User talk:NeilN/Archive 28

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

→

Archive 35

AN discussion you might be interested in

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Étienne Dolet (talk) 07:07, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

IPsock of banned User:Vote (X) for Change again

Special:Contributions/89.240.30.105. Thanks, JoeSperrazza (talk) 12:07, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Blocked by @Acroterion: thanks, JoeSperrazza (talk) 12:23, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/188.222.175.101. Thanks, JoeSperrazza (talk) 01:00, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Caste AE

Just to clarify, we shouldn't be looking for a category as the proposal is to add individual articles and/or individual talk pages to the list. This would be very similar to the current filter except that it'd cover many articles instead of one. Noting here instead of responding there as you may want to modify your post as opposed to having a discussion there. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 13:13, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

@SpacemanSpiff: That would mean admins would have to enlist the help of a edit filter manager, correct? Any idea how filter efficiency would compare between say a list of fifty articles versus a category? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:21, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

@SpacemanSpiff: But, Space, there's a suggestion on the table at AE from EdJohnston (and I mention it too, in my TL;DR bouquet of responses) that the restricted caste articles should form a category of their own. (Unless I misunderstood Ed.) Don't you think that's a good idea? That category could then be, hmmm, edit filtered. Right? Bishonen | talk 13:30, 1 October 2015 (UTC).

Neil and Bishonen, if you look at {{Ds/talk caste}} that adds talk pages to a category. See an example for the usage at User talk:SpacemanSpiff/sandbox2/req. It can be modified for the article to add the article into the category, so that shouldn't be an issue. I was under the impression that pulling from a category wasn't possible, but I could very well be mistaken and if it could, then it eases up the workload. —SpacemanSpiff 13:36, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

SpacemanSpiff, in my post, I pinged MusikAnimal to get their input as I don't know if anyone participating in that discussion is an edit filter manager. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:46, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Oh, and there's a bigger problem with a category pull:Any editor can add an article/talk page to the category; any editor with over 500/30 can remove the category. This would in effect make it a non-admin DS. :) —SpacemanSpiff 13:48, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

SpacemanSpiff Actually, I thought about this. I don't know if it's possible as I don't know if filters work on diffs or the entire content, but if they work on diffs, maybe a second edit filter allowing only admins to place and remove {{Ds/talk caste}}. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:53, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Hey MusikAnimal, can you please chime in here too? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:05, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Sure. For one, I think it will be trivially more expensive to target articles by name than it will to target a certain category, but using a category might make it easier to manage. Then you do have the potential that some editors might remove the category, knowing it's what's triggering the edit filter. An additional filter just to see if they add/remove the category is certainly possible, but a bit overkill if you ask me. We want to minimize filter usage where possible. We could instead use an embedded comment "don't remove this category or else!" (except you know, not as threatening). It seems to me than any editor with over 500 edits over 30 days will see it and understand the implications of circumventing restrictions imposed by the filter. Either way I think this filter should be combined with the Gamergate one, and everything we've discussed thus far won't prohibit that. — MusikAnimal ^talk 14:15, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Another thought, if there's some common necessary template (navbox maybe?) being used across all the concerned articles, you could add the category there and fully protect it, but shutting out other editors from contributing to that template is less than ideal — MusikAnimal ^talk 14:19, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

MusikAnimal, I created {{Ds/talk caste}} for this purpose, but it obviously has to have a modified version -- something similar to {{Pp}} if it is to be used in article space too. I've tested it out at User talk:SpacemanSpiff/sandbox2/req and you'll see the category play there (right now it uses the test categories X1, X2, X3, feel free to play around with different iterations of the template on that page (and also fix the errors I've made on the template/documentation! It's the first non-navbox template I've made). Another question, would it be any easier if this was a list on a single page instead of a category? I think that might be a more workable solution from a practical standpoint as we wouldn't have to keep checking to see if someone's removed it or added it incorrectly. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 17:40, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm a complete and total idiot... when I said the filter can check for a category, I meant that it checks for it as it does for any text; e.g. literally looking for the syntax [[Category:Something]] in the article body. So obviously a transcluded category isn't going to work... sorry for that misleading idea. However if you go about your idea in using a template that will work just as well, as we can just look for the template instead of the category. Additionally, the transcluded category is still kind of favourable for organizational purposes, just know it won't work functionally by itself.

Aside from that, the edit filter won't be able to check the contents of a page and filter an edit going to another page (it can act on one page only), so I still think your template approach is best. I really like the idea of making a padlock for this restriction, then it's almost like a whole new level of protection that will be handled by a single filter. This is a nice workaround to a protection level that doesn't exist in the software. That begs the question, though, would pending changes level 2 with semi-protection suffice? That's a native way to handle it that's a little more inline with the "openness" philosophy of Wikipedia. There's no consensus to use it, but I believe we actually did use it with Gamergate controversy at one point, and given we're about to add a new article to a similar restriction, I bet consensus could change to favour it with the backing of ArbCom. Just a thought... we can get by just fine with the edit filter as well. — MusikAnimal ^talk 17:53, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

And about the template... I was thinking it could work just like the {{pp}} templates, where you have a banner and a padlock (the latter invoked with small=yes). If an article is put under this 500 edits over 30 days restriction, you'll surely want some notice on the talk page. So, you could use the same template there. If you want different wording since it's the talk page, we could use magic words and parser functions to give that flexibility. There'd be some other parameter such as filtercheck=yes that would be what the filter is looking for (so {{Ds\/Protect.*\|\s*filtercheck\s*=\s*yes (or similar regex), and you could use that param on the article or talk page accordingly. How does that sound? — MusikAnimal ^talk 18:12, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

That sounds like Greek to me. Not being a techie, I'm completely unfamiliar with the latter part of what you've said, I made this template reading through the help page and looking at a couple of other samples and that's about the extent of my knowledge! But if you think there's a better way to handle this I'm completely for it, I thought we'd need two (like you say, we do need the banner announcement on the talk page, but not all talk pages of corresponding articles will be under this restriction) but I take it I'm mistaken. Feel free to do any necessary modifications (I've left a note at the AE page linking to the current version, so if you make any significant changes you can note it there). This may be a dumb question, but couldn't a filter be made to look at Wikipedia:Pages under 500/30 restrictions and work off of the links or unlinked titles from that? cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 18:25, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

• It worries me to see Pending Changes 2 mentioned. (And somebody went there at AE too, I think, though I can't seem to find it.) For my part I will be quite discouraged and give up trying to admin the area if we should be referred to PC2, and to trying yet again to get consensus for that old chestnut. Why not just do a 500/30 restriction already? You see all the uninvolved admins at AE agreeing to it? How could another year or two arguing about PC2 possibly be simpler? Sitush will be long gone by the time something happens on that front. Bishonen | talk 19:42, 1 October 2015 (UTC).

I wasn't around for the original debate, so I wouldn't know. It was just a thought, an edit filter works just as well in this case. However I got to thinking, as much as I like the template idea, we face the potential of any ole editor adding it to some other page, and that page will get locked up until someone comes by and removes the template. Now, we can add an additional filter that only allows admins to add/remove the template, no problem, but I only see that as worthwhile if we have numerous articles under the new filter-enforced restriction. It also just feels weird having a new level of protection at our disposal without broader consensus for its usage. I suppose so long as it's only imposed by arbcom it's fine. Anyway listing out the page names individually in the filter might be the best route I think for now. How many pages are we talking about anyway? — MusikAnimal ^talk 00:12, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

MusikAnimal, I see this as starting off with maybe 10-12 pages (in addition to the two already included). But this will likely be a dynamic list and there could be short term additions and removals sometimes. Which is why my earlier question on whether a page Wikipedia:Pages under 500-30 restrictions with listings either of article links or just bare titles would be a feasible solution. If the filter could be made to check that list, then admins who do the arb enforcement action can be made to directly enter/remove from that page and the filter could work off of that without an edit filter rights ed having to manually change it every time. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 03:54, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't clarify! As far as content goes, edit filters work only off of the edit itself and the affected page. There's no way to fetch the content of another page beforehand, unfortunately :( I want to move forward with the template idea combined with another filter allowing only admins to add/remove it. This would allow the usage to scale and do so without filter modifications. I don't really do ArbCom or honestly even know how to read those pages... are the arbitrators in agreeance with this idea? Perhaps we should write back there and clarify what we've come up with. It's just a big move to allow the addition of a little template impose such a powerful editing restriction. You don't think we need more community input? I'm indifferent... I just don't want to implement it and get brought to ArbCom myself =P — MusikAnimal ^talk 04:19, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

@MusikAnimal: First we need to get approval for admins to implement the 500/30 restriction on any caste article which is regularly disrupted. That's at AE. This is a discussion on how to technically implement the restriction if approved. The simplest way is to have an admin contact an edit filter manager (EFM) every time a change is required to the list. I was exploring ways where admins did not need the assistance of a EFM. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:40, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you

Hi Neil. I wish to thank you for your comments and support during this incident. I am thankful that this place has admins like you. Take care. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 14:51, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

full protection

I dont think full protection is necessary at Jewish Israeli stone throwing, there is one IP hopping user that has vandalized other pages (eg here). Semi-protection I think would be a better choice. nableezy - 17:07, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Same for List of Palestinians killed and injured by Israelis in connection with stone or Molotov cocktail throwing nableezy - 17:07, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I have warned the editor for the talk page edit. However Plot Spoiler is right. [1] The IP's content edits are not outright vandalism and reverts need edit summaries. Those articles are also under WP:1RR as is Palestinian stone-throwing. I chose to fully protect rather than hand out blocks. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:23, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Well the 1RR doesnt apply to reverts of IP addresses, and when you combine the repeated removal of sourced content, the outright falsification of content (eg here) the vandalism of users comments on talk pages (eg here) I dont feel that any of the edits require any explanation beyong rvv. nableezy - 17:29, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I see POV-pushing but not obvious falsification so you'll have to point that out to me. Also, you are at six reverts of non-vandal edits at Palestinian stone-throwing. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:42, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

The obvious falsification is calling Hebron a city in the Israeli West Bank. But seriously here, you have somebody using multiple IPs across articles and talk pages making repeated reversions without any comment (with 9 reverts on that same page, all involving removing sourced material without comment), but the three users, all with thousands of edits in this topic area, and all are reverts are the same here? nableezy - 18:06, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

@Nableezy: If you want sanctions against the IP then the place to propose them is WP:ANI or WP:ANEW (before reverting six times please). And the three editors making reverts here should know enough to provide edits summaries for the reverts. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:04, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

All right fine, but, I just want to impress upon you how tedious this stuff can be. Its a regular occurrence in this topic area, an IP, or a few depending on how dedicated the person is with jumping between IPs, will go through a bunch of articles and make garbage changes. I mean changes that no experienced user on any side of the topic would make with their actual account. Like calling a settlement in the West Bank a city in Israel. They do this without making any comments and revert for a few hours, then they get bored and go away. I think it was Zero0000 who wrote somewhere that cleaning up this crap is just one of the rote practices that editors do, and its one of the reasons why when the 1rr was first implemented in the topic area it didnt include edits by IPs. When something like that happens I revert and ask for semi-protection, and when thats added the IP either, if they are a genuinely interested new user trying to make a positive impact on the encyclopedias coverage on these topics, goes to the talk page and raises his or hers objections or the IP goes away. I say either or, but it really is just the or. Fully protecting those articles, or not semi protecting it and leaving them open, stops people interested in actually improving them. You want to say the IP edits are not outright vandalism fine, but making us go through the hassle of going to ANI every time somebody does this same crap for two hours and disappears would make it so there was no time for anything but that. nableezy - 19:18, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

User evading block

Hello, I am sorry to bring bad news but an editor you blocked, Asdisis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is evading block again. First he has done it by using several IP accounts at Talk:Serbs of Croatia, and now he is doing it with a new account, Relichal1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). He just went on editing the same issues he edited prior being blocked, such as Croatian Military Frontier (at the Kingdom of Croatia (Habsburg) article), issues regarding Serbian-Croatian dispute on sucession of Yugoslavia, and he even came to one of my discussions at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. You can see it all in his contributions, it is not much. He must have thought that I woudn't report him, since no one did it previously at Serbs of Croatia when he used IPs. But it is clearly him. FkpCascais (talk) 18:56, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

@FkpCascais: I'm pinging Drmies as they placed the initial block (I just removed talk page access) and I have to head out soon. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:08, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh God not that one again. Drmies (talk) 19:09, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

OK I gotta run too; I did not see a cause for a block immediately; the best thing to do is to add it to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Asdisis and see if there's still CU evidence available. Getting such info is handy since it's likely that there's more of these socks; note how little overlap there is between these two accounts. And thrown in the IPs as well. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 19:14, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

BTW, I'll be happy to semi-protect Talk:Serbs of Croatia. Feel free to archive the lot. Drmies (talk) 19:16, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Serbs of Croatia has been calm for a while now, so there may be no reason now for protecting it. I am gonna add it then at the sock investigation. Thanks. PS: he has been active for most of the time, but no one really had the patience to report him, we just all ignored him. Also, he announced he would be evading block by changing IPs and making new accounts. He also mentioned that he has many sleeping accounts. So the problem of how permanently to solve it seems complicated. FkpCascais (talk) 19:39, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

What's going on? FkpCascais I came to your discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard trough your contributions since I saw it is regarding Yugoslavia. I supported your opinion there. Well the right opinion, not yours in particular. That is the way I came here too. I'm looking at contributions of that other user and I can't see him editing, even once, any of the articles I have edited. You named several articles both I and him had edited, but I can't see any of them in his contributions. I'm confused, Why are you lying? Relichal1 (talk) 19:41, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Please stop evading block and go to your talk-page and make the proper procedures for unblocking request. FkpCascais (talk) 20:12, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I asked you. Why are you lying and why have you wasted my time making me go trough the other editor's contributions to find not a single common article which we both edited(and you named several)? I'm close to reporting you of harassment. Relichal1 (talk) 20:46, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

The person who allegedly just created an account and is a newcomer, went on looking at my contributions and recent discussions, is speaking about harass? And is familiar with wiki rules and reports? And has same editing patterns as one indef-blocked editor who was engaged in discussions with me? Hummmm all coincidence? ... He is now edit-warring at the same articles he has done it before. FkpCascais (talk) 21:35, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Obvious sock is obvious. I have blocked again. Let me know on my talk page if this character returns. They seem incapable of hiding their idiosyncratic style and are thus easy to recognize. HighInBC 21:39, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks HighInBC. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:32, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Twinkle problems

Hi Neil, are you having these Twinke problems [2]? - Kautilya3 (talk) 09:22, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: No, I'm not. See this. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:11, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

White power music

You might want to look again at protecting the page, given that the IP has returned. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:27, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

@Ghmyrtle: I've blocked the IP. I will keep an eye on the article and protect if a third IP shows up. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:28, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Close analysis

Only one user has been edit warring, and made over 3 reverts in 24 hours,[3][4][5] and 2 edits at start without gaining consensus priorhand.[6][7] Not to forget about the very hostile discussion at the talk page, "reply makes zero sense. I mean literally zero",[8] and again "you continue to make zero sense. I mean literally zero sense".[9] I think that better choice was to simply block him or topic ban. Currently you have protected a non-consensus version. D4iNa4 (talk) 14:22, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

D4iNa4, I think you mean I didn't protect your preferred version. Given that multiple editors on both sides are edit warring over what seems to be a longstanding issue, I'm okay with that. See WP:WRONGVERSION. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:35, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Agree. Can you consider having a watch on this article? Because this is turning into battleground. D4iNa4 (talk) 14:42, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

D4iNa4, any page I touch goes on my watchlist. However, if disruption continues after protection expires feel free to leave a note here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:46, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry

Okay. I apologize for what I did. It won't happen again. CLCStudent (talk) 20:43, 2 October 2015 (UTC) I want to let you know I gave a level 1warning and a level 2 warning before. The user deleted those warning. CLCStudent (talk) 20:45, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi CLCStudent, they are allowed to delete warnings. A better response to this was not another templated warning but something like this. I know it's likely that message will be ignored but at least we tried to reach out. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:51, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

A Star for You!

