2:1CAD:84BA:6AB5 ,
User:2607:F358:21:10F:68C2:44B4:692D:E3A9,
User:2607:F358:21:BD:695B:A324:9C0B:B29B.

thanks.--130.88.99.230 (talk) 14:09, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm wondering why you're complaining about the removal of LTA Tirgil34's edits. Pinging MaxSem as you left the identical message on their page. --NeilN talk to me 14:59, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi, i am wondering why you are insisting on keeping my question unanswered. If you may answer my question first, maybe than i can answer yours. --130.88.99.230 (talk) 16:30, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
As the IPv6 edits are not socking or tied to any sockmaster, I won't be doing anything. However since you've been continuing to revert back in the edits of blocked socks, I've blocked you. --NeilN talk to me 17:55, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Richard Murray[edit]

Hi, setting up a page for a politician who is standing in the Irish general election.

He is referenced from within Wikipedia already: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dublin_South%E2%80%93Central_(D%C3%A1il_%C3%89ireann_constituency)

I have added a reference from a national newspaper: http://www.irishtimes.com/election-2016/dublin-south-central and about to add one from a local: http://ballyfermotnews.com/independent-community-candidate-richard-murray-advice-clinic/

his personal website is www.richardmurray.ie

I don't understand what am I doing wrong, thanks for help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leprechaunxwwwx (talkcontribs)

@Leprechaunxwwwx: Yes I've fixed the error but the subject does not meet our notability criteria. --NeilN talk to me 15:33, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

History of India - lead[edit]

Is it possible to get an administrator to conclude the lead paragraph. It is being monopolized by an editor and his friends. They neither want to compromise or bring in a neutral editor. Please help. (68.194.224.242 (talk) 16:21, 30 November 2015 (UTC))

@68.194.224.242: Have you undertaken any of the steps at WP:Dispute resolution? LjL (talk) 16:27, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Hi 68. Admins don't dictate content. If there is no response to your posts within a day or so, you can try making the changes. I expect any revert would be accompanied by a talk page reply. You can then either continue the conversation or look at WP:DRN as an option. --NeilN talk to me 16:28, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, I have put in a complaint [16]. It is very sad an editor and his friends have such totalitarian control over an article. (24.157.56.12 (talk) 19:31, 30 November 2015 (UTC))

Edit conflicting[edit]

I just saw[17], didn't knew what happened, there is strange kind of edit conflict. Capitals00 (talk) 17:06, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Freudian disruption[edit]

Hi Neil. Just FYI, I have tagged the two users, recently blocked by you for their peculiar behavior on the Freud article, as socks of Kingshowman (talk · contribs). The MO is pretty convincing. Favonian (talk) 22:17, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Favonian. I'll keep that in mind if disruption happens again. --NeilN talk to me 22:18, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Murder of Anni Dewani[edit]

Thanks for protecting Murder of Anni Dewani. I was just considering it, but it comes better from you. Bishonen | talk 23:31, 30 November 2015 (UTC).

Bishonen, FYI --NeilN talk to me 23:35, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

A beer for you![edit]

Export hell seidel steiner.png Thanks for your help. Have a glass. The StormCatcher (talk) (contribs) 23:53, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

A beer for you![edit]

Export hell seidel steiner.png Forgot to give you a beer Neil for discussing the revdel on Makoura College that is actually a mill of vandalism that doesn't qualify for RD2. Angry Bald English Villian Man Chat 07:20, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Edit war[edit]

Hi - you are correct. I did react quickly to the negative actions of some others. But please note my edits, that were all appropriately described in edit summarises, removed sometimes unreferenced content that was badly written, excessive in length and often barely relevant. Others chose to blindly revert these edits without edit summaries, and then posted fake warnings about vandalism. Also the edits I reverted were all clearly originally added by POV-warrior. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.211.107.27 (talk)

Replied here. --NeilN talk to me 15:52, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Could I ask you keep an eye on these pages? It seems some people wish to force what looks to be political driven content. But I note my edits were simply because of the bad English, excessive detail & links and that it was sometimes barely relevant.
I'll keep an eye on them but please bear in mind I am limited to what actions I can take per WP:INVOLVED. --NeilN talk to me 16:05, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi Neil, since user does not want "comments from aggressive and unconstructive people on the talk page", I'll post this here anyways. Okay, a content dispute this is then. Though that being the case, shouldn't deleted content then be at least copy/pasted to the TalkPage of these Articles, for others to change / comment on (be disputed), and not just completely deleted? The "Open letters" article content that was deleted was indeed poorish of English and could be made shorter, so why does IP not actually do this instead of removing the entire entry; qua content that part (some open letter by Iran) seems in itself to be appropriate in the Article, which is named "Open letters". Cheers. Poepkop (talk) 16:18, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Poepkop, deleted content is rarely copied to the talk page as it's always readily available by going to the article history screen or via a diff. The IP could feel the entire section is WP:UNDUE or POVish. If you think otherwise, then fixing the issues yourself is probably the easiest way to go. Contentious content is added by editors who really want it in articles. --NeilN talk to me 16:26, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
NeilN, yes, thanks for your comment, I'll see what fits and what would be proper (objective) formulations, but today my battery is running low ;-)Poepkop (talk) 16:36, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Dewani talk page edits[edit]

I removed some claims made by what I consider to be a quite blatant sock on that talk page. Kindly revert if you feel those edits were not made by a blatant sock. Thanks. Collect (talk) 15:54, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Collect, I noticed them earlier and was half-tempted to block them then and there. Bishonen, any idea who's the master? --NeilN talk to me 15:58, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
I haven't, no. I did ask a CU about Advocate BG, but they couldn't tell. I sort of assumed that was Lane99, though not with enough certainty to block. But after the edits to the user talk, and to another legal case, I'm not so sure.[18] All three could be meatpuppets, I guess. Anyway, IMO you did right to remove that stuff, User:Collect. And I'll give Factsnotlies1 a DS alert (sigh). If there are any more new accounts of the same nature, though, I'm about ready to block on sight. It would be unfortunate to be obliged to semi the article talkpage. Neil, do you think it might be time to introduce the new hotness, a so-called 30/500 page ban? Compare this general prohibition. Bishonen | talk 22:44, 1 December 2015 (UTC).
I found a little checkuser in Bishzilla's pocket; Factsnotlies1 is a sock of Lane99. I'll give him another month for aggravated and BLP-violating sock puppetry. Bishonen | talk 23:04, 1 December 2015 (UTC).
Bishonen, you probably saw it, but I added a note to the talk page which should make stopping socks/meats easier. --NeilN talk to me 23:14, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Good work. Bishonen | talk 23:16, 1 December 2015 (UTC).
NeilN More shenanigans on this talk page. Sock/meat puppetry. Not of much consequence on talk page but will become a problem when article temp protection expires in five weeks. Suggest extending temp protection indefinitely since its working well and isn't retarding article progress in any way. Dewanifacts (talk) 10:40, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Cho La incident again[edit]

Hi NeilN, edit warring (and copyvio) resumed as soon as the last block expired. Probably needs longer protection. Thanks, -Zanhe (talk) 18:54, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Two weeks of full. --NeilN talk to me 18:58, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, that was fast! -Zanhe (talk) 18:59, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

"German Inventions" guy is back[edit]

User:Baritosalla - Was wondering on how I should report these accounts in the future as well. --allthefoxes (Talk) 01:38, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi allthefoxes, thanks for catching this. The account has been blocked and all edits reverted. You can report future cases at WP:AIV, using the description "sock of Europefan". --NeilN talk to me 01:46, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Oh, right, I forgot WP:AIV was for that sort of thing as well. Thanks again. --allthefoxes (Talk) 01:48, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest Topic[edit]

Hello Neil N,

I am new to Wikipedia, but I believe you are responsible for taking down my revisions to Craig Chaquico's Wikipedia page due to your considering my input as a possible Conflict of Interest? What I have done is gone in, as Craig's artist manager and upon his request, and corrected factual errors and added updated content. None of the items I added were anything other than facts. They are neutral (NPOV) and not opinions or spins of any kind. If you look at the side-by-side of what was up there before, and my edits/changes/additions, you will see this.

I am asking that you please all my edits to remain on Craig's page so that he (a living person and professional musician) has the facts straight on his page. This is important as media and others refer to, and sometimes copy, the info from his Wiki page and there is misinformation on it. Wrong facts!

I look forward to hearing from you about this,

PilotRock61 04:26, 2 December 2015 (UTC) Dara Crockett

Hi PilotRock61. First off, can you please fix your signature? It has to have a link to at least one of your user page or your talk page. Second, you can see who is editing the article by looking at the history. Your edits are being removed because they lack sources. Furthermore, as you have a conflict of interest, you should be using the article's talk page to suggest changes. You should only edit the article to correct factual errors. Adding things like "As lead guitarist and songwriter," and removing sourced content is not correcting factual errors. --NeilN talk to me 05:01, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Neil,

"lead guitarist and songwriter" is a fact? It's not an opinion. I guess I'm confused as to why you think that by adding that detail, it is not correcting what was stated on the page. As for citing sources, please help me with this. Craig Chaquico IS my source! These things can be found on his Website, too. Is that a source? I do want to do this right; however, as I stated above, I am new to doing this with all of the technical requirements. Craig simply wants his page to be accurate.

Please note that I have also gone to his Wikipedia page's Talk page and have begun a dialogue there if that would be an easier way to go at this thing. Thank you.

PilotRock61 05:26, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, NeilN. You have new messages at CatcherStorm's talk page.
Message added 04:52, 2 December 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The StormCatcher (talk) (contribs) 04:52, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, NeilN. You have new messages at CatcherStorm's talk page.
Message added 05:13, 2 December 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The StormCatcher (talk) (contribs) 05:13, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Some people...[edit]

... I will never understand. Ah well. Thx. - DVdm (talk) 16:56, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

NinjaCheetos[edit]

Why was this user blocked for 1 week? I think he should be indeffed, since his actions evidently indicate a vandalism-only account. ElectricBurst(Electron firings)(Zaps) 18:00, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

@Electricburst1996: There were a couple good edits like this one. As it stands, there are now two admins who will be watching their edits closely. --NeilN talk to me 18:14, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Rhema Media[edit]

To NeilN

I have been updating our Wikipedia page - to reorder the text and to update the sources as many of the sources are out of date.

For example: Under Services - "The network targets families, with a strong focus on relationships, marriage and parenting, with a doctrine of special salvation for believers and eternal damnation for sinners.[24] [24 Hoar, Peter. "Jesus’ Blood Never Failed Me Yet". The joy or radio. Peter Hoar. Retrieved 8 July 2015]" - this source does not correctly reflect what we are about and, I believe, is highly subjective viewpoint from an external source. We consider this not neutral.