		The Admin's Barnstar
		Your dedicated efforts to Wikipedia to keep its integrity are appreciated. Wishing you happy moments both at Wikipedia and in your life. -AsceticRosé 04:18, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Neil, let me also add my appreciation for all the work you do in keeping control. Please make sure you get enough sleep! - Kautilya3 (talk) 09:52, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi! Thank you very much for semi-protecting the UAAP Cheerdance Competition article. I really appreciate you for taking action to further stop further vandalism of this article.

-Best wishes, Boogie314 (talk) 12:55, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

@AsceticRose, Kautilya3, and Boogie314: Thanks everyone! And Kautilya3, lucky for me I don't need a lot of sleep :-) --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:03, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

October 2015

Your recent editing history at Cuckservative shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.--Cuckservative (talk) 13:53, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Cuckservative, see WP:BLP. If you think a blog which has a header of "Would you like some fag marriage with that side of waffle fries?" is a reliable source then you have no business editing here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:06, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I have no problem with you removing the names cited by the Right Stuff blog. However, Breitbart News is one of conservative media's leading voices and a legitimate source. You also haven't respond to my talkpage inquiry about similar lists such as [[Hanjian#Notable_persons_deemed_to_be_hanjians with no citations whatsoever. You have no business editing here if you think you own the articles.--Cuckservative (talk) 14:10, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Talk page stalker here. See this diff. Checking the front page of Breitbart for a few moments I would have reason to be doubtful as well. ~ NottNott talk|contrib 14:18, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Actually, part of what the community expects me to do here is look out for BLP violations. And I was responding while you posted here. I pointed out your request was irrelevant. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:20, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Un-Protection Request

Although I had originally requested page protection, do you mind removing the page protection of Koh people per this discussion? Please ping me upon reply. --JustBerry (talk) 17:43, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

@JustBerry: I've dropped it down to PC. Let's see if that serves the same purpose. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:34, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Agree - that might be optimal, actually. --JustBerry (talk) 18:35, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Is there a way to

Hi, do you know or is there way to undo the reverts that I have done to my talk page? I want all my messages back so that it would be both easy for me and the users who wants to leave me a message. (time saving). There are some swearing in Turkish, I can delete them after they are reverted. Thanks for taking the time to read my mesaage.Ashur (talk) 18:25, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ashur. You can look at and access past history here. For example, clicking on July 30, 2015 gives you this. You cannot undo all your reverts as you would get edit conflicts with newer posts. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:32, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply Neil. I wanted to get all my talk page back but it seems there's no way to do it. I already knew that you can look at the history and taught getting the talk page fully back might make it easier. Thanks for your time spent on my behalf.Ashur (talk) 06:46, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Section blanking when edited in good faith

Dear NeilN, per WP:HTRIVIA hints I was adding a Continuity errors section to the Rachel Green(e) article. I was confused as to why the page title was Rachel Green but the infobox and lead sentence both said Rachel Greene. She's one of the main fictional characters on Friends (Jennifer Aniston). Anywho I started crafting the section and Betty Logan reverted my efforts part way through with a WP:TRIVIA comment. I reverted back with a WP:HTRIVIA note and I put an inline edit note. I placed an {{in use}} banner on the page and went back to crafting my section was almost done and Betty Logan blanked the section again. By the way at least half of the Talk-Page comments are about Green/Greene. It sure confused me. I also changed the lead to mention both names with the intention of expanding on the "why" in the Continuity errors section.

The WP:HTRIVIA hints have a lot of good suggestions for other Editors who land on an article and the HTRIVIA advice is to improve the section rather than deleting the section.

From reading the Talk page there is acknowledgment that Green/Greene issue is worthy of discussion

I need your advice on how to soft pedal this. My in-use banner is still up. I'll go take it down until I hear from you. Thanks and cheers! Checkingfax (talk) 23:25, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Checkingfax. Did you read the other editor's post on the talk page? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:33, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes. Betty Logan seems overly wound up to me. Betty Logan is more like a SPA than I am. Rachel Green(e) is a GA and I've apparently encroached on some forbidden turf :) Blanking my section with an in-use banner up is harsh. Sigh. Checkingfax (talk) 23:49, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Checkingfax, probably the best way to approach this is to find secondary sources for the material you want to add. That would address her objection and show notability. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:00, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Continuity errors from TV shows don't get coverage AFAIK. Hmmm. WP:HTRIVIA does not address that. The GA reviewer stated that not all plot discussions have to be sourced. Is there a disconnect? Sigh. Checkingfax (talk) 00:14, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Checkingfax, plots do not have to be sourced as the show itself is the source. However what constitutes a continuity error can be a matter of interpretation so it needs a source (same with any plot analysis - e.g., this is the scene where X first fell in love with Y). Also, if you look at secondary sources, you're going to get coverage of the plot. This is not the case with continuity errors (as you said) as they're deemed less important. This is also reflected in our articles. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:27, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Yeah. There are five heavy paragraphs on her hair ("The Rachel") but I was going to keep the name continuity error down to 100 words or less even though it has consumed 9 years of Talk page debate/discussion. Checkingfax (talk) 00:40, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Please help

Hi, coud you help me with this user he is constantly attacking me with ad hominems, mocking me in his summaries, edit warring, etc. There is something that you, or else, can do? See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Owen 'Alik Shahadah, Black_people#Arabslavetrade.com, User talk:Rupert loup#I have asked and Asked and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive_189#arabslavetrade.com. Rupert Loup (talk) 05:57, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

YOu need help, what recruiting WP:CANVAS to help you crusade. You are edit warring across numerous articles, articles you have no history of editing on, all to wipe out someone WP:IDONTLIKE--Inayity (talk) 06:38, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Rupert Loup, hmmm, yes. It seems that both of you were blocked for edit warring but you successfully appealed your block. Pretty poor behavior by Inayity in some edits, attacking different editors rather than focusing on content, removing an AFD tag, and using IMDB and Google searches as sources. Hopefully they will adjust this after their block expires. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:59, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:RPP

Hi, Neil,
I wanted to help out more at this noticeboard and I had a question. You gave indefinite semi-protection to the user page User:Anjana Larka because of a report of persistent vandalism. But when I looked at the page, only the editor had edited his userpage. I didn't think user pages were protected unless there had been active vandalism so I was just wondering if my understanding of page protection is incorrect. Thanks for any advice you can offer, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:52, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Liz. This is where policy and practice may differ as the policy is somewhat unclear. WP:UPROT states, "User pages and subpages can be protected upon a simple request from the user, as long as a need exists—pages in userspace should not be automatically or pre-emptively protected." The related close here adds further nuance but is also not completely clear. How I read this (and I'm taking a cue from past admin actions) is that user pages may be protected preemptively upon a simple request but user talk pages may not. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:05, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Okay, that helps, NeilN. I appreciate the explanation. I've seen page protection requests declined because of a lack of recent vandalism to the page but it seems to be more of a judgment call for user pages. Thank you for taking the time to respond so thoughtfully. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:16, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:RPP, part two

Would you mind if I reverted your protection change, or would you mind self-reverting, on {{clear}}? If I understand rightly, Steel meant basically "it's fully cascade protected, so there's no point in having template protection". Since this defeats the purpose of template-protection, I've removed {{clear}} from Wikipedia:Cascade-protected items, so as far as I can tell, the confusing situation mentioned by Steel is no longer going to arise. Nyttend (talk) 23:40, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Nyttend, absolutely no problem with you changing protection but when I edit the template, it still says it's cascade protected. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:52, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the permission, and thanks also for the heads-up. Turns out that several redirects were also transcluded on that page, and when {{A}} redirects to {{B}}, cascade-protecting A effectively protects B as well. I've removed them from the list and will protect them individually, since I've effectively unprotected some heavily-used redirects. I checked the template before removing the redirects and saw the warning you mentioned, and I've re-checked without seeing the warning, so I think we're now good. Nyttend (talk) 23:59, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Liga II

Do you want to help improving Liga II of Romanian football ? or Cupa Romaniei ? we already started but is a lot to edit. please help .. at least with a few seasons. thanks--Alexiulian25 (talk) 00:15, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar

Thanks for the story here. I think it's somewhat changed my perspective on Wikipedia editing. But, quite frankly, it's not just about one story. Despite how hard it might be to hear this admin's advice, it's definitely advice that will get you a long way as an editor. And, for that, in addition to all of your hard work at SPI, AIV, etc. I greatly appreciate all of your quality contributions, comments, etc. Well, we all do, to be fair. JustBerry (talk) 02:48, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Wait, I already gave you an admin's barnstar. Pfft. --JustBerry (talk) 02:49, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

V x f C yet again

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vote (X) for Change, Special:Contributions/86.150.228.250. Thanks! JoeSperrazza (talk) 13:04, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Possible unauthorized automated edits

Hello. I've been analyzing the contributions of Marioluigi98 (talk · contribs) and I reverted a lot of them. They seem like automated bot edits but I cannot be sure. Please advise. Fleet Command (talk) 20:21, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Fleet Command. I looked at their edits and nothing stood out for me. Their edits are not that high speed. Have you asked them how they're choosing articles to edit? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:52, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

You are probably right about the speed.

No, I haven't asked. Honestly, because of my reputation, I am afraid to communicate with any Wikipedian, except admins, crats, and Codename Lisa. Fleet Command (talk) 03:48, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Can we please talk?

Hi, so I'm the user that put in the report to protect Delirium. I did that because the same user was repeatedly adding incorrect information to the page. And when I say repeatedly, I mean about 20 times. I kept removing it, but they kept adding it, so I wanted the page to be protected. I take it that you are an administrator, so I wanted to ask you why you seem to view me as a bad person. You and livelikemusic both seem to have serious problems with me, and I'm not sure what I did to cause that. Have I added some incorrect information to pages? Yes. But when they've been removed and explained to me why, I did not re-add it. Why, then, do you guys have a bigger problem with me than the user who re-added it 20 times? See, people make mistakes, right? No one's perfect. And when I've been told that I made a mistake, I accept it and move on. This user did not. I just don't understand why you guys are picking on me (I read yours and livelikemusic's comments on my report for Delirium). I'm actually really offended. Is this the way you guys talk about other users? Because as an administrator, that does not seem professional. Please leave me a message on my page with your thoughts, because I am beyond confused as to why you and livelikemusic have a problem with me.

So, I've been trying to talk to you on livelikemusic's page, but they keep deleting my comments. Is there any reason why you guys are ignoring me? I'm really starting to regret making this account... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smoore95GAGA (talk • contribs) 02:08, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

@Smoore95GAGA: Pretend you're someone who knows nothing about the topic. One person says this is the list of producers. Another person says no, this is the list. Then they proceed to tell each other they're wrong 20 times without showing the third person any proof. That's the situation here. Wikipedia content is built on verifiability, using reliable sources, not what editors think is correct or incorrect. Find sources for your content and everyone will be a lot happier. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:16, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

The source comes from the tracklist, which has Max Martin, Ilya and a few others listed as producers. That's where it came from. As a matter of fact, a few other people tried to delete the "Continuous" thing as well, they just didn't report it. Again, I did this because I thought it was for the good of the page. My information was sourced, theirs wasn't. How am I at fault here? Also, livelikemusic continues to delete my comments. They are handling this situation very immaturely. I realize that I have not been here as long as them. but I deserve just as much respect. Also, if you look at the page for Ellie Goulding's "On My Mind", they are doing the same thing, and several other users have tried to stop them. They won't stop. Smoore95GAGA (talk) 02:29, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

@Smoore95GAGA: livelikemusic is allowed to delete your comments from their talk page if they have nothing to say to you. Before I protected the article I asked you if you had a source for the producers. You responded, "Well, most of the songs are written by Max Martin, Savan Kotecha, Ryan Tedder and Calvin Harris..." Nothing about producers (I cannot assume writers are always producers). I still don't know what is your source for the tracklist that contains the producer names. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:32, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

iTunes is the source. And I actually didn't add the writers and producers for the tracklist. Someone else did, and they are a certified user, so it must be cited properly. Either way, "Continuous" was not listed in that original list. Smoore95GAGA (talk) 02:34, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

@Smoore95GAGA: Okay, that's part of the issue. There's no such thing as a "certified user". When it comes to this kind of stuff, we're all editors whose additions must be cited properly. I checked iTunes, got the tracklist, but no producer info. Did you check yourself? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:39, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

To be honest, I have no idea how to get the producer info. How would you do that? It all seems pretty real to me, if you look at the page. Nothing seems to be fake. I had just noticed that people are trying to delete that person's information, so I assumed it was false. Smoore95GAGA (talk) 02:41, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

@Smoore95GAGA: Again, you can't assume things are real or fake. You need to do your homework and find third party sources that confirm the info. Livelikemusic is good with that stuff for music and they're pretty cool if you take the time to listen to them and show a bit of patience (we're all volunteers here so we can choose when and if we want to get involved). Maybe they'll have some tips. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:48, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

See, that's my problem. You and Livelikemusic seem to be like best friends or something, and I don't understand that? It's like if a boss was friends with an employee. It's just not right. You should be neutral here, since you're an administrator. Not everything livelikemusic does is right, you know. And not everything I do is wrong. Smoore95GAGA (talk) 02:51, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

@Smoore95GAGA: Actually I'm pretty sure I've declined some of their protect and block requests before and I know we've had amicable disagreements on content. I'm just trying to point you to someone who knows a lot about how Wikipedia music articles are written and sourced. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:58, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Ok, well I don't know your guys' history, I just know that I've been doing my best to add correct information here, and I didn't like that you guys were talking about me in a disrespectful way. Smoore95GAGA (talk) 03:00, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