AND "Star is a contemporary Christian music network playing gospel music, hymns and classic Christian contemporary tracks, alongside Biblical teachings. It was set up through a lease on spare programming time when Radio New Zealand's AM Network is not broadcasting sittings of the New Zealand Parliament, and also broadcasts on FM frequencies in smaller centres. Rhema Media described the playlist as "a smooth and easy blend of music from people you know and trust".[26][ 26 ^ "Southern Star". sstar.co.nz. Rhema Broadcasting Group. Archived from the original on 16 February 2008. Retrieved 8 July 2015]" - this also is an old source.

These are two examples of information we feel is highly subjective and would not want on our page.

MikeMedia is not our CEO as assumed. And Leenz999 is not a employee called Lee as assumed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.98.11.42 (talk) 18:38, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi 101. First, and most importantly, it is not your page. It is an encyclopedia article, not an extension of your marketing/branding efforts. Second, as you have a conflict of interest, you should not be editing the article directly but instead suggesting changes on the article's talk page. --NeilN talk to me 18:44, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Thank you for your message Neil. Appreciate your help. Apologies for the syntax errors. Will try and get these right in future. kind regards MikeMediaNZ (talk) 19:00, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Unnecessary Page Protection[edit]

On List of mines in New Brunswick you protected the page, even though only two users have vandalized it. I suspected these two were the same person, so I opened a sockpuppet investigation on them. Personally, I feel like the page protection is a bit of an overkill. Regards, Dat GuyWiki (talk) 19:04, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Dat GuyWiki, three IPs in the last hour. And your SPI won't result in any action - SPIs are designed to investigate at least one registered editor. --NeilN talk to me 19:08, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Delete Vandalism Articles[edit]

Could you delete these two (1,2) articles by this user which are both pure vandalism? Dat GuyWiki (talk) 19:12, 2 December 2015 (UTC) Thanks! Dat GuyWiki (talk) 19:14, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Kindness Barnstar Hires.png The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
I appreciate your analysis of my actions and intentions, and speaking up for me in times of trouble. I know I'm not perfect, but I try not to be a troublemaker. ScrpIronIV 21:03, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

@ScrapIronIV: Well, there's a couple things motivating me. First, I know what's it like to be ganged up on by editors who have nothing in common except their complaints about you {example). Second, if "Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles" and "The important component of wikihounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or to the project generally, for no overriding reason." are watered down in any way we may as well put out a welcome mat for POV-pushers, COI editors, and other problematic users if an editor can't examine the history of someone they run into who may be editing problematically. --NeilN talk to me 21:20, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

User has developed a definite anti-Muslim pattern in article edits[edit]

NeilN, I am contacting you because you have recently sanctioned user 96.40.114.242. This user made this edit today, and looking through the user's contribution history, it looks like they have made several similar discriminatory edits on other articles. I just wanted to bring this to your attention, Falconusp t c 22:26, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Falconus. I've blocked them for three months. --NeilN talk to me 23:48, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Indef semi-protection of Sabra and Shatila massacre[edit]

I notice that Nableezy had listed Sabra and Shatila massacre on WP:RFPP and it was indefinitely protected per WP:ARBPIA3. I am a bit biased because I argued against the remedy in the case, but that is water under the bridge. But the remedy just says that "This prohibition may be enforced by reverts, page protections, blocks, the use of Pending Changes, and appropriate edit filters." It does not say that page protection needs to be the method used. Moreover, I am not sure if there is even a wide-ranging effort to semi-protect pages in this area - it looks rather scattershot to me. I have seen several decent IP edits in this area (along with the usual sockpuppets), and I would much rather prefer reverts (perhaps augmented with usual temporary semi-protection in response to reported disruption) as the method, rather than indefinite semi-protection. Kingsindian  01:14, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: The remedy reads, "All anonymous IP editors and accounts with less than 500 edits and 30 days tenure are prohibited from editing any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict." Full stop. What you are describing is essentially ignoring it and going back to the usual way where one side wants to keep the "decent edits", the other side doesn't, and an edit war ensues. There was a discussion amongst a few admins and it was decided to keep the talk pages open (though they technically fall under the prohibition) so IPs could still contribute that way. Alternatively, if you can get agreement for the article to switch to pending changes, I will change over to that. --NeilN talk to me 01:46, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
I am aware of the remedy, I am simply asking about the implementation. From what I've seen, few pages have been semi-protected, largely on an ad-hoc basis. Correct me if I'm wrong. Semi-protection will not implement the remedy either; properly, you need an edit filter, and a list of pages to apply it on. From what I've seen, nobody has any idea on how to implement this consistently, and nobody is trying. All I am asking is to default to reverts as the mechanism for enforcement (augmented by temporary semi-protection if there is disruption), or whatever else. Kingsindian  01:59, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
WP:ARBPIA3 contains strong wording. Essentially, IP editors are banned from editing pages related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. It may be worth starting out with long-term semiprotection of the usual hot-spot articles, and going from there. If anyone believes this sanction is too strong, they could use WP:ARCA to ask for a change. WP:ARBAB also called for semiprotection of a number of articles, and this was done. See the list of protections at the bottom of the case. "The articles and corresponding talk pages relating to Abortion shall be semi-protected for a period of three years from the conclusion of this case, such that no non-autoconfirmed editor (including IP address editors) shall edit them". This was done in fall of 2011 and some of these protections were allowed to expire in 2014. EdJohnston (talk) 02:13, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Kingsindian, I am protecting after receiving a request at WP:RFPP and determining that the article falls under ARBPIA3 (even though there might be a talk page specifying so, this is not automatic). EdJohnston has good information and I will switch over to using a three year semi. You should also be aware there's talk about implementing a new "superconfirmed" editor level and a new protection level to enforce 500/30. Personally, I'd like to see a new noticeboard where an editor proposes an article for 500/30, a short discussion ensues, and then an admin closes with a decision. But as that doesn't exist, RFPP is what we're using. --NeilN talk to me 02:31, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
@EdJohnston: As I said already, I am aware of the remedy (I spent too long railing against it to not be aware). However, the remedy prescribes no single enforcement strategy. Why does the statement include "reverts" in the statement if IPs are simply banned? That means that reverts are an allowable implementation strategy. I won't lie: I very strongly pushed for this to become a remedy, instead of the remedy which passed, and it failed for reasons not important right now. I have already described above that nobody has a clue about how this remedy is supposed to be enforced, and nobody is trying. Semi-protection will not address the editors with 30/500 restriction, for example. All I am asking is to use a common sense, low-overhead and explicitly allowed remedy as the default. To NeilN, you were completely right to indef semi-protect when asked: I am talking about something else. Perhaps WP:ARCA is the best place to raise this. I will try there. Kingsindian  02:35, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Kingsindian, confirmed editors who are sub-500/30 can only be controlled with reverts, warnings or blocks, since they will not be deterred by semiprotection. Hard to see why this fact argues against using semiprotection as a first step, though. It is logical we ought to semiprotect things like 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict and Golan Heights. The latter is already indef semied per a 2012 discussion at AE. Anything which is semied per ARBPIA3 ought to be marked in the protection log as an arbitration enforcement. EdJohnston (talk) 03:14, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
EdJohnston, adding WP:ARBPIA3 as the protection reason is almost a given as you're not protecting because of anything else. The requests I've been processing have been triggered by reverted IP edits but not enough for non-AE protection. --NeilN talk to me 03:41, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

VPP[edit]

You recently reverted trolling at Village pump (policy). The trolling is continuing. Can you, as an administrator, semi-protect for a week or so? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:10, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, it's Vote (X) for Change. Semi-protected for 2 days. We typically use short term protection to get temporary relief from the idiocy. --NeilN talk to me 18:22, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. That explains why it is being called sockpuppetry (which it is) for a banned user rather than trolling (which it also is). Robert McClenon (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

German Brazilian[edit]

Hi, can you please block the user opusdei, who has been constantly vandalizing article German Brazilian ? Xuxo (talk) 18:53, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Xuxo, I've warned the editor about edit warring. My knowledge of German is extremely rudimentary but is your issue with the source in no way backing up the number? --NeilN talk to me 19:13, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi, the source claimed the figure of 5 million. The user is a vandal who is changing the figure for fun. He was doing the same in the article in Portuguese, but he got blocked forever there (you can check his block there). Xuxo (talk) 20:10, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Xuxo, I was referring to this. --NeilN talk to me 20:17, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
This source does not say anything about figures. Its about the Brazilian consulate in Frankfurt Xuxo (talk) 20:23, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Xuxo, thanks for confirming. Blocked indefinitely. --NeilN talk to me 20:26, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Good job! Thank you Xuxo (talk) 21:45, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

A problem[edit]

You recently blocked IP 130.88.99.230 that had posted certain opinions regarding the Seljuks and their Turko-Persian culture. Now, a "new" IP 130.88.99.221 has changed the lead of the Seljuk Empire which mirrors the opinion(s) of the blocked IP. Since both IPs geolocate back to Manchester, should I simply revert the new IP under duck or start a discussion to address the change to the lead? --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:41, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Kansas Bear, blocked per WP:DUCK. Feel free to revert. --NeilN talk to me 00:46, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Thank you sir. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:48, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Knanaya[edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Knanaya&diff=693628605&oldid=693628604

Reverted to a poor edit where Swiderski's theory on Southist-Northist division among syrian christians is sandwiched in the Knanaya article. When the page was protected by you it seemed Southist-Northist theory was excised and given a separate head under continuous pressure of Cúchullain through reversion. But it seems s/he did it again which I find misuse of administrative privileges, but I am not sure about the policies. It would be kind of you to review the matter and revert the material with copyvio check. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.88.210.249 (talk) 03:48, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I see you've posted to the article's talk page. Let's see how that works out. --NeilN talk to me 04:49, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Topic Ban[edit]

Is there any way Xtremedood can be topic banned from all India related articles? --The Avengers 10:45, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

The Avengers, all India-related articles or all articles related to the India-Pakistan conflict? --NeilN talk to me 13:38, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Only for India related articles, as he wants Indian articles should be written according to Pakistani point of view. I have checked his recent edits, bogus SPI reports and his details of his every encounter in ANI. I don't have much interest in India-Pakistan conflicts, and thinking neutrally, there are some Indian POV pushers as well. That's why it would be better to topic ban him indefinitely from India related articles as Indian movies, Indian biographies, Indian cities, Indian cuisine, Indian politics, Indian history (Kingdoms as Maratha empire, Gupta Empire and History of places as South India, East India, related to current of India), Indian Geography.
Let him edit all India-Pakistan war, Kashmir, Siachen Conflict, India-Pakistan border, Indian History (places as Sindh, West Punjab, Mohemjo Daro etc currently not part of India) skirmishes but not all those terror incidents in India where ISI and Lashkar, or any Pakistani terror outfit is involved.
His only block is related to AE. He still is a very problematic editor. The Avengers 14:03, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
The Avengers, you will have to go to WP:ANI, present strong and compelling evidence that Xtremedood has a history of long-term disruption in this area, and ask for a topic ban. --NeilN talk to me 14:19, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Now he has created two DRNs in one day. I won't comment there, My choice!The Avengers 15:39, 4 December 2015 (UTC)


Hello, NeilN, the user The Avengers is simply trying to censore views that are not in accordance with his ideology. For example, if you look here [19], he deleted several battles from a list of battles article in which the Hindu-Maratha's lost. He also replaced information with non-impartial and historically incorrect statements that were previously there. I have made significant changes to the article from here [20], in which the article was heavily biased towards victories of the Marathas. Rather than try and effectively discuss this matter, he is simply looking for an easy way out. For another article, I have initiated discussions with him over here [21], however, he sarcastically dismisses them and I have therefore set up a dispute on the DRN regarding this issue. Xtremedood (talk) 15:38, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Circus show halt[edit]

Thanks for the block. It was much needed. And yes, many of them aren't new. You should check out the Azerbaijani Wiki; almost everything there is claimed as Azerbaijani (from the Safavids to the Sasanids). Most of them I believe actively edit there, and sometimes decide to hope by on eng.wiki. Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 14:38, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

@NeilN:, he just created a new sock. - LouisAragon (talk) 15:50, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Blocked because of subsequent edits. --NeilN talk to me 16:26, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Breathing again[edit]

Export hell seidel steiner.png I will relax tonight, maybe a bottle instead of a frosted glass, place has a special on Yuengling. Hope you will have the same opportunity soon. Thanks for your help. What a refreshing perspective! RaqiwasSushi (talk) 15:08, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Delete Test/vandalism article[edit]

Draft:Zivotot_na_bobiiiii. I also submitted a sockpuppet report here Dat GuyWiki (talk) 17:27, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Dat GuyWiki, couple things. 1) That page, while definitely not a Wikipedia article, is not vandalism. It's just the editor's bio. I'll let an admin who focuses on non-English pages figure out what to do with it. 2) The first sentence of WP:SOCK is important: "The use of multiple Wikipedia user accounts for an improper purpose is called sock puppetry (often abbreviated in discussion as socking). Improper purposes include attempts to deceive or mislead other editors, disrupt discussions, distort consensus, avoid sanctions, evade blocks or otherwise violate community standards and policies." There's no intent to deceive or disrupt, no evasion of blocks. Just someone editing while logged out or forgetting to log in. --NeilN talk to me 18:08, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
And I see Vanjagenije has blocked the IPs. Harsher action than I would have taken, but can be justified I suppose. --NeilN talk to me 18:16, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Isn't it still a WP:SOCK because the user has avoided blocks by getting a level 4 warning and then switching to another account? Dat GuyWiki (talk) 09:11, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Dat GuyWiki, what level 4 warning? --NeilN talk to me 14:45, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Hmmm, I don't know.... I should get my head in the right place... Dat GuyWiki (talk) 16:56, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

filimbeat[edit]

Mbsibin (talk) 18:06, 4 December 2015 (UTC) Hi User talk:NeilN I removed the link to the filimbeat and also the link to sajmedia [22] [23]

Mr User talk:NeilN are you working to promote this websites.

Why i Removed

reason 1 : the link to filim beat was just added as reference but the film Su.._Su..._Sudhi_Vathmeekam already in the wikipedia collection and why we want to send out users to other websites like filimbeat.

Reason 2 : Removed link to sajmedia from the [24]

Mbsibin talk to me 16:26, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Mbsibin, you were blocked for spamming your own site and as retaliation, started removing references added by other editors. That's it. --NeilN talk to me 18:12, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

User:NeilN Wow what an wonderful findings..... I was unknown about creating page in wikipedia. Now i understand the terms. But I found that you aree adding links of filimbeat from another ip without signing and stands to protect that page and promoting filimbeat only Mbsibin talk to me 23:56, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Mbsibin, please provide diffs for where I supposedly added these links. --NeilN talk to me 18:34, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

RfA nomination Qed237[edit]

Hi.

I write this message to you as you are one of the administrators that I come in contact with on a regular basis.

The reason is this nomination at my talkpage from a editor that I dont have talk with very much, but I see him/her editing the same articles. I have been nominated by others before (never nominated myself), but in those cases I withdrew immediately, before voting started, because I did not feel ready.

Now I wonder if you, as an administrator, have any comments regarding this nomination or perhaps even questions? Do you think I have any chance of becoming an administrator and that I should move on with the nomination or should I withdraw? What is my next step?

Any comments would be appreciated. Thank you. Qed237 (talk) 02:04, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

@Qed237: Successful RFA's are strongly bolstered by nominations or co-nominations by respected admins or editors. With ~3,500 edits and a rather low profile, the editor nominating you does not have enough of a reputation for good judgement in this matter to predispose voters to vote for you. Briefly looking at your history, nothing stands out that will obviously derail your RFA. You will probably need to answer pointed questions about this and this. --NeilN talk to me 03:46, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Okay, thank you for your answer. Qed237 (talk) 11:01, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
@Qed237: If I may chime in with a couple of additional points to add to Neil's good advice: first, you might well consider RfA, but first you should read Wikipedia:Advice for RfA candidates to learn what you must to to prepare. Second, I suggest you try to get this RfA nomination page deleted. You don't want to have an old, invalid nomination page hanging around to complicate matters when/as/if you do decide to go for it. The other user meant well but they had no business creating a nomination page without talking to you first. Neil, can you think of any speedy category that could apply? Maybe Qed could ask the nominator to tag it G7? The nominator is not the only editor to have contributed to the page, but the second edit got removed by the third edit; does that mean that G7 could apply? I have even seen malformed RfA nomination pages speedied per a kind of IAR. I'm about to go out; maybe you could advise on this second point? --MelanieN (talk) 17:24, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
MelanieN, if Qed237 declines it can be speedied as a G6. Had that happen a couple times with my RFA page. --NeilN talk to me 20:22, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

@MelanieN and NeilN: I have now decided to withdraw the nomination, and perhaps make a new nomination in the future when I feel more ready and have time to answer more questions. Qed237 (talk) 20:41, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

@Qed237: Good decision. RFA week is always unpredictable. You might get off easy like me or you might have to face a gauntlet like poor Liz so being prepared is a must. Read up on the last couple years of RFAs to get a sense of what you'll encounter. --NeilN talk to me 20:48, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Neil. I tend to forget about G6 but it is a great catchall. Qed, I see this has happened to you once before! that someone created a nom page for you that had to be deleted. Tough to be so popular! 0;-D --MelanieN (talk) 20:53, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
P.S. So this happened to you too - as well as to Qed twice? I was going to suggest we should modify the instructions at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Nominate to say that you should talk to the person before nominating them, but I see it already says that quite clearly in several places. If only people would RTFM! --MelanieN (talk) 21:13, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
MelanieN, once with the proper RFA page and once with a page in articlespace I have no idea how they managed to create. You have to just sigh because usually, they're just looking to show their appreciation for helping them out or watching over some of their favorite topics. --NeilN talk to me 21:28, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Any idea where I could list such a proposal?[edit]

Hello once again Neil :-),

I have a question. That mass disruption last day on the Safavid-related articles made me rethink some stuff. In 90% of the cases when there's clear structural disruption on the Iran pages, it's because of issues related to Azerbaijan. Therefore, I believe it would be very beneficial to propose the appliance of the discretionary sanctions regarding Azerbaijan (which includes Armenia as well) to count for Iran as well. I patrol many of the pages of these three nations, and when there's structural disruption, it's almost always regarding these three nations. I mentioned my proposal to Kansas Bear earlier today, who also almost solely edits history-related pages like me (including a lot of pages regarding these three nations) and he mentioned it would be a good idea. Do you perhaps know where I thus could leave such a proposal? Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 03:05, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

LouisAragon, you can request an amendment to WP:ARBAA2 at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment. Because it's a significant amendment, you'll probably need a lot of evidence and support. I would create a draft in userspace and ask other interested editors to contribute before formally posting it. --NeilN talk to me 04:00, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! Will do that. Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 05:06, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

More cleanup at Talk:Michael Copon[edit]

Hi NeilN – looks like we need more revdel, and an IP block, over at Talk:Michael Copon. (If this keeps up, semi-protection of the Talk page may even be necessary... I'll put it on my Watchlist for now.) --IJBall (contribstalk) 03:36, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Done. --NeilN talk to me 03:49, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

user Neekan[edit]

Hi Neil. Sockmaster Neekan (talk · contribs) is back with new account: Hemn1212 (talk · contribs)

Blocked and edits and page moves undone. --NeilN talk to me 15:24, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Administrator Barnstar Hires.png The Admin's Barnstar
Them statistics on your user page are crazy and you still help other users Dat GuyWiki (talk) 21:08, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Vandals[edit]

Gonna make a list of vandals for you to block

Usernames

  • User:Mr & Mrs Steven Russell Comment - Implies share use. I warned them, so if they don't request a change in the next ~15 minutes you can block them.

List of Speedy Deletion eligible and tagged pages

Dat GuyWiki (talk) 21:13, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Dat GuyWiki, I don't mind you reporting vandals here, especially if AIV is backlogged and the vandalism is occurring at a high rate of speed, but keep in mind you'll get a faster response at AIV if I'm away from my computer or dealing with another issue. --NeilN talk to me 21:21, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Of course! I do it also here to try and make it faster. Dat GuyWiki (talk) 21:23, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Please don't turn this page into a combined UAA/AIV/CSD noticeboard. My talk page watchers won't be too happy. --NeilN talk to me 21:51, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Sorry. Will stop doing this, just it's really annoying when it takes a year for someone to get blocked when I report them to WP:AIV. Signing off, Dat GuyWiki (talk) 21:55, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Dat GuyWiki, I hear you and that's why I said if the vandalism is occurring at a high rate of speed, you're welcome to add a note here. For the other stuff - well, patience is supposedly a virtue :-) --NeilN talk to me 22:06, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Just gonna add a person, don't worry not gonna make a list again Wikipedia:Mdhashim24. User Mdhashim24 has created the page about himself. Not sure if this should be moved to his user space or deleted for test page. He also removed a speedy deletion template. Dat GuyWiki (talk) 10:05, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Dat GuyWiki, he already has a user page so deleted. --NeilN talk to me 14:40, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Special Barnstar Hires.png The Special Barnstar
For patrolling the RFPP board and basically protecting every article that gets reported there, Without you I can safely say articles would go to shit so you patrolling that board and helping is a big big help so thank you :),

Have a great weekend, –Davey2010Talk 02:34, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Current requests for increase in protection level[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Current requests for increase in protection level. Please see TVXQ albums discography's request for semiprotection. Thanks. The StormCatcher (talk) (contribs) 07:30, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

My AfC Submission[edit]

Hello again. Even though you mainly interact with anti-vandalism, I wondered if you could give me tips or maybe even review my AfC submission. Thanks in advance, Dat GuyWiki (talk) 16:34, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Black Annie[edit]

I got a message from you saying that you did not like the Black Annie redirect for the Black Annie movie. I dont really understand why you dont like Black Annie but Im happy to answer any questions you have.