@Smoore95GAGA: I'm sorry you felt that way. It's clear now there was a misunderstanding about "certified users". --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:03, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Here is some advice from me as an uninvolved editor, Smoore95GAGA. The way that editors earn respect here on Wikipedia is by scrupulously complying with our policies and guidelines. In this specific situation, my advice is to never add or restore any content which is not verified by a published reliable source. And never, ever, ever engage in an edit war, even if you are 100% sure that you are right. Instead, take it to the talk page, work to build consensus, seek a third opinion, or pursue formal dispute resolution. Do things the right way. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:11, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Protected article

Hi, After edit warring the article Ottoman Empire is fully protected. It is understandable. But do you realize that the protected article now reflects only one of the two warring opinions, ie biased ? I think two opposing opinions should be stated before protection. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 07:27, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Nedim Ardoğa, please see WP:WRONGVERSION. Also, I believe the article is in the same state as it was before the edit war began. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:14, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Chinna Jeeyar

The July account is back as a slightly different IP and a new account. Can you take a look please? I thought it'd be IP-hopping this time, but the IP's been static for close to 24 hours. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 13:16, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

@SpacemanSpiff: Blocked two weeks. I'll keep an eye on the article. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:33, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. —SpacemanSpiff 13:34, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Supdiop

Hi Neil, I'm not sure if you're aware but our new friend's posted an incomprehensible question[10] as well as Support[11] (and then striking 3 mins later![12]), Don't really wanna revert all his edits but at the same time think it's unfair on Ian having to put up with his crap ?, Anyway wanted to make you aware, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 18:39, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

@Davey2010: [13] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:42, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I give it a week!, Ah well thanks anyway. –Davey2010^Talk 19:02, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Asking again for your professional advice

Hi, User:NeilN. I would like for your professional advice concerning an editor whom I feel is being very disruptive in an article which we have both taken great pains to write. We are both the chief contributors to the article Bayt Nattif, but, we have had our differences as to what is appropriate to add in this WP article. It concerns the history of the depopulated Arab-village, Bayt Nattif. Please review the history of that article, and, especially, the article's Talk page, under the sub-section: "..and yet again..." My disputant in this case is a Palestinian Arab woman by the name of Huldra. Any advice as to what is or is not appropriate will be greatly welcomed by me.Davidbena (talk) 02:27, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Heh, that is "accuracy" for you: I am female (it is up on my user-page) -that much is true......, but I don´t have a single Palestinian or Arab ancestor .....or relative, nor have I ever claimed that I do. Preconcieved ideas, much? (Btw, I would also like very much "outsiders" to take a look at the dispute), Cheers, Huldra (talk) 03:21, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Okay, Huldra. I apologize. I just assumed that you were a Palestinian Arab, since your main interest in Wikipedia editing has been in this particular field of expertise. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 03:45, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

@Davidbena: Please examine WP:VAND which makes it clear that editors must not be accused of "vandalism" for edits that obviously are not vandalism per Wikipedia's definition. Also, please learn to sign your comments when delivering warnings on user talk pages.

• diff "Reverting vandalism"
• diff {{uw-vandalism1}} unsigned
• diff "Reverting disruptive editing"
• diff {{uw-vandalism2}} unsigned

Regarding the assumption that anyone disagreeing with your point of view must be a Palestinian Arab ... words fail me. Johnuniq (talk) 03:50, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I stand corrected, John. I will desist from adding such templates in the future unless it is absolutely certain that there has been a case of vandalism. Again, thanks for instructing me.Davidbena (talk) 03:54, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Why did you close it?

I want softlavender's actions to be discussed. Please unclose it. Supdiop (T🔹C) 03:08, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Supdiop, no. You are on the verge of being blocked for disruption. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:14, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

You are really harassing me. Supdiop (T🔹C) 03:16, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

tags

some wikipedians have an habit of putting maintenance tags, citing notability even though the person in question is notable enough. I have the habit of including inline citations, including cohesion, establishing notability, correcting grammar, correcting fan pov material, and completely deleting poorly sourced material, and cleaning up the article, wikifying the article, and subsequently removing the tag. You are welcome to put maintenance tags on all articles of Wikipedia. Thank You Pravbv (talk) 15:43, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Chris oyakhilome

Good evening. May we know why you locked the article. Thank you Accuracypersonified (talk) 19:21, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Accuracypersonified, because of an edit war where it looks like you were a chief participant. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:27, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

If you check the reference for the networth, the publisher clearly states that those figures are his personal findings. This cannot be substantiated since the person in subject has not publicly declared his networth. Thank you.Accuracypersonified (talk) 12:09, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Accuracypersonified, and you can discuss that (and why you removed other content) on the article's talk page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:41, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

enfield 1893

why is the enfield fc/enfield 1893 page being changed as secretary of enfield from 2003 and the man who re-registered under the new name surly i have the right to put all the history on it with out others changing it mark w — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mwiggs (talk • contribs) 20:56, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

@Mwiggs: You are copying text from Enfield F.C. and essentially creating duplicate articles. This is not allowed. Please see WP:MERGEINIT if you want to suggest a merge of the articles. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:03, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

User:NeilN can i ask that they are merged as far as the fa the middlesex fa and myself secretary & director are concerned we are the same club mark w 22:13 7 october 2015 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mwiggs (talk • contribs) 21:13, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Mwiggs, please suggest that on the article's talk page. And please read our conflict of interest guidelines. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:22, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Re: The new Reguyla block

Seemed perfectly reasonable to me. He really did launch directly and unmistakably into commenting negatively about admins as a group, the #1 item on the do-not list, the instant he was reinstated. While I think it's reasonable that he could have assumed that it didn't apply to his own user talk page, he was informed it did, and then did it again anyway later in the same thread. (Commenting here because the thread about the block on his talk page is hatted with a note to direct commentary about it here).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  23:34, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: Reading the WP:AN thread, I don't anyone had a problem with the block except for obviously Kumioko and one other editor on his talk page who may not have read the editing restrictions. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:38, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Right-o. It was that last I was addressing.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  00:29, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Admin's Barnstar
		With great appreciation for your tireless good efforts. Cheers, 73.159.24.89 (talk) 02:41, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Kent Hovind article

Current article is biased, does not follow standard procedure(NPOV) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rolusty33 (talk • contribs) 04:06, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Following the creationist viewpoint is not Wikipedia's standard procedure. You are at WP:3RR BTW. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:08, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is neutral. Said article is not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rolusty33 (talk • contribs) 04:18, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Kent Hovind is a criminal who lies to people about science and the nature of the world. The article states that Kent Hovind is a criminal who lies to people about science and the nature of the world. What could be more neutral than that?Farsight001 (talk) 04:21, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Omitting the fact that Kent Hovind is a felon who is being incarcerated for violating US tax laws because it hurts your feelings is a blatant violation of a neutral point of view. @Rolusty33:, please be aware that a "neutral point of view" is not necessarily a view point or tone that agrees with your personal agenda.--Mr Fink (talk) 04:53, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Your logic is impeccable, your detachment exemplary. Clearly shows the article is in good hands. Rolusty33 (talk)rolusty33

I see this article has quite the array of meat-puppets to keep it in good order. Bravo. Rolusty33 (talk)rolusty33 —Preceding undated comment added 05:14, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Interesting that this editor changed the date for a post of an editor who had reported some editwarring 4 years ago to make it appear that editwarring had been reported today. Doug Weller (talk) 12:42, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Doug Weller, not quite sure what to make of these sequence of edits either: [14], [15], [16] The editor has been warned for socking before. [17] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:56, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

CU confirms it's him. Doug Weller (talk) 13:07, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Gone for good after this.[18] - obviously not a new account. Doug Weller (talk) 20:31, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Doug Weller, I've blocked the CU confirmed sock. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:40, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Doug Weller (talk) 05:36, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

V x f C again

Again, same IP (static) after your 12-hour block expired: Special:Contributions/176.250.248.180. Thanks, JoeSperrazza (talk) 11:00, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Blocked, one week. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:36, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Copyright problem

Hi, I came across this article, Jansen Naninck where the history part of the article was copied from a website without any copyright status. I contacted the user who created the article and he/she claimed that the website belongs to him/her. See my talkpage Later on, he added the "Creative Commons Attribution 3.0" in the website. Can you look into this and resolve it? Thanks. Ayub407^talk 14:40, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Replied here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:00, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Jürgen Klopp protection

Hello Neil, could you please extend Jürgen Klopp's semi-protection for one more day as there will be a lot of vandalism when the protection expires in a few hours. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 14:45, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

JMHamo, one day will be enough? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:47, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

OK, since you asked - one week should be sufficient, it should have all blown over by then. Thanks very much. JMHamo (talk) 14:50, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

 Done --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:58, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Delirium (album)

Hi, so the page for "Delirium" is unprotected now, and the same person is making the same unsourced edits to the page. They keep making the changes under different anonymous accounts. Is there any way to block this user from making more accounts and from editing? I would greatly appreciate it. Smoore95GAGA (talk) 17:42, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Smoore95GAGA, see my post on the article talk page. The entire list is unsourced. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:59, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Alright, well if I get rid off all the producers, and they still keep trying to add "Continuous", can you do something about it then? Smoore95GAGA (talk) 18:03, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Smoore95GAGA, yes I can. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:04, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Done Smoore95GAGA (talk) 18:05, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

The sea person is doing the same thing to "On My Mind." The producers for that song have been confirmed, and "Continuous" is not one of them. Can you also protect that page? Smoore95GAGA (talk) 18:38, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Two weeks. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:42, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

questions at Teahouse and a possible relationship to the extortion scam that was at ANI lately.

You posted to User talk:Markharris2000 yesterday. He has been asking questions at the Teahouse too (Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions#What does "Blacklisted" mean?. As you may know, I am absolutely not a fan of paid editing, and My participation at Teahouse has been self-curtailed by my frustration over the number of promo editors vs. actual editors asking questions there.

However, it sounds like this guy may be a victim. I do not remember all the details of the scam, but as you are a mop-holder, and have already communicated with this dude, I thought I'd pass my concerns to you for your take on it and possible action. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 18:49, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

John from Idegon, posted here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:37, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Princess Jasmine's Age

Hey, I changed Princess Jasmine's age from 15 to soon-to-be 18, because the Honest Trailer for Aladdin brought the three-year age difference to light, and I feel like Disney's gonna start catching flakk if this piece of canon which ONLY exists on the Wiki isn't corrected soon. Maybe we can think of another solution? What if we split the difference, making Aladdin 17, and Jasmine 16? Let me know what you think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CyberJackalope (talk • contribs) 20:32, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

CyberJackalope, we don't care what Disney "catches flak" for. If those are the characters' ages in the film, those are the characters' ages. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:39, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

NeilN, But their ages are never clearly stated in the film. That's specifically a goof on behalf of the Wiki. --CyberC ^{talk to me} —Preceding undated comment added 20:44, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

CyberJackalope, this is not in the film: "When she is first introduced, Princess Jasmine is a few days short of her 16th birthday."? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:48, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

NeilN, The only reference to her birthday is when the Sultan says "You must be married to a prince by your 'next' birthday." He doesn't give a number. However, Hey1234 over at the Disney Wiki changed "Jasmine is the soon-to-be 16-year old daughter of the Sultan of Agrabah." to "Jasmine is the daughter of the Sultan of Agrabah, in despair in the wake of her next birthday." Thus leaving it ambiguous like the movie did. Truly a much more clever solution than just making her older like I did. :P --CyberC ^{talk to me} —Preceding undated comment added 20:44, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

CyberJackalope, if the ages aren't mentioned in the film then they shouldn't be in the article. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:18, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

NeilN, Alright! Glad we could come to an agreement :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CyberJackalope (talk • contribs) 21:20, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Shane Long

Hello Neil, could you please protect Shane Long. A lot of vandalism due to his scoring the winning goal against Germany tonight. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 22:37, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Valid changes to agoda.com

Hi Neil,

when we are to use the word "reported", then the words should be exact as the source. If not it become a scenario of putting words into other people's mouth and misrepresenting the person.

In this case, someone say "xxx is one of the leading sites for Asia". If the articles are to be quoted and cited, shouldn't the exact words be use. Instead, we see sentence being change and even "upgraded" to "one of Asia’s largest and most popular". Is this a case of putting words into other people's mouth? is that consider just rephrasing and NPOV?

I'm just pointing out a very simple fact, the sentence was changed for a marketing/advertising reason beneficial to a particular company using Wikipedia, a reputable and its non associated platform, to upscale its image.

I hope you can answer my query if contributor can freely change the words while using a certain reference. In this instance, change the sentence totally using contributor's own words vs the original writer's words.

If the answer is yes, will the same rule be apply throughout wikipedia?

This has nothing to do with whether I am biased or not, or against any entities.

Boonchong chua (talk) 00:15, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Boonchong chua, how to paraphrase sourced material is something that should be discussed on the talk page. Leading could conceivably turn into most popular. Largest is more of a stretch. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:11, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Change visibility of Kevin McCarthy serious BLP violation?

Should the visibility of this version of the Kevin McCarthy page be hidden similar to the corresponding versions of the other person's pages? See the last sentence of the personal life section.--Nowa (talk) 13:46, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Nowa, done, plus a couple more. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:52, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks.--Nowa (talk) 13:59, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Rules on name calling?