Haitian STEVE (talk) 18:17, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Haitian STEVE, there's no film called "Black Annie". --NeilN talk to me 18:21, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

ya and theres no film called "starwars" either, but u still redirect from it because thats what ppl call it. Theres a redirect for "assfucking" that goes to a page on anal sex. I dont now why u think "assfucking" is more important than black annie but Im a proud black man and I think ppl should be allowed to search for black annie.

Haitian STEVE (talk) 18:30, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Haitian STEVE, I'm becoming more and more convinced you're trolling here. --NeilN talk to me 18:32, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

i dont like being made fun of Haitian STEVE (talk) 18:34, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

NeilN should this be added to the RFD. Or does it needs a separate one? MarnetteD|Talk 18:35, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
MarnetteD, I saw that and decided it was a (barely) plausible redirect. But Black Annie (2014 film) with its unneeded disambiguation term is not. --NeilN talk to me 18:40, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. Barely is the word for it :-) Further confusion and complications will ensue with a live broadcast of this version on US TV this week. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 18:44, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Haitian STEVE, you should provide some sort of reliable source showing that "Black Annie" is a common alternate name for the 2014 Annie movie. clpo13(talk) 18:41, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
@Clpo13: We probably edit conflicted. I haven't nominated Black Annie. --NeilN talk to me 18:43, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Well then there isn't even an issue. I agree that the disambiguation (Black Annie (2014 film)) isn't necessary. I'm not sure why Steve is all up in arms about it. clpo13(talk) 18:47, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

so what happens when u search google for black annie: https://www.google.com/search?btnG=1&pws=0&q=Black+Annie#

NBC calls it Black Annie http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/new-annie/2830155

if u search youtube for Black Annie, it redirects to the movie for sale. Everyone calls this black annie, in Haiti the movie is called Annie Noir and i dont now why everyone is so suspicious of this.

Haitian STEVE, I suggest you read Saturday Night Live and satire. --NeilN talk to me 18:51, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Hamid Mir[edit]

Renew PC? --George Ho (talk) 18:27, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

List of countries by oil production[edit]

What about this one? --George Ho (talk) 18:31, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Deuce (singer)[edit]

Renew PC? --George Ho (talk) 18:37, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

List of Swedes by net worth[edit]

What about this one? --George Ho (talk) 19:26, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Possibility of numerous socks[edit]

Hi NeilN, a week or so ago you protected Grey DeLisle, and I suspect several related accounts are continuing to make similar persistent uncourced changes to animation articles. Please see some of my most recent edits to connect the dots. As always, thank you. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 20:07, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

  • Okay, I think I've handed out the necessary blocks. If edit warring resumes then the editors should be blocked. If socks show up, then I'll look at protection. --NeilN talk to me 20:21, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Draft: Lola LC87[edit]

And after a week, the MFD will be closed one way or the other. Thank you. It is very unusual to request semi-protection of a draft, since one of the purposes of drafts is to permit AFC submission by unregistered editors, but it was necessary here because of misconduct by the IP. It's easier than range-blocking. Thanks. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:48, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Kenny Loggins vandal[edit]

Hi, Neil. I attempted to do a rangeblock of 2602:306:bd7e:caa0::/64, that you had blocked for three months in August. Clearly controlled by the same person still, so I made it six months this time. Can you see if I did it right? I'm really doubtful of everything to do with IPv6. Bishonen | talk 22:36, 6 December 2015 (UTC).

Bishonen, looks good. Proper range, proper block. [25] --NeilN talk to me 23:04, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
So by merely inputting the single IP (2602:306:bd7e:caa0:850b:b5f3:4e5b:f67b) on Special:BlockList, you found both my block and Materialscientist's? Wonderful. (Makes notes.) This will make my life simpler. :-) Bishonen | talk 23:20, 6 December 2015 (UTC).

Rational admin check[edit]

Hi Neil, got any thoughts about this discussion? Am I being irrational? I've noticed Human3015 creating user pages for other users without their request or permission and it seems funky to me. I can always use an "am-I-being-rational check". Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:15, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate your input. It's clearly non-standard behavior that I rarely see which is why it raised my hackles. I'm sure he's just being helpful. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:39, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Re: Racial segregation page protection[edit]

Hey NeilN, just saw your protection of Racial segregation. I think you made a mistake - you only semiprotected it, but the user making the problematic edits is, I believe, an autoconfirmed user. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 00:47, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Roscelese, the dynamic IP is edit warring against three registered editors (two of them fairly experienced) who say the material is properly sourced and not a copyright violation. Do you think it's a copyright violation? --NeilN talk to me 00:53, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it's copyvio (and additionally is something that Zezen, its "author", has tried and failed to gain consensus for - I'm not sure why you're positioning the IP as the odd one out here). –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 01:24, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Roscelese, the IP made four reverts in less than 36 hours. Three different editors reverted them. I just searched through the books provided via Google links for various phrases and came up empty. What's the copyvio, please? --NeilN talk to me 01:38, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Reversions of unambiguous copyright violations are exempt from 3RR for obvious reasons. Zezen is plagiarizing at least two books. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 02:22, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Roscelese, thank you, I was searching on different phrases. I have unprotected the article. --NeilN talk to me 03:55, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Thank you, Roscelese. Neil, if you read my edit summaries, or my messages at Talk:Racial segregation and User talk:Zezen, you would have seen that Zezen said he was inserting text verbatim from the sources and I reverted his COPYVIO. Instead, you took the word of an unregistered editor whose first (and only) edit was at WP:RPP. Shame on you. 66.87.114.123 (talk) 04:19, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

You're chiding me for listening to an IP editor but want me to listen to you, another IP editor? Again, another experienced editor couldn't find the copyvio and I couldn't find the copyvio. I appreciate your efforts but if you could take that little extra step and link to the copyrighted text, that would be appreciated even more. --NeilN talk to me 04:37, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Experience isn't all it's cracked up to be. Two allegedly "experienced editors" wrote that my edit was vandalism, which it was not. Since my edit summaries referred to the Talk page discussion, it should have been clear to you -- if you had looked -- that the editor who asked for page protection was lying when he said there hadn't been any such discussion. Thanks for making the right decision, eventually. 66.87.115.105 (talk) 04:51, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

why cant i post at the edit war page?[edit]

a bad user has posted at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring against me - why cant i post my replay there?--68.231.26.111 (talk) 03:08, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
the page only shows to me as "view source"--68.231.26.111 (talk) 03:12, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
the page is now protected. (cur | prev) 17:29, 6 December 2015‎ Ymblanter (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (126,652 bytes) (0)‎ . . (Changed protection level of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring: Persistent sock puppetry ([Edit=Allow only autoconfirmed users] (expires 05:29, 7 December 2015 (UTC)) [Move=Allow only administrators] (indefinite))) (undo | thank) 7&6=thirteen () 03:16, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
68, see this. You really do need to stop going full throttle when you get reverted. --NeilN talk to me 03:46, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Semitransgenic[edit]

Who you recently blocked, has started a new edit war at the Ariana Grande page. I asked him to use the Talk page, but he has now reverted twice. Is there anything we can do to get him to take it to the Talk page instead? All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:36, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Talk page conversation has started. --NeilN talk to me 23:03, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Dear Neil, for the record: [26][27][28][29]. I appreciate admin have a job to do, and that it's a BLP, but this rush to make edit warring accusations lacks tact. Semitransgenic talk. 23:08, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I never made such edits as you and Fauzan told me to[edit]

once again this weird guy added his name. If you do it people will trust you as an administrator. For me they will ask for the differences. I am a bit occupied with other things. Going back with my edit history and Galaxy Kid's edit history and movie page revision history is tiring. You request that edit filter, please.--The Avengers 07:48, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

His IPs are of very large range and why doesn't he stop?
Is there any tool to find out how many times that name was edited in Wikipedia articles? It must have crossed hundred. I have done it dozens of times. Then add other editors and Cluebot NG. 07:51, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Stop Him[edit]

After this page Komail Shayan was deleted two times, now he exists as a template Template:Komail Shayan.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Komail_Shayan_(KK)_in_Jam_with_Kako_Band.jpg

The Avengers 07:58, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Moved Template:Komail Shayan to Komail Shayan, CSD A7'd -- samtar whisper 11:35, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
@The Avengers: First, you need to calm down a bit and realize that yes, there are people out there who have nothing better to do than disrupt Wikipedia, sometimes for years. We do what we can but WP:RBI is key. Edit filters are expensive to run so we try to use them only for the worst cases. MusikAnimal will have a better perspective on this. MusikAnimal, there's a person out there who's using registered accounts and a wide IP range to add the name Komail Shayan to various Indian film articles. All his claimed credits seem to be hoaxes as far as I can determine. I am personally not sure how prevalent this is but I've seen The Avengers report this to various boards. samtar, I've deleted the article - it was also a G3 and G5. --NeilN talk to me 14:48, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
If it's expensive then i would suggest title blacklist and the most difficult part for you: Semi protect all big budget Bollywood movies which are going to be released from December 2015 to Dec 2016. There will be a huge collateral damage but it will save the costs. The Avengers 14:57, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
@The Avengers:, no, absolutely no admin is going to do that for something that is a nuisance but not a huge problem. Please wait to see what MusikAnimal says. --NeilN talk to me 15:17, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
How long has this been going on? There's some existing filters we can add to that will prevent this MusikAnimal talk 16:18, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
@The Avengers:, can you continue this on MusikAnimal's talk page? I'm about to close up shop here for the next 10-11 days. --NeilN talk to me 22:30, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Further disruptive edits to blocked IP's talk[edit]

IP: 77.37.135.32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) Would it be possible to remove talk page editing privileges for the time being? -- samtar whisper 15:03, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

samtar, jpgordon handled it. --NeilN talk to me 15:15, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. HELP US STOP THE WP:VANDALS Thanks. Dat GuyWiki (talk) 15:08, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Addition of Centennial edits to the Generation Z page[edit]

Hi Neil, I wanted to circle back on my edits to the Generation Z page from this summer when I suggested adding some information on Centennials to the page.. AdAge is currently running a poll on what the world should call this Generation and Centennials is winning by a landslide (over iGen, Post-Millennials and Generation Z)-perhaps you can reconsider my additions? [1] Emsparenti (talk) 15:57, 8 December 2015 (UTC)Emsparenti 12/8/15

Emsparenti, you can suggest that on the article's talk page. I would be opposed as the source itself says 'When MTV asked a thousand 13- and 14-year-olds what they would call their own generation, none of the names marketers and others have been trying out seemed to appeal. Instead of the Homeland Generation, iGen, Digital Natives or Post-Millenials, to cite a few of the names in circulation, respondents selected "The Founder Generation."' and AdAge's online anonymous uncontrolled poll means little. --NeilN talk to me 16:05, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

References

Regarding edits at bhakt page[edit]

The term bhakt has religious meaning ahead of political or social media troll terms. So opening of an article can't have a different introduction as per wikipedia policy. Whatever is being mentioned by you and others seems motivated by political vendetta. Please help wikipedia remain free from trolls. As this is even used in facebook by trolls. That bhakta is different from the meaning of this Bhakt. I requested for protecting page as it was being edited by being politically motivated. This can't be opening of an article which has a different meaning altogether. Disappointing that you acted on his complain,even i could have nominated him for edit war. Maverick.Mohit (talk) 16:01, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Maverick.Mohit, I would strongly suggest you stop referring to experienced Wikipedia editors as "trolls" and start actually listening to what they're saying. I refrained from blocking you despite five reverts, most adding a blatantly misleading source. --NeilN talk to me 16:13, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
No i am not calling registered users as trolls. I meant this is being used by troll on facebook. All i am saying is you look in to actual meaning of Bhakt then decide. My source is more apt for the meaning. It has a religious meaning which originated much before political meaning. You edited it just for it's political meaning.Although political usage and meaning is clearly mentioned in another section on page.Maverick.Mohit (talk) 16:16, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Maverick.Mohit "Whatever is being mentioned by you and others seems motivated by political vendetta. Please help wikipedia remain free from trolls." And your source, despite your attempt to rename it, does not mention the term bhakt. I suggest you come up with stronger arguments on the article's talk page, not here. --NeilN talk to me 16:22, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
I pasted some lines from my talk with other editor so that 'you' is not you. Please don't misunderstood. Maverick.Mohit (talk) 16:43, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

DanDud88[edit]

Hi Neil, so if you recall, I dragged DanDud88 to ANI because of serious competence concerns. He thumbed his nose at our "silly little rules". One issue that was raised was plagiarism/copyvio, which he had an ample history of. As soon as he returned, he added this, which contains episode summaries that he clearly did not write. (His writing skills are very poor, which is one tip-off...) Please note this verbatim copy and this close paraphrase. I've offered him the opportunity to explain on his talk page and I'll leave the adminny stuff to you. Thanks, sir. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:21, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Cyphoidbomb, yikes, that's not good. I'll keep an eye out for his reply. --NeilN talk to me 18:08, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
It's mind-boggling and I'd be surprised if he replied. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:18, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Cyphoidbomb, see this. --NeilN talk to me 22:26, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Well, I guess that's that. Even here in his most recent edits, he misspelled "Al Sheppard" and hasn't considered that there might be a proper way to format dates. Oy. Thanks for the help, though I wish it didn't need to be addressed. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:01, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Range Block[edit]

I recommend doing a range block on User:182.239.64.0/18. The reason is here http://nativeforeigner.com/calc/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by CLCStudent (talkcontribs)

@CLCStudent: Yes, done. --NeilN talk to me 17:41, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
You should also note that a few days ago that same range was blocked for 72 hours. Just to keep in mind. CLCStudent (talk) 17:43, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, extended to 2 weeks. --NeilN talk to me 17:48, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

2600:1017:B409:4AD9:F1CF:DAC2:B20C:B52F[edit]

2600:1017:B409:4AD9:F1CF:DAC2:B20C:B52F keeps making unblock reasons which attack you. The StormCatcher (talk) (contribs) 18:26, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Noticed your reverts - talk page access already revoked for BLP violations. --NeilN talk to me 18:28, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Wikipediocracy[edit]

Not to justify nuthin, Neil, but if this and other like edits isn't WP:TAGTEAMing, what is? Coretheapple (talk) 02:53, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Coretheapple, basically this is what happens every single day on a myriad of pages. The minority viewpoint gets reverted out until 1) it's shown the majority viewpoint is against policies/guidelines or 2) the minority viewpoint attracts enough attention and support that it becomes the majority viewpoint. --NeilN talk to me 03:03, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
I was under the impression that WP:POINT is policy. See[30] Coretheapple (talk) 03:06, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Oh, it's a guideline, actually. Well anyway, there you have it. Transparent, that I will say. Coretheapple (talk) 03:07, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Coretheapple, serious or facetious replies? Don't get me wrong, I think there should be a serious conversation about whether or not the community thinks editors deeply involved in running that site should be listed as having COI and if any of them were about to break 3RR, they would've gotten the same warning. --NeilN talk to me 03:14, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
There has been such a discussion, and the outcome of it is called "WP:COI." That is why there is no discussion, only reverting by the conflicted editors. As far as I can ascertain, there is no serious effort to contend that WP:DISCLOSE does not apply, and indeed only token and contemptuous participation in the COIN discussion. Coretheapple (talk) 03:22, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Articles for deletion[edit]

Hello. I'm here to inform you that the article you had requested to be deleted was created again by the user who had made it for the first time under the name Şehime. There are also other articles created by this user: Marguerite Irma Fournier, Ayşe Sıdıkka Hanımsultan, Princess Rukiye Fazl and Mirza Muhammad Khan I. I think almost all of them aren't notable. These articles are either unsourced or poorly sourced. As an administrator, I think you know what to do with them. Keivan.fTalk 16:05, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

And I just wanted to mention that Ayse Sidikka Hanimsultan was also deleted but again was created by the same user as Ayşe Sıdıkka Hanımsultan. Keivan.fTalk 16:11, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
@Keivan.f: Thank you. I have deleted Şehime. Ayse Sidikka Hanimsultan was deleted at the user's request so it can be recreated. I have nominated the article at the new title for a speedy deletion. I will look at the others later or ask an appropriate Wikiproject for their opinion. As you know, the editor is claiming to be descended from royalty so that probably plays a large part in the creation of these articles. --NeilN talk to me 16:26, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes exactly. He claims to be a descendant of Mahmud II. He creates articles, deletes information, etc, based on his own knowledge without providing a single source. First of all we can't be sure about his ancestry and whether he is really from Ottoman blood-line or not he must provide reliable sources for the articles that he creates or the information that he adds. Of course he's not the first to claim to be a descendant of an Ottoman figure. Some parts of this article (Mahidevran Sultan) were also sourced by the personal blog of an individual who claimed to be her descendant. Fortunately we removed those parts. Keivan.fTalk 16:41, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Lolcancer's talk page[edit]

Hello NeilN. When I saw the contents had been removed, I thought they should be restored because they got a not here block. I didn't see the page about user pages saying they could remove block templates once they knew they were blocked. Sorry about that. Thank you. Qpalzmmzlapq (talk) 21:04, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Qpalzmmzlapq, no need to apologize. I think almost everyone who warns vandals does that until they're made aware of WP:BLANKING. Thank you for helping out with fixing vandalism. --NeilN talk to me 21:09, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Can it really be "using Wikiepdia as a forum" to point out on a talk page that an article reads like a paid advertisement, rather than a neutral encylopedia article? No.[edit]

You are wrong. It is not using Wikipedia as a forum to point out that an article reads like a paid advertisement, and the talk page consists of open cheerleading for the candidate which is inappropriate for an encylopedia. Why am I not allowed to critique the article for its campaign-ad like tone, which violates nearly all Wikipedia policies by ignoring heavily covered controversies? Everyone with eyes has been able to see that Trump was a neo-Nazi the day he slurred Mexicans as "rapists" and "drug dealers." We didn't need to hear him mock the disabled or plan to bar Muslims or require ID cards to know this, and you are suppressing my speech by not allowing me to point out that the article is not encylopedic, but closely resembles Trump' campaign press releases in style and tone and content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.29.117.25 (talk) 22:47, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

But that's not what you did. The bulk of your post, starting with "Disclosure", was about your election matchup forecasts. Leave that kind of stuff for non-Wikipedia sites and you'll be fine. Also, see WP:NOFREESPEECH --NeilN talk to me 22:52, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

That was only meant to be a disclosure of my non-involvement, since that page seems overwhelmingly likely to be turfed out by Trump campaign staffers. Having read the Trump pages, I would say it is 90 percent likely that there are multiple paid staffers monitoring and removing negative information. It is amazing how quickly anything negative is deleted. They are like ninjas at making sure no one can even cite very right-wing analysts and politicians like George Will, Ross Douthat, jeb Bush, Jim Gilmore, John Kasich, Carly Fiorina, Marco Rubio, etc all pointing out that Trump is more or less proposing " ethnic cleansing" (says Will) , and is proposing neo-fascist policies no different from those Hitler initially proposed against the Jews, Roma, Slavs, and the disabled (requirements for carrying Id cards, forced deportation, including deportation based on ancestry , banning entry of religious groups into the countr, closing of places of worship.) to be non-partisan, I've not even cited a single democrat. This goes back to his campaign announcement in May. The fact that this is under-emphasized and the suspiciously advertisement like tone of the article is pretty clear evidence that the article is primarily being written by Trump's campaign, and monitored by them. The evidence is overwhelming. Why can I not simply say "this article reads like a paid advertisement. Why so non-neutral?" I tried that without the disclosure note that Trump is a democrat's dream matchup, but it was also instantly deleted. How can it not be allowed to write "this article reads suspiciously like a press release from the Trump campaign, and sounds advertisement-like rather than encylopedic." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.29.117.25 (talk) 23:10, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I restored that section (it was deleted by someone else) but you have to realize that it's pretty much unhelpful. State specific text you what to change and why and it's much more likely you'll be treated seriously. Also, I recognize the major editors on the talk page - they've been around for some time and quite likely don't really care about Trump. They care about WP:BLP and retaining a neutral tone to the article when a large amount of the population has outright contempt for the subject. --NeilN talk to me 23:23, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I apologize if this is not an appropriate question for your talk page, but how do you do that indenting thing you're doing here?? Thanks.50.29.117.25 (talk) 23:36, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

He's typing a colon (:) before the message. LjL (talk) 23:38, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Yup, there's two at the start of this one. --NeilN talk to me 23:40, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Ok. Got it. Last question: can I edit that page directly if I sign up for an account, or can only admins edit Political pages?50.29.117.25 (talk) 23:42, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
See your talk page where I answered your question. And admins have no special say over content - rather the opposite if they've performed admin actions involving the article. --NeilN talk to me 23:49, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

How familiar are you with Charles Edwin Shipp? I suspect there is at least a 90 percent chance he is affiliated with the Trump campaign, due to his outrageous suggestion that the Trump campaign website replace what he called "tabloid" sources, and his breathless endorsement of the excellent sources available at the official Trump archive. It is inconceivable someone would seriously make such a suggestion if they were not being paid to do so, or a campaign volunteer of some kind. He repeatedly accused "bias" for even mentioning that Trump has publicly announced plans of a religious test for entry into the country, and creation of a national registry, identification cards, and has centered his campaign on a promise of mass deportation to be accomplished within 2 years. He is almost without doubt the mole here. I would be shocked if it is not him. Convictions Are More Dangerous Enemies Of Truth Than Lies (talk) 00:14, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Shipp's edits[edit]