Hey, so this user 50.78.247.97 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) noticed that I made a small grammatical mistake on the Revival page, and they decided to call me a dumbass. Is that acceptable here? Because I certainly was offended, and I would hope it's not acceptable. Smoore95GAGA (talk) 15:59, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Smoore95GAGA, we do have a no personal attacks policy. I see you've warned the person so hopefully they won't do that again. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:06, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

If they continue, can I be assured they will be blocked or at least warned by an authority member? Smoore95GAGA (talk) 16:13, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Smoore95GAGA, they'll get two or three escalating warnings (these are listed here) and eventually a block if they continue. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:19, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

PMB's Dispute

Thanks for noticing what is going on PMB's Page. The content that is been added and I keep reverting makes no sense and has no use to that part of the page. It is obvious and is seen boldly that he assumed office on the 29 of May 2015 immediately below his image and title, so why repeating the same thing below after it is seen clearly upon opening the page. Tell me what you think about it! Ssaminu (talk) 16:42, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Tamil pusher

Hey Neil, Ssudhanthevar‎ is going at great speed adding Tamil to multiple pages and removing other languages (this is for areas which don't have Tamil as an official language). Been warned by me and Thomas.W. Can you take a look please? cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 18:17, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

@SpacemanSpiff: See [19] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:27, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, was difficult keeping up with him. —SpacemanSpiff 18:30, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Generation Z ref

Hi, do you know how to get rid of this on the ref list:

"Cite error: Invalid tag; name "Horovitz" defined multiple times with different content — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.173.247.94 (talk) 18:20, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

There are two references named "Horovitz" in the article. One is to a book and one is to a news site. One of the references has to be renamed and the article has to be checked so the rest of the "Horovitz" references match up to the right one. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:34, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

OK thanks. 2606:6000:610A:9000:CD39:EE6:43E6:601E (talk) 23:37, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Block for disruptive IP/editor

A block for personal attacks by User:209.97.224.100 is probably in order, if you please. They have also created another account for trolling purposes and deleting warnings. Thanks, GAB^Hello! 20:39, 9 October 2015 (UTC) Bishonen has done the honors. GAB^Hello! 21:05, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

who is

80.42.76.135? NE Ent 23:17, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

@NE Ent: Vote (X) for Change. If you're not familiar with them, you're in for a treat. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:26, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

• And who is 92.19.233.161? Drmies (talk) 23:41, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Drmies, same as above (same posts). This PITA can instantly hop IPs and networks. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:46, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

• Wow. I wish I could do that. I guess this person doesn't have a family to take care of, or a dog. Drmies (talk) 00:00, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	I swear you have the busiest user talk page on Wikipedia. I don't know how you keep up with all of the requests for help. Liz Read! Talk! 02:42, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

@Liz: Thanks. It's sped up my archiving, that's for sure. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:07, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Page Protection

Do you now realize why I had requested page protection earlier? I am familiar with this suspected sock's behavior. Look at this, vandalizing my user space again. Please ping me when you reply. --JustBerry (talk) 03:13, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Feel free to review this. --JustBerry (talk) 03:16, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

@JustBerry: Looks like Callanecc is on this. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:19, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, thanks anyway. --JustBerry (talk) 13:02, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Sockpuppet is back

Hi. Please see Template:Kurds image array. Long term abuser is back again. 176.216.60.50 (talk) 06:24, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Blocked. Page move mess cleaned up by others. Thanks for reporting. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:13, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Again...Same articles, same sockmaster...Please check. Regards...176.219.167.12 (talk) 15:52, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Blocked. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:00, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Another barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	You're doing good work at WP:RFPP. Thanks for keeping the vandals and also the backlogs at bay. Cheers, Airplaneman ✈ 08:31, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Renew PC (10 Oct 2015)

Melon, G Hannelius? --George Ho (talk) 17:30, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Alignment (Dungeons & Dragons) edit warring

this Oknazevad is a very abusive and intransigent editor — Preceding unsigned comment added by JeffryBloom (talk • contribs) 21:11, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

JeffryBloom, among all the other policies you don't seem to be interested in, there is also WP:NPA. 73.168.15.161 (talk) 22:54, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

unlogged person, where have i made abusive personal attacks? discribing someone's manor of editing is not a personal attack, however, what this person posts in their edit summaries certainly is. i'm taking this matter up with the first person of authority i found. JeffryBloom (talk) 23:05, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Cinnamon roll

has experienced only vandalism since it was last automatically unprotected, including some from the "Phil" vandal. Reprotect, please? BethNaught (talk) 21:25, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

BethNaught, re-protected for six months. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:34, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. BethNaught (talk) 21:43, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Hide personal attack revision

Hi NeilN, would you be able to hide this personal attack on SummerPhDv2.0's user page? I don't think anyone wants to read that to be honest :/ thanks samtar ^(msg) 22:10, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Samtar I took care of this. Thanks for reporting it. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:19, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Ah thanks Cyphoidbomb, am I right in thinking directly contacting an admin is okay for these minor revision hiding requests? I'm guessing it doesn't really need the attention of revdel? samtar ^(msg) 10:58, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Samtar, these are revdel requests and directly contacting an admin is fine. Oversight requests, if the edit warrants it, should of course be emailed but an admin can also revdel in the mean time. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:51, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Need a second opinion

Hi Neil, hope all's well with ya. I keep meaning to do something every time I see this draft article get updated, but then I always forget. Looks to me like a webhosting situation. Article has been in draft stage since Aug 2014, most of the editing has come from IPs, many of which have numerous warnings for unsourced content. The draft only has one reference. It looks like it's in a constant state of sandbox. Then there are a number of other articles he is incubating, most though he seems to have abandoned. (Cool visual text effect at User:Jay12344/sandbox#Vocal ranges). What would you recommend be done here? Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:16, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Cyphoidbomb, draftspace is not to be used as holding pen indefinitely. I would explain this politely to the editor and indicate that if the draft is not improved within a couple weeks to the point it can pass our notability guidelines, you'll delete it under WP:U5. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:37, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Tanx Neil--that was in line with my own thinking. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:13, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Titanic II

You mentioned in declining a request to semi-protect Titanic II that there were some "good IP edits". I'm unable to see how different IPs changing "Australian billionaire" to "accused fraud" or adding ship's fate as "Sunk on Kea Island" are "good edits". But to each his own. At least I tried. Blue Riband► 03:37, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Blue We've also had [20], [21]. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:49, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Tommy Sotomayor article being vandalized again

It seems this page is being vandalized again:

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

It seems these two IP addresses, users, are trying to tag the article as a vanity page, which another IP address/user tried to do in the past, it is these two editors:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/184.176.141.54

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/40.143.153.178

You can see what's been going on in the history with editors like this vandalizing the page again:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tommy_Sotomayor&action=history

Can you please help stop this? Thanks! Neptune's Trident (talk) 03:51, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Neptune's Trident, pending changes for one month. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:20, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! Neptune's Trident (talk) 04:26, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Tracklisting templates question

I read up on the articles, and there is no set standard. And multiple editors are saying the same. So if the editor that was telling me the other was the set standard and starts "threatening" me with warnings again, what should I do? ilovechristianmusic ^{(Tell Me Something!)} 4:06, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

@Ilovechristianmusic: You could try proposing a standard and try to gather consensus behind it. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:45, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Ok. That makes sense, and make editing so much easier for myself, and I'm sure help the other editor immensely with editors who are unsure like myself. Would I propose a standard and gather a consensus by going to Template:Track listing and start a talk section, and then try to pass this standard by the Wikipedia admins and head operators? ilovechristianmusic ^{(Tell Me Something!)} 16:52, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

@Ilovechristianmusic: Yes, I would start a discussion there and advertise it on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Album article style guide by posting a neutral note (e.g., Editors may be interested in a discussion being held at [link] having to do with yyy). There's no need to "pass" this standard. One of two things will likely happen. One, you'll get broad agreement and poof! - there's your standard. Or two, there'll be disagreement which can't be worked out and a WP:RFC may have to be held. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:05, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you again for all of your help. ilovechristianmusic ^{(Tell Me Something!)} 17:09, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Question about WP:UAA

Hi NeilN (or any tps), sorry to bother you again! I have recently tried adding a couple of comments to UAA when it gets pretty backlogged to try to assist any reviewing admins. Is this okay? Normally my edits are similar to this and this. Thanks! samtar ^(msg) 21:00, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

samtar, comments pointing out the non-obvious to an admin are always helpful. Just make sure they're labelled as comments (as you've been doing) so admins don't think another admin has handled the report. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:41, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Would you please semi-protect my talk page?

Hi. Every time this Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Escoperloit returns with a new sock, he targets my talk page. Recent incident is his new sock Iranitabar10 (talk · contribs). It's really annoying to see it happens again and again. Please help me. Thanks. --Zyma (talk) 22:27, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

@Zyma: Unfortunately there's not much that can be done here right now. The last sock post before this one was in August. If they return within a day or so then please post here again. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:34, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Talk:David L. Jones

[22] Addressing editors in a section heading is inappropriate per WP:TALK and more. Sorry you didn't like my refactoring. --Ronz (talk) 00:07, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Ronz, "Ronz edits" is far less of a problem then you completely twisting the editor's words around. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:33, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Thankfully, that's not what I did. I placed my interpretation of the edits, per my edit summary [23]. Your refactoring was definitely more neutral, no doubt about it. Maybe I'd have done the same if given the chance, but you were too quick while I was checking the references. --Ronz (talk) 01:55, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Tommy Sotomayor

Hi Neil,

You reverted to an earlier version to get rid of some items on this page. I had removed several external links to Sotomayer social sites, as per WP:EL, which were included in that revert. Your edit summary did not seem to apply to those. I was also in the process of drafting a response to the user who put the prod on the article, since they contacted me on my talkpage, and was going to ping you since I see you protected the article. Rather than drag you in there, I'll simply let you know here about it. Hope I did nothing wrong removing those links. Take it easy. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:02, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Onel5969. Your edit was absolutely fine. I redid it right after I reverted to a clean version. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:06, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Letting off some Bollywood steam...

If I were to ignore all rules and start protecting every new Indian cinema article for a year right off the bat, how much trouble do you think I'd get into with the admin community? (Note: this is not a serious pitch) It's like a never-ending shitfest of lies, promotion, poor writing, sloppy formatting, unsourced content, vandalism, ethnic squabbles, and sockpuppetry. Children's television articles are actually easier to maintain than these film articles. Argh! Thanks. I feel a little better now. Not much, but a little... Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:19, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Cyphoidbomb, I hear you. Instead of focusing all its attention on attracting new editors, the WMF should be spending some of its money on campaigns trying to dissuade such editing. Get a few mentions in the Indian national news media about how this kind of editing is an embarrassment to the country and see what happens. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:44, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Notice

Abubakar Usman Ismail. The user created the same article with a different title. Ayub407^talk 17:41, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Wait, it's a different user. Must be a sockpuppet account. Ayub407^talk 17:43, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

@Ayub407: Do you recall who's the master? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:46, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Possibly, User:Ibrahim Hashimu blocked by User talk:Non-dropframe. These accounts created similar articles. Ayub407^talk 17:49, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

@Ayub407: Thanks. Indef blocked. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:54, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

@NeilN: Found another one, Abubakar usman Gurbin Bore, made by a sockpuppet account again. Ayub407^talk 11:00, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Can you make it disappear from page and history?

Meatspace name outed here. Can it be vaporized from page and history? Ping me back. Cheers! ...Checkingfax ( Talk ) 20:11, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

@Checkingfax: I'm missing it. Got a diff? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:15, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I will be curious to see how this all looks when you're done. Diff. Cheers! ...Checkingfax ( Talk ) 20:26, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

@Checkingfax: Are you talking about "Adam"? That's the name of the editor being responded to. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:30, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Wow, I need some coffee! Thanks! Cheers! ...Checkingfax ( Talk ) 20:49, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Raven-Symoné

Heya, would you please take a look at Raven-Symoné? An editor keeps adding "African-" to "American", which seems to me contrary to existing community consensus at MOS:BLPLEAD, which encourages a nationality, not an ethnicity. (No such country as African-America, and we wouldn't typically say "Tom Cruise is a Caucasian-American actor") User hasn't attempted discussion or responded to my note on their talk page. I'm almost at 3RR and I have other fires to put out. :) Just preeing is the editor in question. A revert and warning might be in order if you agree with my interpretation. If you do not, no probs! Thanks! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:39, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Contributions by subnet block

Hello NeilN, I hope that you are doing well. I was hoping you might be able to provide me with some insight. I recently discovered a trove of problematic edits originating from the 106.51.0.0/16 range. Is it possible to display all changes/contributions based by subnet, similarly to how administrators are able to perform range blocks? It has proven to be challenging to reverse the damage as this particular editor changes IP addresses semi-frequently, with the added concern that this editor may or may not be receiving any of our attempts to communicate. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 22:23, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

@Yamaguchi先生: Turn on the "Allow /16, /24 and /27 – /32 CIDR ranges on Special:Contributions forms..." gadget. Then you can see this. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:30, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! My only regret is that I did not ask this sooner. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 22:44, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Taylor Swift

Wasn't the title supposed to be sysopped? --George Ho (talk) 00:18, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

George Ho, you're right. Done and thanks. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:22, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry!

Thought I had reset the protection last night, but I see I forgot to fix the time. Thanks for covering for me. Ian.thomson (talk) 08:25, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

dogs again

What exactly did I do? I explained why they're not apex predators! TheFeralCat (talk) 17:34, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

TheFeralCat, editors don't care about your "explanations" if they're not accompanied by reliable published sources. I could "explain" why I thought dogs ate cats but I would get the same reception if I didn't provide sources. Stop edit warring and present sources. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:55, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Because there's no evidence dogs eat cats, and I can't show anything that say they don't, but I know they don't because all the things I've heard of dogs killing cats say they leave them, and the story with my dog, and my cat's mother story. TheFeralCat (talk) 18:51, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

TheFeralCat And no on is going to pay attention to your anecdotes. WP:V: "Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors." Other editors have told you this. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:12, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

it's a fact they don't eat cats. i can't produce proof but i know it's true, proof they do eat them? And everyone knows they leave them most of the time, so it would be more accurate to put that they kill them, and killing can lead to preying on anyway. TheFeralCat (talk) 20:48, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

TheFeralCat, can you please stop adding a new section every time you post? And "but i know it's true" is not an accepted rebuttal to sourced statements. Example from Dingo: Their consumption of domestic cats has also been proven. If you want other editors to listen to you, you need to provide sources that contradict existing sources. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:06, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

References

Ok, can I just say something? Killing can lead to preying on, and I need evidence they do eat cats. I know for a fact dogs almost always leave the cats they kill. If you put "kill", then that makes more sense, as if they kill them they usually leave them, and they can eat them after they kill them. If you let me edit this, and fix the wildcat page, I will never bother anything again. TheFeralCat (talk) 16:06, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

TheFeralCat, I'm acting as an administrator here, who has warned you against edit warring and tried to explain our verifiability and sourcing policies. If you want to make a change, you'll have to engage the editors opposing it. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:13, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Found this on dogs not eating cats: https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20111219204735AAu4a40 TheFeralCat (talk) 16:34, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

TheFeralCat, please actually read the reliable source guideline. Yahoo Answers is no better than "I know for a fact". --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:08, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

I forgot to follow through and actually revoke the talk page access. Thanks for catching that! OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:08, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

@Ohnoitsjamie: It was either that or have the page appear at the top of my watchlist for the next half-hour as the user made another twenty edits :-/ --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:12, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Oops!

Plip!