Astonishingly, Shipp posted the following with the headline: "Sources for valid editing can be found at the at the Trump campaign page": "The Trump Campaign has archive of main media articles, and on October 8th, had a nice picture of his wife Melania and his daughter Ivanka Trump. Here are some captions: "Previous News: A key argument against taking Donald Trump’s candidacy seriously is evaporating" and "Next News: Donald Trump plots his second act". Archived clips go back to June 30 2015: "Real estate mogul and possible Republican presidential candiate Donald Trump says the U.S. is making poor choices under Democratic leadership" in Reuters; and go currently up to September 30th in USA Today: "POLL: DONALD TRUMP STILL ON TOP AS OUTSIDERS FIORINA, CARSON RISE USA Today Billionaire businessman Donald Trump has strengthened his lead at the top of the USA TODAY/Suffolk University Poll while two other outsider candidates, Ben Carson and Carly Fiorina, have gained ground over rivals with electoral experience." URL: http://www.donaldjtrump.com/news/trumps-campaign-manager-opens-up-about-strategy This is the ticket to find non-tabloid sourcing. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 09:08, 13 October 2015 (UTC)"

Yes, Shipp indeed actually suggested that "Sources for valid editing are to be found at the Trump campaign page", as if this was Wiki policy rather than its exact opposite. A campaign page is absolutely the opposite of a source for "valid editing" and no one who does not work for the campaign would suggest a campaign page is a neutral source for information and denigrate newspapers as mere "tabloids", sneeringly.

This looks like incontrovertible proof of Shipp's Conflict of Interest to me. he is the mole.Convictions Are More Dangerous Enemies Of Truth Than Lies (talk) 00:21, 10 December 2015 (UTC)


here is Shipp, breathlessly effusing about Trump's gritty determination to stay in the race:

"== BIG news to those expecting Trump to drop out ==

For everyone who expects him to not being in the race, this should be BIG news.

Headline-1: I. Will. Never. Leave. This. Race.

QUOTE: "I. Will. Never. Leave. This. Race." -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 16:53, 9 December 2015 (UTC) -- PS: FYI for future editing."

It is beyond obvious he has a conflict of interest, and is almost certainly a mole or plant from the Trump campaign. More to come.Convictions Are More Dangerous Enemies Of Truth Than Lies (talk)

Here is Shipp protesting that Trump "did not say what he said" and that it is "bias" to report that Trump said what he did say:

Keep in mind that Trump didn't say what everyone (in their bias) is assuming he said. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 16:37, 9 December 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Convictions Are More Dangerous Enemies Of Truth Than Lies (talkcontribs)

Convictions Are More Dangerous Enemies Of Truth Than Lies, okay you have to ease up here. First, remember WP:TALKNEW. Second, accusations like being a mole for someone can land you in hot water. Shipp has been editing here since 2009. Looking at his recent edits, it seems to me he's pushing a point of view but that's a far cry from being a mole. I suggest for now that you focus on content rather than the editor. --NeilN talk to me 00:35, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Ok, well I still think that page is heavily Astro-turfed. If you have 2 billion dollars you can pay Charles Shwipp to manage your Wikipedia page. Here's the final two nails in the coffin. First, we have Shipp beaming like a campaign press release about Fiorina and Jindal "owing" their coverage to Trump;

"Also, feeling 'hit', Bobby Jinal hits Trump back. Fiorina and Jindal have greater coverage because of Trump. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 01:40, 11 September 2015 (UTC) Second, even more damningly, we have Shipp protesting that Trump's popularity has risen In the polls in reply to a citation that it has dropped, and telling us, like a good campaign manager, that "let's wait and see after the next debate." I smell something suspicious here. There are also egregiously long discussions on there of which Teump photo is most flattering, which is quite strange since Trump has the same yellow-tinged grimace in nearly every photo, and almost always wears the same exact clothing every time I have ever seen him: "Actually, his popularity has risen. Let's see what the next debate delivers. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 08:56, 13 October 2015 (UT"

how does Wikipedia ensure that well-funded political campaigns do not directly insert their propaganda into articles? We must prevent fascism from coming here at all costs. Convictions Are More Dangerous Enemies Of Truth Than Lies (talk) 00:53, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Convictions Are More Dangerous Enemies Of Truth Than Lies, there are many editors who keep an eye on articles about high profile subjects and there are ways to get the attention of the community. Inappropriate material gets spotted and scrubbed. Wikipedia has been around since 2001 and is well used to handling astroturf campaigns from around the world. --NeilN talk to me 01:03, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Wissam Ben Yedder[edit]

Hey, I noticed that you fully protected Wissam Ben Yedder. It looks like the "access-date" on the 4th source is missing. Upon visiting the URL, I found that the link was dead. I cannot fix this since the article is fully protected. Can you do this for me? It seems like a non-controversial edit to simply add {{Dead link}} to that source referenced in the article. Thanks :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 03:59, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

@Oshwah: I'm checking in while on vacation so I'll be refraining from doing admin actions. The article should be unprotected tomorrow. --NeilN talk to me 18:22, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
Just got back from vacation myself. Enjoy yours; I surely enjoyed mine :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 03:03, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

DanDud88[edit]

Neil: Thank you! It's a shame, really. He could be a serviceable editor, but he just won't play by the rules. --Drmargi (talk) 05:42, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Yakbul's IP editing[edit]

It appears Yakbul[31] has returned to his POV editing and issuing personal attacks.[32] --Kansas Bear (talk) 05:50, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

direct democracy ireland[edit]

hi,although i was told to air my grievances on the talk of DDI i still am not getting any replies to the reliability of the material used on the page if i change something on the page there is an instant response to revert it back to the original still when i ask a question the editors pages i get no response in relation to where certain information is got from.Railsparks (talk) 19:32, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Railsparks, I see you got some answers on the talk page. --NeilN talk to me 18:25, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

talk to me hi thanks for the reply but i am still trying but i seam to be getting nowhere some users are not showing a NPOV and dont want to page to change i have highlighted that alot of the the material used is just heresay and offers no conclusive evidence as to the groups identity, is it possible that maybe you could review this page,i know that you are busy but would be great to to have an neutral view on this.Railsparks (talk) 18:20, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Advice[edit]

Turning to you because during this incident you advised Trinacrialucente and me to stay away from each other.

I've recently realized there are a number of Islam-related articles with plenty of unencyclopedic material, and in the latest one I found, I removed a ridiculously long collection of verbatim-quoted hadiths. Trinacrialucente went and reverted me, even though you can see from the article's history that he had never touched it before. I'm pretty damn sure that his revert is without merit, because it is not possibly justifiable to have half an article made out of long religious quotations; but at this point I'm too annoyed with Trinacrialucente to calmly take it to the article's talk page (where I suspect, among other things, there would be people who are more into Islamic methods than into writing encyclopedias, as I've experienced before), and I see no ground to file a third ANI report right now, especially after there was no action on the last two, even though it all sure adds up!

LjL (talk) 21:59, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

LjL, I'll look into this in detail after I get back. --NeilN talk to me 18:28, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. I hadn't noticed you were on holiday. It's not so urgent any longer since another editor has reverted Trinacrialucente and they haven't insisted any further on that article so far (I don't find that surprising since I'm convinced they're just trying to annoy me). LjL (talk) 18:36, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi again. Sorry to continue this soap opera but I'm being annoyed in turn... Trinacrialucente randomly jumped onto my talk page where discussion completely unrelated to him was taking place. How exactly do I need to tell him that he's not welcome there and that he's bothering me? Obviously more complaints at WP:ANI after which he'll just laugh at me because they aren't actioned won't help.
He has also just come and undone my revert on Yazidis (which was of an editor, Chickchick77, who everyone on that page knows is a POV-pusher) with a bogus reason (how can reinstating what the page said before, which was replaced with something else entirely, "WP:SYNTH"?!).
From my point of view, at this point, it has become obvious that he sometimes just looks at my contributions and thinks "I'm bored, let's see how I can make him mad today". I am sadly far from zen enough to not feel seriously annoyed by this. LjL (talk) 21:12, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
And here we go with more: since one of our first interactions involved him mocking my English (since I had made the tragic mistake of indicating my first language on my user page with a userbox), now that he knows it annoys me, he takes advantage of every opportunity to have a jab on me about that. Needless to say, this is moot. I really can't edit Wikipedia anymore without getting angry with this obnoxious person following me around. LjL (talk) 21:02, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Sophia Abrahão[edit]

I am not familiar with the details surrounding the ongoing SP issues at Sophia Abrahão, however it would appear to the untrained eye that User:ArthurRebelnatico has found a new account to due their bidding. At your convenience would you please review and confirm? Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 18:08, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Following up on this, there is an open filing at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ArthurRebelnatico should you wish to comment. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 00:12, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Sock already blocked. --NeilN talk to me 18:26, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Possible sock?[edit]

I'm bringing this to your attention since you began this SPI. What do you make of this? The account that edited the page was started two days after the account whose page was edited was blocked. I need to get offline and don't have time to follow up. Valfontis (talk) 20:07, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Valfontis, I opened a SPI and asked for a CU. --NeilN talk to me 18:47, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for taking care of it! Cheers, Valfontis (talk) 18:36, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Mr. Obstinate[edit]

Hi Neil, when you get a chance please take a look at this user, who calls him self Mr. Obstinate in Telugu. - Kautilya3 (talk) 00:21, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Monochrome Monitor[edit]

Hi Neil, you blocked Monochrome Monitor a few weeks ago after she was editwarring on Criticism of the Israeli government with her edits here, here, here, here and here. However, despite her promise to edit productively here it appears as though she has started the editwar again over the same content on the same page as you can see with her edit here. Tanbircdq (talk) 00:33, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

That will not be necessary. I shall speak to her, reminding her of her undertaking. I mentor MM but I can't keep track of all her activity. She will not do it again. Please hold off any further action Neil. I appreciate your GF so far. Irondome (talk) 00:41, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Pro forma close[edit]

Essentially moot since the guy apparently stopped editing, but would you do the honors of closing the request at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Requests_for_closure#Wikipedia:Administrators.27_noticeboard.23Request_topic_ban_for_CheckersBoard ? NE Ent 00:10, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Lycoperdon[edit]

Lycoperdon (possibly from Russia due to her edits relating to Russia) refused to read the message what you have left in her talks regarding her edits on the Yemeni Civil War (2015) article. FrankieL1985 (talk) 16:39, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Requesting to join a debate for James Stunt[edit]

@NeilN: I'm requesting you to join this Afd discussion. Your comment is valuable to us. Please help us reach a consensus. Thanks -Khocon (talk) 18:53, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

About User:forresterjanice[edit]

Thank you![edit]

Thank you NeilN for removing User:Forresterjanice's Talk page access. Also, there is some issues going on YouTube that is going on about you.--2601:147:C200:6B47:6CA2:B8F1:2463:6DF0 (talk) 00:36, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

School IP[edit]

This is a school IP. I am a Wikipedia user that doesn't want to disclose my username for safety and privacy reasons. Could you tag it? 62.218.25.130 (talk) 12:27, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)@62.218.25.130: Done. Dat GuyTalkContribs 22:06, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

There is no copyright violation[edit]

Hello, your input would be greatly appreciated here. Template:Bernie Sanders sidebar on Revision history... Without citing specifics, these guys just keep saying over and over that there is a Copyright Infringement where there is none, and removing the photo (first below) on those grounds. The current photo (second below) is of poor quality, is of an outdated format, and does not present the subject as well as the one I am suggesting, I think. Because of the nature of their repeated removal of the photo on what is false grounds (see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bernie Sanders 2015 campaign portrait (cropped).tif), I was wondering if you could please step in as a fellow administrator to them, and remove the deletion request and maybe get them to choose a different reason to dislike the photo. The photo in question is here, I believe it is properly tagged as CC0 1.0, and is free in the Public Domain by presintation of the subjects website as part of a self-proclaimed "Media Kit".

In fact the second photo is possibly on more dubious grounds because it was taken from a flickr account with no mention of the intended purpose, according to its source, as opposed to an official media release (cited on the first one). Anyway, please help, these guys are going through my edits history now, particularly User:William S. Saturn, and its starting to seem like harassment - particularly in light of the political nature of the photo being discussed. I have not warred with either of them, but they are repeatedly (three times) removing the photo in question from all of its presentation area without clearly stating the nature of their grievances. Thank you for your time and hard work! --7partparadigm talk 18:19, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

7partparadigm, I'm back from a holiday. Do you still need help? Note that I am not an admin on Commons. --NeilN talk to me 16:31, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Renaming of page[edit]

Hello Neil!

I was wondering could you change the name of Mario Pavelic's site? It is written Pavelić, since he is of Slavic heritage. HankMoodyTZ (talk) 23:33, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Yes check.svg Done — JJMC89(T·C) 02:42, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Edit Quest![edit]

Hardenstein 2014 - Adventurers.jpg Edit Quest!
Titusfox has requested that you join them for an afternoon of questing, slaying and looting at Edit Quest, the Wikipedia Based RPG! I Hope to see you there! TF { Contribs } { Edit Quest! } 14:00, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Generation Alpha[edit]

Hi, could you tell me if this article should be nominated for deletion? Or is this the type of term Wikipedia wants to include in the encyclopedia? Thank you. 2606:6000:610A:9000:6DC0:2C17:90AE:A2FB (talk) 16:13, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Can you weigh in on the merge discussion? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Generation_Z#Proposed_merge_with_Generation_Alpha — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:6000:610A:9000:7831:A3C1:F9E8:7FE8 (talk) 20:21, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Jai Gangaajal[edit]

Hi N, would you please watchlist Jai Gangaajal? Funky editing. I converted to redirect in September (here's my talk page comment) as there's no indication principal photography has begun (WP:NFF), and plot summary was plagiarized. User Randomsmoker, an SPA, silently reverted. I restored redirect and left an L3 on Random's talk page. Semi-new editor GeneralKutuzov silently reverted as well, which restored plagiarized content. Has the smell of ring editing, and I'll note again that I opened a discussion in September. Thanks! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:01, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Cyphoidbomb, redirect semied for 2 months. --NeilN talk to me 16:43, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Neil. The issue quieted down after I and some other editors found that GeneralKutuzov was issuing wack vandalism warnings to people like Flyer22 who hadn't committed any vandalism. Take it off your watchlist! Merry Christmas and such. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:20, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

He's Baaaack[edit]

Our little fan-identifier is back, under the ip 2601:989:0:3D7E:8DE7:ADF9:3818:24AA (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · checkuser (log)), trying to claim that Pete is a wolf in List of fictional wolves.--Mr Fink (talk) 22:36, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Also hopping to this ip, 2601:989:0:3D7E:B008:78F:8538:22FD (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · checkuser (log)), too.--Mr Fink (talk) 22:43, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Mr Fink, 2601:989:0:3d7e::/64 blocked 2 months. --NeilN talk to me 16:49, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks!--Mr Fink (talk) 16:50, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Season's Greetings[edit]

Xmas Ornament.jpg

To You and Yours!

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:32, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Yo Ho Ho[edit]

Make sure to click on both pictures to see them full size NeilN as they will give you a chuckle. May your 2016 be full of joy and special times. MarnetteD|Talk 04:19, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
MarnetteD, ho, ho, ho! Happy holidays to you too! --NeilN talk to me 16:52, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

No mention of criticism or of the underhanded actions of Anita Sarkeesian[edit]

Why has the mentioning of how Anita Sarkeesian's kick started is 3 years late and only 1/2 done with no sign of it ever being finished. Where footage was taken with no credit given to the creators with the claim it was their own gameplay. How it is said that her desire to "spark a debate and create change" involves blocking and silencing any opposing view that shows where she has been dishonest, spread misinformation, or just outright lied to support a preset view. Why is this written so one sided with little to integrity or honesty and just shows her to be a victim and not a troll what she really is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rbeamsy (talkcontribs) 07:26, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Rbeamsy, assuming you're not just here trolling for Gamergate, I suggest you read Talk:Anita Sarkeesian and its archives where these issues have been raised. You should also be aware of WP:BLP which applies everywhere. --NeilN talk to me 16:57, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikiclaus Cheer ![edit]

Wikiclaus.jpg Wikiclaus greetings
Michael Q. Schmidt talkback is wishing you the happiest of Wikipedia Wikiclaus' good cheer.
Snow flake.svg Face-smile.svg Christmas tree.svg Face-smile.svg Snow flake.svg Face-smile.svg Christmas tree.svg Face-smile.svg Snow flake.svg Face-smile.svg Christmas tree.svg Face-smile.svg Christmas tree.svg Face-smile.svg Christmas tree.svg Face-smile.svg Snow flake.svg Face-smile.svg Christmas tree.svg Face-smile.svg Snow flake.svg Face-smile.svg Christmas tree.svg Face-smile.svg Snow flake.svg Face-smile.svg Christmas tree.svg Face-smile.svg Snow flake.svg
This message is intended to celebrate the holiday season, promote WikiCheer, and to hopefully make your day just a little bit better, for Wikiclaus encourages we all spread smiles, fellowship, and seasonal good cheer by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone with whom you had disagreements in the past, a good friend, or just some random person.
Share the good feelings and the happiest of holiday spirits from Wikiclaus ! Christmas tree.svg Face-smile.svg Christmas tree.svg Face-smile.svg Christmas tree.svg Face-smile.svg Christmas tree.svg Face-smile.svg Christmas tree.svg

Season's Greetings![edit]

Use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

Further block evasion[edit]

Hi NeilN, please see [33] for the most recent incarnation of a blocked user. Many thanks and best wishes for the holidays, 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:12, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Blocked by another admin. --NeilN talk to me 16:59, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Page 'University of Bologna'[edit]

Hi NeilN, I ask if it is possible that the page University of Bologna will become unprotected. I think they are more problems arising from the fact that the page is semi-protected. This measure prevents the small corrective updates of users who want only the best language or add a source. For example, what will it take to accept the request to correct it, the number of schools and the cities of the campus? Thanks so much --Strenza (talk) 09:18, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Strenza, semi-protection is preventing disruptive edits which have caused the article to be protected four times since October. Unregistered users can use the talk page to suggest edits. --NeilN talk to me 17:03, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Seasons Greetings[edit]

Section of mouse brain (false color).png Seasons Greetings

Christmas! Christmas, everywhere,
on every talk page, I do dispair
Seasons being greeted and Wikibreaks told,
but still time for a little more editing, for being WP:BOLD!
So go on, go forth and enjoy beyond concern
Your Wiki will be waiting for when you return.

Thanks for all the help this year! :) -- samtar whisper 16:16, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Merry Christmas[edit]

Christmas tree sxc hu.jpg
Merry Christmas!!
Hello, I wish you and your family a Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year,

Thanks for all your help on the 'pedia! Face-smile.svg

   –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 16:30, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Lycoperdon[edit]

The message you left on the user from Russia]. She refused to read your message. She kept reverting rather than discussing on the talk page. Please block her as soon as possible. FrankieL1985 (talk) 19:48, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

FrankieL1985, I suggest you actually add sources as requested rather than asking for a block. --NeilN talk to me 16:17, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Deez Nuts (band)[edit]

Renew PC? --George Ho (talk) 21:30, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done --NeilN talk to me 17:07, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Welcome Back![edit]

Erdbeerteller01.jpg Hope you continue the anti-vandalism. Dat GuyTalkContribs 16:16, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Shy-Boy[edit]

Not sure this needs doing anything about, but Shy-Boy is surely a sock of RU-6972. They're connected by having both edited Jamie McMurray and having both used the IP 142.161.21.21, see this and this. I suppose you could call it a clean start. Bishonen | talk 21:12, 22 December 2015 (UTC).

A barnstar for you![edit]

Administrator Barnstar Hires.png The Admin's Barnstar
Thanks for blocking that WP:DUCK sock. Beats me having to file a WP:SPI report for that editor ... after the first 2 or 3. Face-smile.svg Steel1943 (talk) 23:44, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
@Steel1943: Not sure which sock you're referring to as I've blocked a few in the past couple hours but you're welcome. --NeilN talk to me 23:48, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Barnstar[edit]

Administrator Barnstar Hires.png The Admin's Barnstar
For your work protecting pages and blocking vandals. Dan Koehl (talk) 03:20, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Merry stuff.[edit]

Poepkop (talk) 17:04, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Season's greetings![edit]

Use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

How to resolve this situation?[edit]

Hello, FrankieL1985 has issued me a threat that I am vandalising the thread, while all I am doing is protecting it from vandalism. Someone keeps putting Russian and North Korean flags at the list of belligerents in Yemeni Civil War (2015), while there is no reliable proof that such a major change in the conflict of these countries participating in the conflict ever took place. The ediotr goes beyond that by providing absolutely no source, just adding russian and north korean flags for no apparent reason repeatedly. I believe I have right to revert unsourced changes which deliberately shames countries for no reason the editor probably dislikes, Wikipedia must remain neutral and free.

In short: I am accussed of vandalism while I am actually the one helping wikipedia cleanse itself from vandals randomly throwing countries in conflicts without any sources at all, their edits are as legitimate as putting United States as supporter of ISIS with no source or Germany as supporter of Al-Qaeda. In this case, however Russia and North Korea is unfairly targeted, if that mysterious editor has a proof he could atleast add source to it rather than just dumping flags.