(or maybe a trout) to me for that revert. Thanks for cleaning it up! TheMesquito^buzz 02:16, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Protection level

Hi NieN, The Yo Yo Honey Singh is currently Semi-protected please set protection level of page to Pending changes protected (level 1). Thankyou. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Þørnø $ (talk • contribs) 13:19, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

@Þørnø $: It was RegentsPark who set the semi. You should ask them first. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:24, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

 Done NeilN, you have carte blanche to undo or change any admin action of mine!--regentspark (comment) 17:54, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

regentspark, thanks. I usually follow the guideline of asking the protecting admin first as they might have some insight as to why protection was set that way. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:59, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring on political correctness

I know that this is the standard complaint, but PC was left in the wrong version, the one that has nobody's agreement. Other editors had (and I just had) pointed to the possibility of DRN or RfC to the user you blocked. In the circumstances, may I revert once myself? Should I leave it to another 'regular'? There are actually few serious disputes on the article, most of us who have it on our watchlist, do so because we know it to be a target for pov-pushing from IP's and from newbie editors. Pincrete (talk) 20:44, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Pincrete, please leave it for another editor. Watchers of this talk page may chime in and have an independent look at the edit and discussion. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:49, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Could we get a block?

The IP 181.198.164.8 keeps changing the dates on Millennials and Generation Z. Could we get a warning and then a block if they persist? Thanks. 2606:6000:610A:9000:F802:B5B:AFCA:5526 (talk) 21:01, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Added an edit warring warning. Obviously I can't block but I'll keep an eye out. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:04, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Revdel at Wikipedia talk:Protection policy

Hi, you didn't need to do this nor did you need to revdel the edit of 20:16, 16 October 2015. Consider this situation on the same page from earlier this year: one bad edit, one revert; only the first edit needed to be revdelled. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:08, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

@Redrose64: One unnecessary revdel. Got it, thanks. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:25, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Redacting a sock puppet

Hi Neil, can you please redact puppets and masters related to puppet [[Warner Sun]]. Thank you. ...Checkingfax ( Talk ) 03:04, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

@Checkingfax: Redact? Not sure what you want me to do here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:17, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I was hoping you could vaporize their disruptive input to Wikipedia. Cheers! ...Checkingfax ( Talk ) 04:20, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

@Checkingfax: Can't do that as that's normal disruption and not covered by WP:CRD. There was an admin who tried that with another socker. He got taken to ANI and dramah ensued. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:26, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm... somewhere yesterday I read a blurb that it was SOP if requested. Thanks! ...Checkingfax ( Talk ) 04:28, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

review methods

Hey NeilN, I have started up reviewing again recently with the help of the new tool (not sure of the name but buttons appear on the side of my browser allowing me to mark pages as reviewed with a tick). I have generally been giving users the benefit of the doubt and in cases of articles that might not be notable I added more references needed, if there are no references, then I add the unref tag. I have been feeling the notability tag is a bit too harsh and not wanting to scare the newecombers away. As for that article that you linked, that's my bad as I felt since it was linked it wasn't an intended copyvio (i.e. person just added from that page with the intention of rewording it later). Of course if another person looks at the article and feels it should be deleted then I don't mind, as I feel an extra set of eyes having a look is better than me being bold and nominating the page for deletion. I hope this answers your question. Kind regards, Calaka (talk) 11:34, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Same reasoning for the trekking article. Giving it a chance for the person to add more references to prove its notability with additional articles/sources. If they do not respond or don't add more sources proving its notability, then I would agree to another user adding the article to be nominated for deletion/prod. Cheers.Calaka (talk) 11:37, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Hmm the Colleen article can be rewritten to be less promotional sounding, would you suggest they are not notable?Calaka (talk) 11:41, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Calaka, please stop reviewing and carefully read through Wikipedia:New pages patrol, noting the copyright violation instructions and: "Does the article have any other glaring issues? Try to fix them. If you can't, then check Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup for any appropriate cleanup tags that might need to be applied to the article." If you have reviewed an article, you cannot let copyright violations be dealt with by another editor. I don't see any speedy delete or prod tagging by you. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 11:51, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Apologies.Calaka (talk) 11:54, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Infobox mystery

Hello, I have a question. In the Presidents Cup info box, do you happen to know why the past year and the next year randomly decide whether they want to appear in the info box? ... If you look at the 2015 Presidents Cup info box, you will see that the year "2013" appears as the past year, but there is no "2017" appearing as the next year. On the other hand, if you look at the 2017 Presidents Cup info box, you will find that the past year "2015" is there, AND the next year "2019" (in red link) is there as well. ... These years appear randomly for some strange reason, and I don't see any way to control it within the info box. Do you know why this is the case, and do you know any way to get it within our control? Johnsmith2116 (talk) 17:26, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

@Johnsmith2116: My guess is that it's the template code but I cannot see what needs fixing. Pinging @Pigsonthewing and Nigej: for some ideas. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:53, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Beyond me; it may be worth asking at WP:VPT. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:06, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

The code for the next year in Template:Infobox team golf tournament is

{{#switch:{{{year}}}|2000=[[2003 {{{name}}}|2003 →]]|{{CURRENTYEAR}}=|{{#expr:{{CURRENTYEAR}}+1}}=|#default=[[{{#expr:{{{year}}}+2}} {{{name}}}|{{#expr:{{{year}}}+2}} →]]}}

Since {{{year}}} equals {{CURRENTYEAR}} on the 2015 page, the {{#switch}} evaluates to nothing, whereas on the 2017 page it uses the #default case (a link to the tournament two years ahead). SiBr₄ (talk) 18:27, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

@SiBr4: Any idea how to fix this? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:31, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

It depends on what the wanted behavior is. Should the 2015 page include a link to the next tournament, or should 2017 not include it? SiBr₄ (talk) 18:37, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

@SiBr4: 2015 should include a link to 2017. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:44, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

@SiBr4: [24] works on User:NQ-Alt/sandbox/new. Is that it? - NQ-Alt (talk) 18:50, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes, those CURRENTYEAR cases are what prevents the link from showing up in this year's tournament. I removed them in the real template (for the Presidents Cup only) before I saw your newer post. SiBr₄ (talk) 18:57, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

@SiBr4: 2015 should include 2013 as the "past" year, and 2017 as the "next" year. And equally, 2017 should include 2015 as the "past" year, and 2019 as the "next" year. Johnsmith2116 (talk) 18:55, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Now I notice that the desired result of having the "2017" show as the "next" year on the 2015 article is there, as of a few minutes ago. How did that happen? Did someone here do something? If so, please tell me so I can know if for future articles. Johnsmith2116 (talk) 19:02, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Johnsmith2116, it was a coding change to the infobox template. [25] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:09, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks @SiBr4: and Neil. It appears to be alright now. I also had the same issue with the Solheim Cup page, so I followed what was done on the Infobox template, and it is now also okay. Johnsmith2116 (talk) 19:20, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

My edits on Satanism

Hello, I'm kind of new to wikipedia. Before my edit on Satanism, I hadn't done any edits before (though I have used wikipedia for research in the past). I didn't change much, I just wanted to add a link I thought would be useful to those looking into Satanism. But it was deemed inappropriate... Could I please know why? Was it the format? I'm not sure how to embed links on wikipedia but I'll read up more on it if needed. Thank You For Your Time! Mrs. Richard Wagner 666 (talk) 19:06, 17 October 2015 (UTC)Mrs. Richard Wagner 666

Mrs. Richard Wagner 666, the site is inappropriate. Please see WP:ELNO #11: "Blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority. (This exception for blogs, etc., controlled by recognized authorities is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities who are individuals always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for people.)" --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:12, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Why is this site not recognized? It provides more information on Satanism than any of the sites listed. It is a good source of information. Perhaps even though it is not recognized it could be considered a primary source :) Thank you for your time :) Mrs. Richard Wagner 666 (talk) 20:12, 17 October 2015 (UTC)Mrs. Richard Wagner 666

Mrs. Richard Wagner 666, what academic sources or experts in the field have covered the site? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:16, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

High Priestess Maxine Dietrich is the founder of Joy of Satan Ministries and the website joyofsatan.org. Being a high priestess, she is very expert on Satanism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrs. Richard Wagner 666 (talk • contribs) 20:28, 17 October 2015 (UTC) Sorry, for got to sign! Mrs. Richard Wagner 666 (talk) 20:34, 17 October 2015 (UTC)Mrs. Richard Wagner 666

Mrs. Richard Wagner 666, Maxine Dietrich has no Wikipedia article. "...as a minimum standard, recognized authorities who are individuals always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for people...". Bottom line, you will need to find a recognized independent expert (by Wikipedia standards) that states Dietrich is a recognized authority. Anyone can claim to be an expert in a subject and editors' opinions on that expertise don't matter. It's what other experts (preferably academics) say that matters. Otherwise, we'd have links to 10,000 blogs about Taylor Swift written by "experts" on Swift. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:57, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

We have an article on Marlene Dietrich. Isn't that good enough? And I didn't know that Taylor Swift was into satanism? Be careful or you'll have hundreds of Swift fans cursing you.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:09, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Bbb23, oh I'm well aware that Swift fans can easily rival soccer fans in terms of crazed devotion. Was with a couple of younger female relatives and their friends a couple weeks ago and made the mistake of opining on Swift's body of work. Oh. My. God. I would have gotten a more gentle reaction if I stuck "He was born in Kenya!" in Obama's article. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:21, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Some relevant reading regarding OP. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:36, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Santacon

Hi Neil, the Santacon page was brought to my attention. After viewing it, it is biased based on sensational media coverage. 1. It is biased to New York. 2. It is biased negatively. Now, the NY event has it's issues. But it is wrong to attribute the NY event to all Santacon events. I have organized the event in LA for almost 10 years, and we have never had these kinds of issues or coverage.

Additionally, the LA Times citation, is a news story about the New York event. It is incorrectly attributed to another city.

I seek to include balanced view of the event. How might I go about doing this without having all my edits changed?

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vsnt777 (talk • contribs) 19:23, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Vsnt777. You'll need to find reliable sources covering the other events and add a summary of what they say to the article. Also, please read our conflict of interest guidelines. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:29, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

There are issues of reliable sources around this event due to its subversive nature. If all "reliable news coverage" is sensationalized media, wikipedia is showing a biased, incorrect view. In lieu of "reliable sources" I request the NY coverage edited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vsnt777 (talk • contribs) 19:31, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Vsnt777, if the event is covered by reliable sources due to its subversive nature, then that's what is going to get highlighted in the article. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:36, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh come on. The NY articles are sensational pieces written to drive eyeballs for advertising revenue. In some ways, wikipedia using these"reliable sources" is furthering the capitalist nature of Xmas. One of the points of Santacon is to challenge capitalism, and give people a fun, festive way to fight the commercialization of life. The way the wikipedia entry is written, one might assume that the NY event is THE only event. I have no issue with the NY coverage. But I have a LOT of issue with that event being the only one covered. Because, based on one of your sources (santarchy.com) there are over 100 santacon events that happen every year. Most are not like NY. So wikipedia covers only the worst actor because it gets "reliable" media attention?

I went back to check the media coverage of past years in LA, and those pages are 404. While you can say I have a conflict of interest, because I am a primary organizer, I am also the best source on what has happened with this event in LA and on the West Coast. I have kept the LA event true to classic cacophony ideals under my steward. And this is exactly why the LA event (and many other events) do not get sensational coverage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vsnt777 (talk • contribs) 19:44, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Vsnt777, sources don't have to be online. You can go to the library and dig up newspaper coverage from archives (either offline or online - they should have accounts to news archive services). And again, Wikipedia summarizes what other sources deem notable. A SantaCon event in Podunk, Nebraka is unlikely to generate much coverage so it's not going to be mentioned. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:52, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

{tpw} Delayed response, but I think the editor's complaint could be construed as a complaint that the article violates WP:BALANCE.  Etamni ^mobile | ✉ | ✓ 20:07, 6 November 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Etamni-m (talk • contribs)

Hello

Hello. I made a comment over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women#WikiProject Men saying that I disagreed with the creation of the Wikiproject and it's principles, and that I didn't see the point of it. In turn, an admin by the name of Rosiestep has made a threatening comment to me accusing me of harassment (despite me just saying that I disagree with the Wikiproject's creation and ideas which is not harassment, I've never even heard of or spoken to her before) by saying to me "I'm an admin and I've never taken someone to task at ANI, but if you continue your harassment-like tone (that's how I perceive it), you'll be my #1." I think it is an abuse of the power given to an admin and it is not something that should be used to attempt to install fear in an editor and an "I'll have you reported" mentality. Saying that I will be her number-one person to report despite not having anything to report me for I think is incredibly poor behaviour from an admin. To me, this is not someone who should be an admin if they are going to make threatening remarks just because you don't share their opinion and use their position to act a cut above the rest.  — Calvin999 19:52, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

@Calvin999: Let me get clarification from the admin. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:01, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Something tells me that you won't be getting a reply anytime soon!  — Calvin999 20:46, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

M1 (Istanbul Metro) issue

Hi, NeilN. I thought I'd run something by you – there's been a IP-shifting editor that's been engaged in what I'd consider to be a low-grade edit war at M1 (Istanbul Metro). The most recent iteration of this has been the IP replacing direct links to the articles on the stations along this rapid transit line to articles... that are not about the stations. I really don't know what to do here – if I revert again, I'm afraid I'll be effectively edit warring as well. And I don't know how to communicate with this IP as they keep shifting (and I'm not even sure communicating with them will be fruitful anyway – I may have even tried that in the past... I can't remember for sure). Anyway, any ideas here? Thanks in advance... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:57, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

IJBall, I've protected for one week. What I usually do in these cases is outline my concerns on the article's talk page. Then, if I'm reverted again with no attempt at communication, I will revert with an edit summary of "per talk page". If I'm re-reverted, I will look for admin help using the appropriate channel. It's easier for admins to take action if they see good-faith attempts at resolving the issue are being ignored. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:13, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

OK, thanks! – I'll hit the article's Talk page, and see what happens. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:21, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Cholesterol 7-alpha-hydroxylase

Hello Nei1N, we are students of Medicine of the University of Barcelona and we are doing a Chemistry project in which we have to improve the information about one topic on Wikipedia. This project was created few years ago by the University itself (here is the information https://ca.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viquiprojecte:Bioqu%C3%ADmica_UB). You have to know that our information is taken from books and we do have references. So PLEASE don't erase every information we are uploading. If you would like to know more let me know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BQUB15-Agarno (talk • contribs) 00:02, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Hopefully resolved. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:51, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Name

Hy User:NeiIN, I hope u are doing well. My request is to change the name of article Nondenominational Muslim to Non-denomenational Muslim. Thanks! Septate (talk) 05:20, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Septate, moved to Non-denominational Muslim. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:41, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

updating article whilst avoiding vandalism

Why did you remove the list of national winners from the EMA article just because a couple of stans of my favourite act of the winners (and the most unexpected of them) seriously vandalized the page? Keep protecting the article though, and Remember to cite using the EMA voting page for regions.Elaych22 (talk) 07:59, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Elaych22, I did not remove anything. I just protected the page to stop the rapid vandalism and unsourced edits. I see you've posted an edit request on the talk page and another editor has responded. If you have a bit of patience, it should all work out. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:45, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

From WP:AIV

I think your warning may not have gone through (reference: your post on AIV), as I don't see your name on the talk page edit history. --JustBerry (talk) 14:39, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

JustBerry, yes, unfortunately there's no "Warned by..." option. In this case the editor was warned by Anthony Bradbury. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:44, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Sounds good, just making sure. P.S. You can use Template:Await and add bold text after it. --JustBerry (talk) 14:46, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, NeilN. You have new messages at IsraphelMac's talk page.
Message added 20:45, 18 October 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

IsraphelMac (talk) 20:45, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Stephen Harper Article

Thank you for putting a tag on the Environmental Policy section of the Stephen Harper article, and for not reverting more than twice. I look forward to discussion specific areas of the article with you on the talk page. I am currently in a discussion with User:Patar knight on the talk page. My inclusion of the Lower Churchill project in the article in particular was thanked by User:Ntb613 on (13 Oct 2015)Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk) 07:49, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Kashmir conflict continued

I guess the RPP got deleted this morning. I don't have a problem with 1RR. In fact, I always edit as if 1RR is in effect. But with a page like Kashmir conflict, you get IP hoppers, off-wiki canvassing and POV pushing. So 1RR is counterproductive. It disadvantages the serious editors while giving a "free reign" to the POV pushers. It won't work unless you are willing to police it. If you are going to police it, I am quite happy with 1RR. - Kautilya3 (talk) 11:28, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Kautilya3, look in the rolling archives for a suggestion. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:07, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Is this what you mean? I believe the argument is centered around what belongs in the lead, correct? This article covers a timeframe of about 70 years so anything in the lead should describe events that have significant historical impact. You might want to ask editors to find sources that provide a historical overview of the conflict (instead of cherrypicking "news of the day" pieces) and see what they mention in the first few paragraphs. This suggestion is patterned on WP:MEDRS where we don't use individual studies but rather meta-studies which review and summarize the available literature.