Wikipedia should also be free of personal attacks, while what FrankieL1985 posted on my talk page was a clear threat to not fight for neutrality of wikipedia and accept Russia and North Korea as belligerents of Yemeni Civil War (2015) with absolutely no source.Here's what he said to me:http://i.imgur.com/KDrJSfL.png — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lycoperdon (talkcontribs) 22:51, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Replied here. --NeilN talk to me 23:01, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

...And a happy New Year![edit]

Good luck,

GABHello! 01:06, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Edit War regarding Joseph Desena[edit]

I cannot believe what I keep on seeing here. The links to the Tampa fraud are continuously removed! This is a matter of public record and their removal is disrespectful of veterans and disrespectful toward the public who don't deserve to be defraudedJkxyz (talk) 22:23, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Merry Christmas![edit]

Greeting Card Christmas Rust Craft circa 1950.jpg
Merry Christmas!!
May you and your family have a very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year,

Thanks for all your help and support, and of course all your work, on Wikipedia!

   – Onel5969 TT me 03:50, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Merry Christmas[edit]

Adoracao dos magos de Vicente Gil.jpg

Peace is a state of balance and understanding in yourself and between others, where respect is gained by the acceptance of differences, tolerance persists, conflicts are resolved through dialogue, people's rights are respected and their voices are heard, and everyone is at their highest point of serenity without social tension. FrankieL1985 (talk) 04:07, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Closer (Tegan and Sara song)[edit]

Can you protect the page to persistent poorly and unsourced content. 123.136.106.107 (talk) 14:40, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Protected 1 week. --NeilN talk to me 14:50, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Block Spammer/Vandal[edit]

Could you block User:172.56.9.215? He is going to the page Tyler Ward and replacing all of the content with {{retired}} tags (Diff). Dat GuyTalkContribs 16:31, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Blocked by another admin. --NeilN talk to me 16:53, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Generation Alpha[edit]

If you have time, could you merge the article? Happy Holidays! 2606:6000:610A:9000:F957:C48B:1BF1:9EDD (talk) 17:26, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Happy Christmas![edit]

Christmas tableau.jpg Happy Christmas!
Have a happy holiday season. May the year ahead be productive and happy. John (talk) 17:36, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Best of the Season to you[edit]

ChristmasVillage2008.jpg Merry Christmas!
Merry Christmas Neil and a Happy and Prosperous New Year! Dr. K. 20:35, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Season's greetings![edit]

Arbitration enforcement 2 case closed[edit]

You are receiving this message because you are a party or offered a preliminary statement and/or evidence in the Arbitration enforcement 2 case. This is a one-time message.

The Arbitration enforcement 2 arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t) has been closed, and the following remedies have been enacted:

1.1) The Arbitration Committee confirms the sanctions imposed on Eric Corbett as a result of the Interactions at GGTF case, but mandates that all enforcement requests relating to them be filed at arbitration enforcement and be kept open for at least 24 hours.

3) For his breaches of the standards of conduct expected of editors and administrators, Black Kite is admonished.

6) The community is reminded that discretionary sanctions have been authorised for any page relating to or any edit about: (i) the Gender Gap Task Force; (ii) the gender disparity among Wikipedians; and (iii) any process or discussion relating to these topics, all broadly construed.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kharkiv07 (T) 02:41, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration enforcement 2 case closed

Revision made in error[edit]

A revision has been made in error on Ray Griggs profile. can you please delete the last 4 revisions — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.181.73.222 (talk)

This is likely to fuel the media and cause issues on a large scale for the department and myself... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.181.73.222 (talk)
So you don't have to go searching for it N here Ray Griggs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) is the article. Since all of the edits in question were made by the same IP I surmise something wonky is going on. Merry Merry anyway. MarnetteD|Talk 05:22, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
The OP appears to be trolling. Making and then deleting his own vandalism edits. Softlavender (talk) 06:09, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Pov pushing[edit]

Hi Neil, can you intervene the issue on Genetic history of the Turkish people? An user constantly and annoyingly tried to push his pov without no consensus. I have explained the reasons of my reverts and also an admin also reverted the user but he does not give up. 85.105.128.126 (talk) 20:23, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Blocking request[edit]

Hi. I really suggest you to block this IP again for his recent destructive edit on Diana, Princess of Wales's article. It isn't his first time to do such edits. All of his contributions have been a sort of vandalism. He was also blocked by you before. He should at least get a warning! Keivan.fTalk 17:16, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Removal of content on Susana Martinez[edit]

Some contentious material on Susana Martinez was removed here twice by an anon. Would you recommend that I get a 3O or a RFC? Please ping. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 19:19, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Another editor also restored the material, so it appears to be settled for the moment. Jim1138 (talk) 19:20, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Randall Adhemar account hacked, spewing[edit]

I did note see a category, so here: Please suppress, bind down Randall Adhemar account as soon as possible. I am, or was, Randall Adhemar. My account is just sending out cleverly unpleasant messages now. I presume it will continue to do so. The longer it is active, by the minute, the more damage it does. I suspect there is larger scale hacking done as well, as whoever is blasting messages, including stop sign graphics to confused acquaintances. I do not know hot to stop this or regain control, nor even when it started. Please block communications of account, any who can, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Randall Adhemar (talkcontribs) 10:53, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

(stalking) I added your request to the WP:AN/I thread about you. With a little luck, you should get what you're asking for soon. Paradoctor (talk) 04:05, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Dino Arslanagić[edit]

Hello,

I was wondering could you change the name of this page, since it is Slavic, and it ia Arslanagić, not Arslanagic?

Thanks! HankMoodyTZ (talk) 15:07, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @HankMoodyTZ: As I already told you on my talk page, you can do this yourself. See the instructions on moving a page. — JJMC89(T·C) 16:03, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
I already tried, but it doesn't work for some reason, it says that it cannot be done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HankMoodyTZ (talkcontribs) 00:08, 2015 December 29 (UTC)
@HankMoodyTZ: My apologies. Deletion of the redirect that is in the way and subsequent renaming requested. — JJMC89(T·C) 00:23, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year![edit]

Happy new year confetti.svg Happy New Year!
Best wishes for a wonderful 2016! -- WV 23:37, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

500/30[edit]

Hey NeilN! Hope the holidays are treating you well. I seem to recall you being involved and/or somewhat knowledgeable on the subject of the 500/30 editing restriction. I was hoping to get some input from you, as I think it might be time to implement the template-based way of enforcing it, if you recall what I'm referring to. Cheers and happy new year :) MusikAnimal talk 02:18, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

2016[edit]

Happy New Year .jpg
Happy New Year 2016!
Did you know ... that back in 1885, Wikipedia editors wrote Good Articles with axes, hammers and chisels?

Thank you for your contributions to this encyclopedia using 21st century technology. I hope you don't get any unneccessary blisters.
   – Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:30, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year NeilN![edit]

.

Please help remove on of the Big It On film series categories[edit]

There are two Wikipedia categories for the Bring It On film series. Only one is needed. Could you please delete this first one:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Bring_It_On_films

This second one is linked to the article on Wikipedia about the Bring It On film series and the first just seems like overkill, I've tried moving the first category but Wikipedia won't allow me to do this, this is the category I think that should be kept on Wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Bring_It_On_(film_series)

Thanks. Neptune's Trident (talk) 18:13, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

German Brazilian[edit]

Hi, do you remember the User:Opusdei444 that was vandalizing the article German Brazilian? The user is back, with an IP number, vandalizing the same page. Could you please take a look? Xuxo (talk) 19:40, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Renew PC for...? (31 December 2015)[edit]

Kite, Martin O'Malley, WGXA, Cannibal (disambiguation), Religious views of Adolf Hitler, Charles & Keith, Adam Ruins Everything? --George Ho (talk) 20:31, 31 December 2015 (UTC)


Happy New Year, NeilN![edit]

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Happy New Year 2016}} to send this message

Savvyjack23 (talk) 07:57, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Happy New Year, NeilN![edit]

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Generation Z[edit]

Could you merge the Gen Alpha article into the Generation Z article? The consensus is to merge it. Thanks. 2606:6000:610A:9000:441:5503:67D5:D2CE (talk) 17:25, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Mihir Shah[edit]

Hi Neil, I have fixed some notability issues for Mihir Shah, and addressed some language issues as well. Please let me know if you can remove the notability and deletion banner on the top of this article. Thanks! vidhyahere (talk) 1:05, 11 January 2016 (EST)

Where are you?[edit]

I'm a bit slow in the uptake, apparently, but where are you?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:00, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Bbb23, still here. You know those gaps in my editing history? They were caused by 80-90 hour work-weeks. January and February are triple-booked. --NeilN talk to me 15:59, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
I guess I haven't been keeping up on your gaps. I generally think of you as always being here and all over the project. 80-90 hour work weeks?? What kind of slavery is that?--Bbb23 (talk) 16:01, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Bbb23, kind of self-inflicted as I can make a very good living working ~20 hours a week. But some interesting projects came up so... --NeilN talk to me 16:12, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)...so now the drinks are on you Face-wink.svg Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 16:18, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Sorry to pile on, but thank goodness you're back! I hope that the work torture ends soon and you get back to editing! Dat GuyTalkContribs 16:04, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Yet another (talk page watcher) I am glad to read that you are okay. "Work torture" or "WikiP editing torture" that must be a tough choice :-) Best regards. MarnetteD|Talk 16:50, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Was he missing? Didn't notice. -Roxy the dog™ woof 17:07, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

remove pending changes[edit]

hi Nein, Kho people is currently configured to pending changes. Please remove this protection so ip user can add contribution to this article202.69.12.243 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:18, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I need some help[edit]

Hey Neil, I need some help regarding this article, where I am accused of various things. The user who is accusing me seems to feel that this article is very important to him/her, so I do not want to go into dispute resolution yet as this is not a huge issue.The help of a more experienced Wikipedia editor will perhaps reach a conclusion on this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nadar_%28caste%29 Rabt man (talk) 16:48, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Protection for Maddox[edit]

Pending protection for Maddox expires today. Please extend because vandalism continues. Pickuptha'Musket (talk) 13:16, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Lester Coleman[edit]

Hi Neil. Would you please weigh-in on my edits to the LC article? I gave it some structure (or I believe so), and would appreciate critique. BTW, I read the talk-page archive, which I had *not* read in 2013. Wow, did I miss the point; I totally see what you guys were dealing-with that I had no idea about two years ago when I was defending the page prima facie. Sure Footed1 (talk) 16:31, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Please try to not revert the whole thing. It did need cleaning-up, and I'm sure my edits can stand criticism, and I'd like that, please. Sure Footed1 (talk) 16:32, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Lester Coleman redux[edit]

Sorry to tell you that the Lester Coleman article is undergoing a rather odd and major revision. I've posted some questions for the editor. You might want to take a look at the article if you're not heartily sick of this subject yet. Rgr09 (talk) 15:38, 5 February 2016 (UTC)