I am quite ok with that. Should I put it up for discussion citing you as the source of the proposal? - Kautilya3 (talk) 13:47, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: I meant the RFPP rolling archives:

Kautilya3, it's not a free reign for the IP editor. He is bound by the same policies you are. Protection is constantly asked for on these types of articles and we're not going to set a precedent on this board by saying only registered editors are "serious" editors. I do have one suggestion for you. See if there's consensus to implement WP:ARBPIA-style editing restrictions on these articles. "All articles related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, broadly construed, are under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24-hour period). When in doubt, assume it is related. Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Reverts of edits made by anonymous (IP) editors that are not vandalism are exempt from the 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:58, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. The last sentence addresses my concern, which I didn't read carefully earlier. I will mull over that. I think we have been operating essentially under similar norms in the last few days. - Kautilya3 (talk) 14:33, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Neil, here is a question. So, the registered are not limited to 1RR for reverting the IPs. What about the IPs? Are they limited? If not, this doesn't seem to achieve anything. If they are limited but the registered users are not, then the asymmetry is likely to lead to further heartburn. - Kautilya3 (talk) 17:07, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes 1RR should be apply on all major India-Pakistan topics. India-Pakistan war of Indo-Pakistani War of 1947, Indo-Pakistani War of 1965, Indo-Pakistani War of 1971, Kargil war, 2014–15 India–Pakistan border skirmishes,Kashmir conflict, Hafeez Saeed, Siachen conflict, Siachen glacier etc should be included in this. There can be more topics. --Human3015^TALK  02:47, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Kautilya3, IP's are limited to WP:1RR. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:53, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Ok, Human3015 has much more experience with these articles than I do. So I will assume it is useful. I will propose it in the India-Pakistan Cooperation Board and see what the others fee. - Kautilya3 (talk) 08:50, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Dear Neil, there has been absolutely no discussion of the dispute for three full days. This vindicates my statement that there is actually no dispute. Can you cancel the full-protection and apply the ARBPIA-style editing restriction for a limited period, say 1 month? If it works, we can continue it indefinitely. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 10:43, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Dear Neil if you allowed this then trust me people will never visit Indian forign ministry press confrence and will come to wikipedia filled with non nuetral indian point of view. I know a person with responsible head will never allow all this NA122 (talk) 13:31, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

@NA122: Actually what Sockmaster Kautilya3 is proposing is good thing. You are new, and you are not aware about ArbCom sanctions, if such sanctions strictly applied on such pages then all pro-India and pro-Pakistani people will stay away from these articles, there will be no edit warring or POV pushing, all biased people will get blocked soon, this applies to both Pro-Indians and Pro-Pakistanis. --Human3015^TALK  13:51, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

@Kautilya3, NA122, and Human3015: Please see this. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:59, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

IP 166.137.96.x

Hi NeilN. You previously blocked 166.137.96.227 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for vandalism. It seems that even before the block has expired, they have returned vandalizing same articles as before as 166.137.96.165 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Politrukki (talk) 13:43, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

@Politrukki: Let's see if a rangeblock of 166.137.96.128/25 helps. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:52, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Request

Could you delete this redirect page Microsoft Lumia 550? I'm planning to write an article under that name. Thanks. Ayub407^talk 06:04, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

@Ayub407: No need to delete. Just edit. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:06, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Alright. Ayub407^talk 06:07, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Metacritic score?

Hi, so another user has been to removing the metacritic score on the page "Revival" by Selena Gomez. They have also messaged me asking me to not re-add it because the metacritic score is in the review description, therefore the score shouldn't be shown in the top. But I've seen most other album pages have the score at the top and in the review summary. What should I do in this situation? I don't want to get in trouble for edit-warring, but I'm pretty sure they're wrong. Smoore95GAGA (talk) 13:00, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Jugdev

Neil - about 2 weeks ago you blocked User:Jugdev for a week for (recidivist) edit warring at Programmatic media, suggesting that he voluntarily follow a 1RR rule upon his return. He sat out an extra week after his block but this morning has 1) reinserted his preferred version of certain text that is highly questionable - factually - if not demonstrably untrue (this is well-covered on the Talk page); 2) reinserted the text when it was removed; and 3) removed my own Talk page comments in the course of a discussion about this issue. I do not see this round ending up any differently than any of the prior ones - he's quite intractable - and ask for an appropriate administrative response. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 13:44, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

JohnInDC, looking at the talk page edit, the removal of your post was probably accidental. I've given the editor a final warning. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:53, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

It's not the first time he's removed others' comments (he blanked the whole thing three weeks ago), but I'll grit my teeth and AGF. Thank you. JohnInDC (talk) 14:01, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Smoore95GAGA

I see you indefinitely blocked this user for edit warring and making threats. Would something like this warrant revoking talk page access? Just thought you should know the user is still enraged at you and making personal attacks. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:02, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

SNUGGUMS, if those personal attacks were directed at someone else I would probably revoke talk page access, especially if I was asked to do so. But as they're directed at me, and really, I just skip over the insults when I'm reading, I've left talk page access alone so they can blow off steam and eventually request an unblock if they cool off and want to return. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:09, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. Probably worth keeping an eye on, though. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:12, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Selangor FA

Please banned this guy from edit Selangor FA forever-ever (2001:e68:541f:a546:c8ad:5d9c:188c:d578) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.32.70.193 (talk) 23:58, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

The article is semi-protected for three months to stop the recent disruption. This seems like a regular occurrence. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:55, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Please protected page Selangor FA forever-ever from vandalism not add period for three month to stop recent disruption.Please banned this guy from edit Selangor FA forever-ever.this guy is vandalism to delete kit evolution from page Selangor FA :(2001:e68:541f:a546:c8ad:5d9c:188c:d578) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.49.72.236 (talk) 03:46, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but no. Indefinite protection is rare and not warranted in this case. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:16, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Page Fc barcelona boleh jer dilindungi selamanya — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.144.127.91 (talk) 05:36, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Please add fully protection to the page Selangor FA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.144.127.91 (talk) 07:04, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Please remove semi protected i want to add something to shirt sponsor — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.144.127.91 (talk) 13:04, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Edit requests for how to use the talk page to propose your change. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:07, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I do not know how to use it because I was an amateur users — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.144.127.91 (talk) 13:56, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Just propose what you want to change on the talk page. I'll take care of the template. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:59, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Please unblock semi protected tq

Declined. I have activated your edit request. NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:27, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Please Add this to page selangor FA kit manufacturer and Shirt Sponsor. tq

Period	Kit Manufacturers
1978-1979	Admiral
1980	Diadora
1981-1987	Puma
1988-1990	Adidas
1991	Mizuno
1992	Puma
1993-2001	Lotto
2002	Adidas
2003-2004	Kronos
2005-2010	Adidas
2011-2015	Kappa
2016-2019	Nike

Period	Shirt Sponsors
1985-2004	Dunhill
1993	EON
1998	Courts
2004	Talam
2005	Celcom
2006-2007	SYABAS
2006-2008	Gapurna TM
2006-2009	Kumpulan Darul Ehsan Berhad (KDEB)
2010-2012	Datum Corp
2010-2013	Menteri Besar Incorporated (MBI)
2014-2015	Selangor

Per capita of Indian cities wrong information shown, please take action[26]

Hi my name is Sam. I have noticed that the page Indian cities by per capita has to be made right. There is wrong information in that, which is not according to the information provided by authorized agencies. In that page Bangalore cities per capita is shown very less than shown in the reference. The actual per capita of the city is much higher, and the Brooking's report shows this clearly. In this page the per capita of Bangalore is shown as 1380$ in 2014. The real per capita is much higher and is 3590$ in 2012. The Brooking's report shows this clearly. (http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Multimedia/Interactives/2013/tentraits/Bangalore.pdf) I request you to make this correct in the page so that people can view the right information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samforprospe (talk • contribs) 05:38, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Samforprospe, please join the discussion on the article's talk page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:55, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

The problem is no body is serious about it or discussing about it. They just gave wrong information and want to carry on with it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samforprospe (talk • contribs) 20:25, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I know user Flipro has complained against me. That is why you are suspecting me. Please look at the article and decide by yourself that who is giving right information. I have provided right source for my update. I am not giving wrong information on wiki. Please check what is happening. the information in the page is wrong and I am correcting it using very authentic source and some people don't like it because it is against their personal wishes and they are complaining against me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samforprospe (talk • contribs) 01:17, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Samforprospe, I warned both of you not to call each other vandals. If you cannot work out your dispute on the talk page, please see WP:DRR for other options. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:24, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Sir please check by yourself whether the information and source provided by me is correct or not. I am providing the right thing and user Flipro is changing it frequently and he started complaining against me rather than talking. I initiated the talk with him and he is not replying. You can see this on his page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samforprospe (talk • contribs) 01:28, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Samforprospe, you need to take this up with other editors using the channels I linked to above and yes, Filpro needs to use the talk page. I cannot weigh in on who is "right" as I've taken admin action on that page (see WP:INVOLVED). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:36, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

User Flipro vandalizes lots of pages like this and he got many warnings from other admins before and still continuing to do so. He doesn't talk and provide sourse but just update without reason and vandalize.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samforprospe (talk • contribs) 01:45, 27 October 2015 (UTC) 

Thanks for what you have done. Please protect the page fully until an decision has been made by an administrator. Or else further vandalism will occur. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samforprospe (talk • contribs) 01:52, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Neil I am ready to talk with other users. But the problem here is that they are not ready to talk and are vandalizing. I told them several times to talk in the page with me. They are not co operating. The reason they are not ready to talk is because they don't have enough proof. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samforprospe (talk • contribs) 01:04, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

IPv6 range contribs

From your recent comment at AIV, I'm guessing you know of a tool to check contribs of IPv6 ranges? Or is this something else I have to make? =P — MusikAnimal ^talk 15:46, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

MusikAnimal, turn on the "Allow /16, /24 and /27 – /32 CIDR ranges on Special:Contributions forms..." gadget and then this works. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:50, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

BTW, do you know who runs this? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:53, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Ah yes, that JS gadget. I will give it another spin. That calculator is by the one and only Mr. User:NativeForeigner. — MusikAnimal ^talk 15:54, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

MusikAnimal I'd be toast without that calculator. Wish the WMF would pick up the ball and provide an integrated calculator/contribs tool. Sometimes you can't check the exact range a calculator spits out. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:00, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Maybe we could combine forces and get the calculator / contribs gadget in the same interface. NativeForeigner if you are interested let me know. Also I'm not able to get WP:POPUPS to work with the gadget (so that I can quickly see the diffs by hovering over "diff"), are you? I think I know how to make that work... For me, having popups would eliminate any desire to use an external service like xtools — MusikAnimal ^talk 16:06, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

@MusikAnimal: On that note, the gadget supports ucstart and ucend parameters to help narrow down the results but you’d have to manually type it in every time which is quite tedious, any easy way to integrate it into the user interface? - NQ-Alt (talk) 16:11, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

MusikAnimal, that's strange. I was going to say popups work for me but then I went back to confirm and the diff popups didn't work. I then went back a second time and now they did... --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:14, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

The working/not-working behavior seems completely random. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:18, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Yep, so it's a timing issue. There's a "hook" available to ensure it always works, I'm looking into that now. NQ, we can look into specifying a date range. If you are comparing it with xtools, I thought that feature was mainly to avoid performance issues. That is if you choose a /16 IPv4 range of all contribs since January it's likely going to lock up the tool and possibly even kill the service. My guess is the gadget just goes off of recent ones, past month or so maybe? I prefer defaulting to recent contribs, but I can see use cases for needing to see only those within a date range — MusikAnimal ^talk 16:29, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

@MusikAnimal: The gadget returns edits from way back 2004 and is amazingly quick at that, see this for instance. Narrowing them down to just the most recent contribs is indeed what I am interested in as they tend to get buried in the mix. - NQ-Alt (talk) 16:44, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

In that case, yes, let's look into adding date range options! Also I just made the change to re-init popups (and other scripts listening to that hook) once everything has loaded. Popups should work every time now :) — MusikAnimal ^talk 16:45, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

So I guess the "From year/month (and earlier)" options are just being ignored by the script. It is semi-respecting other options, such as namespace, but not the "invert selection". Let's try to get it to work just like the normal interface and take into account all options. Hopefully this will be a fun project — MusikAnimal ^talk 16:50, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

@MusikAnimal: No the script works fine there. For Special:Contributions it’s always been results narrowed down to year/month and earlier and not later which would have been much much useful. See phab:T18866 - NQ-Alt (talk) 16:57, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

And it should go without saying how much we all appreciate you taking over these "fun projects". You, Writ Keeper and Mr. Stradivarius are among the very few I've seen around here going out of your way to create useful stuff for editors. NQ-Alt (talk) 17:18, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I think they enjoy it mostly, I know I do. It's only when our scripts/gadgets/tools break that we start to cry. Up until then we're pretty resilient. Anyway, I guess since the contribs are in descending order by time the "earlier" option can make sense, but less so with this gadget. This is a bit tricky. I want to say let's do away with the those date range options and put a "from" and "to" datepicker, but that's going to interfere when normally browsing to Special:Contributions. We'd have to make it work in all cases, not just range contribs — MusikAnimal ^talk 17:22, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I just don't have the time at present to work on integrating the tools. NativeForeigner ^Talk 22:34, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Also the tool is python3/django. I'll further develop it whenever I have time. If @NeilN: or yourself have any suggestions let me know and I'll try to implement them. I plan on moving it to toolserv at some point but it was a pain last time around and I haven't had the time to put it there recently. NativeForeigner ^Talk 10:27, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

More Trolls Vandalizing Tommy Sotomayor Article

Here's two more users that should probably be blocked from Wikipedia, you can see an example of the vandalism from one of them in the first link:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tommy_Sotomayor&diff=686834961&oldid=686771869

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2.30.15.148

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2607:FB90:2275:9A9D:0:48:1260:CD01

Thanks! Neptune's Trident (talk) 18:11, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Neptune's Trident, I blocked 2607:FB90:2275:9A9D:0:48:1260:CD01 for a month. No doubt they'll hop IPs again but if they do, just go to WP:AIV, cite block evasion, and point to this IP. 2.30.15.148 needs a full set of warnings before they can be blocked. If you find yourself reverting every day, let me know and I will upgrade the PC protection to a semi. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:23, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Please fully unprotect Template:retrieved

Your semi-protection is unwarranted. I am reading this: "Administrators may apply indefinite semi-protection to pages that are subject to heavy and persistent vandalism or violations of content policy (such as biographies of living persons, neutral point of view). Semi-protection should not be used as a preemptive measure against vandalism that has not yet occurred, nor should it be used to privilege registered users over unregistered users in (valid) content disputes." (WP:S-P). I removed emphasis and links from the quote. Which of the above is your justification for restricting editing? Considering that this is neither a high risk nor highly visible template. 72.43.99.130 (talk) 18:56, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

First, I reduced the existing template-editor protection to semi-protection. Second, WP:PTPROT reads: "Highly visible templates which are used on an extremely large number of pages or substituted with great frequency are particularly vulnerable to vandalism, as vandalism to the template may introduce vandalism to hundreds of other pages. Therefore, they are frequently semi- or template-protected based on the degree of visibility, type of use, content, and other factors" (emphasis mine). The template in question has 500+ transclusions. Semi-protecting it is not at all unusual. If you browse Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Rolling archive you'll see templates regularly being semi-protected. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:05, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

So you reduced a bad action to a semi-bad one. The excuse is dubious. In my previous comment, I used the section of the policy that specifically applies to semi-protection. This template does not fall under WP:HRT, and had no history of vandalism until an admin vandalized it (prior to protection). Call a spade a spade: this template should not have been protected, period. 72.43.99.130 (talk) 19:14, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

And if you look at most of the template protection requests, they're made not because of vandalism, but because of any potential disruption will affect hundreds of pages. If you want to tighten up WP:PTPROT, the place to suggest that is the policy's talk page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:20, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm sure your time is as valuable as mine. Nothing in WP:PTPROT justifies any kind of protection for this template. This is not a policy issue, therefore there is nothing to talk about at the policy's talk page. I'm in full agreement with the policy. This is a complaint over misapplication of policy. As a first step into resolving this, I will make the request at WP:RFUP. 72.43.99.130 (talk) 19:58, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I see the relevant section has been archived already. Not good. Your rationale is based entirely on the number of transclusions, an insufficient requirement as the pertinent policy shows. You are implying that after some arbitrary number of transclusions, bot-like semi-protection should be (auto-)applied, restricting editing without any other cause. This is facile. Your bringing up similar case history as support makes me think that there is a problem with the way template protection is administered in Wikipedia. It seems there is consistent misinterpretation of policy, possibly because it makes administration easier and lazier. I am looking at this therefore as a dispute, but not over policy. It is over the administration of policy, and I think a proper forum for review will have to be used. 208.87.234.201 (talk) 01:02, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

To paraphrase you, bot-like protection should be (auto-)applied. Well, yes. For example, bot-like template-editor protection is applied if a template is ~>2,500 transclusions. Please do let GiantSnowman and me know when you've posted your request for review. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:11, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

So there is a bot that, without any prior disruption or incident, auto-denies editing rights to the historical majority of users of the encyclopedia "that anyone can edit", in order to make life easier for clerks performing administrative functions. Interesting. It may be the only institution whose main reason for existence is openly contravened by "assistants", whose argument is, "well we've been doing this often". You will be notified of any further action.184.75.21.30 (talk) 22:54, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Moula Ali Hill

Sarvagyana guru proposed my article, Moula Ali hill, for merge. The reason he gave on talk page for merge is not correct. My article is new, only few months old, so it's obvious that people will write about it in another article before that. This hill is in Moula Ali, so people wrote about the hill in this article. Hill is notable and deserves a standalone article that's why I created it. I researched about this hill for two days and I gathered information about it from several sources. I think correct thing to do is to remove things about hill in Moula Ali aricle. Please tell me what to do. Thanks Supdiop (T🔹C) 01:32, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

@Supdiop: Can you expand Moula Ali hill with more information? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:30, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but the hill article is notable. I will certainly expand it and add more sources but is merge necessary? I didn't copy it from anything, but I did took some bits of info from Moula Ali article. I wrote it on my own on my sandbox. It even got a DYK. The reason for proposal is not correct. Thank you Supdiop (T🔹C) 02:49, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

@Supdiop: I agree it should not be merged. Expanding it is the easiest way to make that point really clear to everyone. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:54, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I will expand it in two days, maybe even before. Supdiop (T🔹C) 03:18, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

It's not very urgent, so I will expand it later. Thanks - Supdiop (T🔹C) 06:16, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

With this ever dramatic world and winter coming, here's a cup of tea to alleviate your day! This e-tea's remains have been e-composted SwisterTwister talk 04:53, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

User talk:Playnot

On behavioral ground, User talk:Playnot is clearly another sock of User:Simpleabd‎. See this. Thanks. -AsceticRosé 04:57, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

@AsceticRose: I thought so but can you expand a bit on behavior (email me if you want)? I'll open a SPI tomorrow and see if we can block the underlying IP range. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:02, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for prompt response. As for the user's behavior, I see that User:Playnot is advocating the same point and is deleting exactly the same text as did User:Simpleabd. This time the user slightly changed the wording of his arguments (in edit summaries) in an attempt to appear as a new user. Another point is that the account was created on 21 October 2015 at 22:34, and made the first edit at 22:37 which was a very contentious edit. It appears to be a simgle-purpose account. Even further, both User:Playnot and User:Simpleabd displayed the edit-warring tendency. These are unlikely for a good-faith brand-new user.

It might also be possible that it is a meat-puppet. But the first chance has a better claim, I think. -AsceticRosé 05:21, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

PC-protection expiring this month

Royal Brunei Armed Forces, Names of the days of the week, Irene Zisblatt, List of Beast Quest novels, The Island of Doctor Moreau and Natasha Lyonne? --George Ho (talk) 06:18, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Page protection request

Hello. I'm not an expert user, and I wish to request a page protection due to vandalism. Allianz Parque has been vandalized by an unregistered user for days. Can you help me in this lock application? Thanks. Montolive 20:21, 23 October 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Montolive (talk • contribs)

Hi Montolive. There's not quite enough disruption to merit protection of the article but I will keep an eye on it. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:30, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Europa Universalis IV

There's no vandalism in there m8 BenGarrison1488 (talk) 23:11, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Uh-huh. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:17, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Malaysia Super League

Please banned this guy(Drmies) from edit page club league malaysia this guy (Drmies) is vandalism tahap bangsat.tq — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.49.75.42 (talk) 23:12, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Hey Drmies, you've annoyed someone for the 5,986th time. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:26, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Please banned this guy (Drmies) from edit perlis FA this guy is vandalism tahap bangsat tq — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.49.75.42 (talk) 23:30, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

See WP:NOTVAND. And please write in English. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:27, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

More Trolls On Tommy Sotomayor Article

Here is another user, who appears to have registered with Wikipedia, who is blanking out information on the Tommy Sotomayor article, and then adding badly sourced rumors, you can see what they've been up to here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tommy_Sotomayor&diff=687184905&oldid=687183891

Thanks. Neptune's Trident (talk) 05:40, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Sock-puppet

I think our friend, Smoore95GAGA, is back in full bloom action. Check out the investigation and the new account's edits. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 12:51, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Sock put away by the ever-efficient Bbb23. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:31, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

A brownie for you!

Have it ... Editor Master Abiyarajan77 (talk) 16:36, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Sofia

The issue about Sofia is escalating: the spin-off article was recreated, justified by bogus consensus (RfC still ongoing of course, so, no), the section from the main article removed, and I'm getting things like [27] and [28]. If I may express my personal suspicion, I believe these two people are actively trying to suppress any potentially negative information about their beautiful city - and that's not very encyclopedic in my book. LjL (talk) 17:49, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

LjL, I've warned the IP and joined the discussion on the talk page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:28, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. LjL (talk) 19:15, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

This user use absurd sources and present one ugly nationalistic view and censored the article. May be you must renamed wikipedia to fantasypedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.118.68.169 (talk)

I am not a nationalist and I wonder what nation I would be representing here if I were one. I also note that censorship is about the suppression of information, not the addition or inclusion. I am championing the latter, so I suspect you misunderstand the meaning of this word. LjL (talk) 19:15, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks

Take care Neil. Dr.K. (talk) 20:02, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Disruption on List of languages by number of native speakers

Hello. FYI Rajatbindalbly (talk · contribs · count) (AN-thread here) is continuing his disruption, both on that talk page and elsewhere on en-WP. Thomas.W ^talk 14:53, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Thomas.W, I cannot see anything that warrants a block. Did you have a specific diff in mind? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:58, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

It's his refusal to listen and constant abuse of the edit-request function that I see as disruptive. But I might overreact since I'm very upset by the desysop of Yngvadottir, one of the best editors and admins on en-WP, and the obvious abuse of the ArbCom and AE-system. I thought we were all here to build an encyclopaedia, but what I see is people who try to hijack the system to further off-wiki causes, and use imagined wrongs on Wikipedia to get off-wiki publicity for those causes. So disregard this if you wish. Rajatbindalbly isn't going to irritate me much for the foreseeable future even if he continues, since I intend to reduce my presence here. Thomas.W ^talk 15:15, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Thomas.W, I am keeping an eye on him. As for Yngvadottir, although brief, I made my thoughts known in the Arbcom case request. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:19, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection

I see that you're also filling in requests; I'll step down for now. Samsara 15:43, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Samsara. I'm done. There's one left I can't decide what to do with. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:46, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I'll take a look. Cheers. Samsara 15:46, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Return of a user you blocked

A user you blocked for 48 hours on October 15, User:Amazing to you, has returned as User:Karah kenze (began editing on the 17th), and today as User:Iloveyoooou after I filed this report about Kk on AN/I. They're very obviously the same editor: same suite of articles, same derogatory tone in the edit summaries. An SPI has been filed, but I haven't looked at it yet, going there now. BMK (talk) 00:05, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

A cup of matcha for you!

With this ever dramatic world and winter coming, here's a cup of matcha to alleviate your day! Gizmocorot (talk) 10:51, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Block evasion

Hi, Neil. I thought you'd want to know that 42.115.140.239, whom you blocked yesterday for his extensive history of non-constructive edits at the Mission: Impossible film articles, is committing block evasion as 42.115.140.141.

Another editor has reverted him at Mission: Impossible – Rogue Nation today, and yet another editor has done so at Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol. After several warnings, his by-now vandal edits are taking up multiple editors' time. I'm sorry to ask you to take additional time as well, after you helped out so quickly yesterday; I'm wondering if, given his unrelenting pattern under those two "42.115" IP addresses and others (42.115.139.245, 42.115.140.131, 42.115.141.67, 42.115.141.34, 42.115.142.107) whether a range block might be in order? --Tenebrae (talk) 22:53, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Tenebrae. I looked at a rangeblock yesterday and concluded it had too much collateral damage. I've done a smaller two week rangeblock of 42.115.140.128/25. If other IPs show up, please let me know. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:52, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely. I didn't realize the potential for collateral damage, but I'll always keep that in mind going forward. Thank you for helping and, in retrospect, for proceeding in a properly cautions way. With regards, --Tenebrae (talk) 03:18, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Vandalism Being Ignored

Hello Neil. This is regarding the Andre Marin article, A living person. The article has been vandalized and verified content removed prior to my recent edits, in which I ADDED content which was valid, contributed by other editors and deliberately deleted. Interesting no other edits have been made. Many people are out campaigning on this page it has been an ongoing problem. I had to reinsert content and much of the content recently added belongs on the Ontario Ombudsman page, not this one. In addition someone is adding non-NPOV. . Please check the edit history and you will see the problem. The individual the article is about has been deliberatrly remade to ignore all of his achievements with the exception of one position which yet again has become a target for WP:ADVOCACY. I believe the article needs to be stubbed and the COI removal was not appropriate as the individuals in question were members of the man's PR team and government paid. Please get back to me whenever you can, I appreciate your time. CheckersBoard (talk) 00:03, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

No Conflict of Interest

Sorry Neil, forgot to add that the other admin passive aggressively accused me of COI. This was already resolved in the past when it came to light that it was in fact Andre Marin's PR team, a Bursy and Williams I believe. So no, the COI had nothing to do with me. From the history edits it's quite obvious it is the reverse going on now, and the other admin is COI as they have been eliminating non-NPOV, huge amounts of content, using spin and ruining the balance of the article. I will not be attacked by someone who is clearly WP:ADVOCACY and possibly more. Thank-you, and please don't become this person's bully. Heads up and cheers. Keeping this article neutral and organized has been challenging, I didn't think it would be like this. CheckersBoard (talk) 00:13, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

• André Marin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Here is a link to make it easier for you to check on this N. MarnetteD|Talk 00:14, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

CheckersBoard, rather than reverting vandalism, your edits left the article a mess. Also, your statement above is self-contradictory. "has been deliberatrly remade to ignore all of his achievements with the exception of one position" or "individuals in question were members of the man's PR team and government paid" - which is it? I pointed you to three places where you can ask for help from other editors. You can also post to WP:COIN if you think conflict of interest editing is going on but you will need to provide diffs to back up your claim. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:19, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

If I can chime in here, I recently came across the Andre Marin page and saw it was a mess of COI and POV editing. I tried removing some of the the COI content (and toning down the language to make it more appropriate for WP) and adding a significant amount of content to make it more balanced. It honestly took me hours to do. Unfortunately CheckerBoard over here has some sort of personal interest in this page and tried editing the page back to its previous non-NPOV status, while failing to use proper wiki formatting (as you saw yourself). NeilN, perhaps you can suggest what is the proper route here, because repeated warning on CB's talk page doesn't seem to prevent this person from editing the page in a non-neutral manner (and which appears to be straight vandalism). FuriouslySerene (talk) 14:29, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

FuriouslySerene, I think CheckersBoard is aware by now that they'll be blocked for disruptive editing if they continue this kind of behavior. I strongly urge them to use the article's talk page in order to avoid making a hash of the article itself. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:41, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Regarding confusion for article edits for living person, article A.M.

Hello again Neil. I apologize for the confusion, for some reason I am unable to scroll back/up in the comment box while using a mobile and this is the reason for the mix up, I couldn't delete it/fix it. The pop -up keyboard also covers half the screen and I am unable to scroll. This has happened to me many times and has also had a poor effect on editing for me. To clarify, the article previously stated the individuals positions without out givng prominence to any single one in particular. It has been changed now to ombudsman as a highlight. It is interesting that content added referred to a *specific* policy manual or such, a report of sorts, that was one among many put out by Mr. Marin and his office, which leads one to view the recent edits as influenced by advocacy. It also seems to make a point to highlight the names of media outletls, but only when unfavorable circumstances or coverage was involved. In addition, the editor has now madeit a point to subtley change the article by glossing over unfavourable facts or errors made by Mr. Marin, which turns the editor into a narrator or reporter and detracts from the role and purpose of editing. These additions were neither made by Mr. Marin or the authors of the articles involved. In other words, spin. They are inserting an opinion not based on availalbe evidence presented by these reputable media outlets. This does not meet wiki requirements and is creating an unbalanced article. CheckersBoard (talk) 04:41, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Thank you for continuing to challenge your fellow administrators when they make careless judgements. Burninthruthesky (talk) 08:47, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Burninthruthesky, I think this is either for the Cassianto block or the block/unblock of Eric Corbett? Thanks. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:36, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I happened to see your comments on Cassianto's page, and very much agreed with them. We seem to be losing a lot of established editors at the moment. Burninthruthesky (talk) 15:00, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

universe sandbox²

i was trying to create my article about this new software. how is that copyright infringement? the article seems perfectly fine to me. G-dac (talk) 19:26, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

G-dac, I would stay away from that article. Right now, I'm undecided as to whether or not to block you for sockpuppetry. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:29, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Last time I got banned and they blocked my talk page access, so I couldn't even defend myself or request another unblock request. I don't like to be treated like trash, like I've always been. My article is fine and I just wanted to keep in there. I'm not contagious or anything. I don't see why not leave the article there G-dac (talk) 19:33, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for making it easy. As a matter of fact, I do sympathize with your point of view but you really need to stop socking for about six months and then request an unblock from your original account. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:37, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi?

Do you still rest? This is not your job. This should be job of who develop this website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Usertofix (talk • contribs) 23:09, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

@Usertofix: Actually, you have that backwards. The Wikimedia Foundation only develops and maintains the software and hardware. They do not develop or maintain content in any official capacity - volunteers do. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:25, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Some link provided is not blue, may i revert? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Usertofix (talk • contribs) 23:24, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

@Usertofix: Every example in that list is a bluelink as far as I can see. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:27, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

no bluelink for expired domain, can i list one since i have added expired website in the category?

@Usertofix: Lots of items don't have examples. The ones that do, have bluelinked examples to show they're notable. NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:32, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

It is a request i have made. i have added a category, can i request to add expired domain in the category i have added? thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Usertofix (talk • contribs) 23:37, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

FYI, blocked as sock. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 00:24, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

AfD List of Pakistani photographers?

List of Pakistani photographers was nominated for deletion. I saw no comments other than one user who may have had a history of bias. The originator of the article then deleted the AfD tag, see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Pakistani_photographers&oldid=687593526, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Pakistani_phou. Would you explicate the rationale for the survival of the article, which is unsourced and is redundant with existing articles, as you have suggested that I not interact with the user. N0TABENE (talk) 00:04, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

N0TABENE, a few important corrections. The article was not put up for AFD. It was tagged for speedy deletion by the creator of the article. The tag was properly removed by another editor (an admin, in fact) because the speedy delete reason was invalid (there was more than one contributor to the article). To get the article deleted you will have to go through the WP:AFD process (detailed on the linked paged) keeping in mind WP:NLIST. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:22, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

The rational for deletion had nothing to do with a single contributor. The article was (a) redundant with a pre-existing list, (b)the entire article was unsourced, (c)in the 5 months since additional references were requested, only a directory of photographers was provided, not indicating WP:Notability, and (d)did not follow the WP:MOS for lists. The creator of the article changed the rationale for deletion and substituted the "single contributor" straw man argument. I used the XFD tab on my editorial page to nominate the article, not the WP:CSD. N0TABENE (talk) 23:42, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

N0TABENE, okay there was some confusion here. Musa Raza replaced your PROD tag (which is still not an AFD by the way) with a CSD tag, probably thinking it would get the article deleted quicker. The admin reviewing the speedy delete request properly declined it. Musa Raza do you have any objection to restoring the PROD tag? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:01, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

@NeilN: Hello!
I request you as the author of the article to delete it if you have the right or restore the tag. I don't have any objections. And please checkout Talk:Faisal Qureshi as well.
Thank You--Musa Talk  02:17, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

This user needs a block for disruptive editing

User:Tobibln

All this user does is remove content without references or anything, he's been doing it for the past 5 years and never stopped! Please deal with this user as soon as possible before he disrupts more articles. Thanks. 81.174.186.5 (talk) 05:16, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Looks like they're updating articles and their edits have not been reverted. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 11:20, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

On his talk page, he never responds to messages left by other users for his editing. The edit summary "update" is just a way to get out of his behaviour. Please stop him as soon as possible, thanks. 80.189.105.71 (talk) 20:38, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

User:TheFeralCat is back for more nonsense :/

Sorry to bother you again with this. After standing off for a couple weeks, User:TheFeralCat is resuming their attempts to get their obsession with cats being some kind of magic apex predator into articles - [29], [30]. Apparently they spent that time posing a leading question on Yahoo Answers so they could use it as a reference [31]... yeah. Previous appeals to reason having failed, might I suggest you impose a block right away to avoid another few days of edit-warring? The warning from last time would seem unambiguous enough. Cheers -- Elmidae (talk) 11:14, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Elmidae, blocked for three months. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 11:18, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely with talk page privileges removed. Mkdw^talk 13:56, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

@Mkdw: Yeah, I could see that coming. Thanks for the note. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:16, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Staffing

Hi! This is a part of my assignment in my university and i will be adding all the references today. Please don't make any changes for a week. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nimishabothra (talk • contribs) 11:19, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Nimishabothra, thank you for finally starting to communicate. I know this is part of your coursework. That's the only reason why you haven't been warned more severely. However even if you do add references, the tone of the article is still unencyclopedic. I pointed you towards WP:NOTESSAY and WP:NOTHOWTO four days ago. NeilN ^{talk to me} 11:27, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Okay. Do you want to suggest me a few changes in that case? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nimishabothra (talk • contribs) 13:50, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Nimishabothra, it's not just a few things - your entire change is problematic. It reads as if it should be in a business magazine, not an encyclopedia. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:35, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Quicky

Hi Neil, could I trouble you to take a look at this guy Sa95. The user has created a few "glorified plot summary" articles on individual Thomas & Friends episodes, with no indication that any of them are notable in any way. To save you time, I'll provide the narrative, picking one article as an example, though he has created several.

He creates Thomas and the Missing Christmas Tree, it is turned into a redirect by ACase0000. ACase0000 leaves a comment on Sa95's talk page asking him not to create unnecessary articles. Sa95 restores the article. SummerPhDv2.0 flags it for notability concerns. I turn it into a redirect. I open a talk page discussion to explain my redirect. Sa95 restores the article without discussion. I redirect and make contact on his talk page. He silently restores the article.

Clearly disruptive, and I was going to block him myself, but I'm still a little sensitive about WP:INVOLVED, which is why I was hoping to get your input. Please note that for each redirect I initially performed, I left a message on each article's talk page. Something like eight in total. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:58, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Update: Looks like Electricburst reverted all the restorations. That makes four editors who don't think the article should be a standalone. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:38, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Cyphoidbomb, blocked 48 hours with a note to start communicating. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:28, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks boss. Opinion on whether this is or isn't "involved"? Seems like any reasonable admin would have come to the same conclusion. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:40, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Cyphoidbomb, I would see this as involved. If I have an opinion on content and editing the article, then I'm not using my tools. See the Staffing section above as an example. Clearly problematic changes but I'm not the one who'll be blocking if it comes down to that. There are narrow exceptions like BLP or reverting a mess like this. If I am asked about content, I will frame my answer in general terms about how Wikipedia's policies and guidelines could apply and encouraging the editor to engage with other editors (see User_talk:NeilN#dogs_again for an example). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:57, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:11, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Ghouta

Erlabeko is censoring free discussion on the bleeding talk page now. Why are you colluding with such a scumbag? Free discussion is to be welcomed and you are helping suppress it. Good work Neil — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.3.28.156 (talk)

Blocked for block evasion. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:30, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

an ad hominem - meanwhile what about the point of allowing free discussion on a talk page when the material is in good faith and has a point? is it just 'take the player out and ignore the football' kind of thing with you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.3.13.248 (talk) 20:00, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

As your master account has been blocked indefinitely, it should be clear that you are not welcome to post anywhere on Wikipedia. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:09, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

On Ed Johnson's counsel

See here. I always try to keep out of AE or Edit-warring complaints, hoping things can be worked out on a page. The problem here is chronic. Perhaps I have misread, I am not an 1R expert, but would appreciate if you could make a call on the issue outlined on Ed and Debresser's page. Sorry for the bother, but these things should be simple either way, and ironed out amicably, even if bad blood is in the air, by the looks of it. Thanks. Nishidani (talk) 17:50, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Nishidani, posted here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:13, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you.Nishidani (talk) 21:11, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Vested contributors arbitration case opened

You may opt-out of future notifications related to this case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Vested contributors/Notification list. You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Vested contributors. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Vested contributors/Evidence. Please add your evidence by November 5, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Vested contributors/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 01:19, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Involved again

Hi Neil, I risk that you will become annoyed with me, which is totally not my goal, but I'm an experiential learner, so the best way for me to learn appropriate usage of a rule is to get multiple examples of input so I can gauge what the absolute rule is, and what the not-so-absolute rule is and then find the workable middle ground. If I'm enforcing community consensus, is that "involved"? Case: here, the removal of "-gonist" labels per WP:ANTAGONIST. Here at the same article I remove it again, though I'm not conscious of having removed it before. Here a user resubmits it again.

I have no particular interest in this telenovela article or its contents, but where I see an edit against established consensus, would you consider it involved to protect the article or to issue sanctions? I did read your statement If I have an opinion on content and editing the article, then I'm not using my tools. I get that, and I don't particularly have an opinion on the content other than existing standards. In the earlier example of having an opinion about whether or not an article was notable, I can see that my opinion about "notable" is a factor, so avoiding sanctions there was the right call. This, however, isn't so much my opinion, rather the enforcement of existing standards. If, for instance, a user keeps submitting unsourced content to an article and I keep reverting them, am I prohibited from protecting the article or blocking the user? In the world of Indian cinema, when people submit fabricated box office values or unsourced this-and-thats, or promotional content, should I not admin in those cases?

These seem like things that would fall under the 'any admin would have arrived at the same conclusion' guideline. And it seems there needs to be some latitude, otherwise, what's the point of having the mop? So I can continue to report irritating crap to ANI? Again, I'm sorry to bug you, but I'm still an admin n00b and I want to be sure I'm doing shit correctly so as not to create headaches for the community. Thanks, and of course if you'd prefer I go elsewhere for advice, I'm happy to do that with no hard feelings. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:45, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Cyphoidbomb, I don't mind you coming here as long as you realize I may tend to be conservative when it comes to WP:INVOLVED. Another rule of thumb you can use is to ask yourself, "Would I be blocked for WP:3RR if I repeatedly made that edit?" In most MOS cases, yes you would, as enforcing MOS is not exempt from WP:3RR and so reverting is not an admin action. If you brought that "-gonist" case to AIV, I'm not blocking as editing against consensus is not vandalism. Saying that, I would block if the editor broke WP:3RR or is edit warring against multiple users over a period of time or is making the same edit across multiple articles without heeding the objections of multiple editors. You also need to use some common sense. If the user is disruptively editing against MOS (e.g., turning bold text red, using big tags, etc.), revert and block.

Moving to your telenovela example, if people are adding fabricated information, revert and block as that's vandalism. I did that here. Adding unsourced info is not so that requires a more detailed look. Blatant BLP violation? Revert and block. Not so blatant? Hold off. For example, actor X may be rumored to star in film Y. As long as film Y isn't a porno, I'm not reverting and blocking/protecting. A couple of exceptions to this. If I've protected the article because of a request, and unsourced info starts being added when protection expires, I will feel free to revert and take whatever admin action I deem appropriate. The same goes if another admin's protection has recently expired. I think there's a reason why there's only one exception explicitly listed for INVOLVED (blatant vandalism) and I respect that. I've seen admins and even arbs posting at RFPP and AIV because of this. Now, if push came to shove, I doubt the community would care if you reverted and blocked an IP for repeatedly adding an unsourced "Movie X was considered the superhit of 2014" but like I said at the beginning, I'm conservative when it comes to this and prefer that any INVOLVED accusations that might come up be easily dismissed, not relying on the sometimes shaky "any admin would have done the same". Hope this helps somewhat. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:50, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the thoughtfully detailed response, Neil, very much appreciated ¡ Cyphoidbomb (talk) 13:59, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Vested contributors retitled Arbitration enforcement 2

You may opt-out of future notifications related to this case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement 2/Notification list. You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement 2. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement 2/Evidence. Please add your evidence by November 5, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. For this case, there will be no Workshop phase. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 12:35, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Maria Gheorghiu page

Hey! I did everything the best I could and tried to respect the rules. I do not understand why everything is deleted page. Instead delete it all the time, you could help me to correct mistakes. Maybe not quite so big ... I reserved a lot of time to write page as well and it's bothering me all the time ... I'd rather faded a little help, a message of encouragement, not only "your page has been deleted." Especially as Maria Gheorghiu deserves a page in English. Thank you in advance! Anda — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndaVeronica29 (talk • contribs) 14:34, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi AndaVeronica29. I realize having your work deleted is discouraging and that's why I didn't delete it but moved it to Draft:Maria Gheorghiu. Did you read the note I left on your talk page? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:40, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi! Thank you! I read your message and I'll try to do my best... I hope my page will be ok... — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndaVeronica29 (talk • contribs) 14:45, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Help with submitting an article for a review

Hi, I couldn't find any entry on this, and since we spoke "recently" I thought maybe I should ask you. There's a specific article I would like to put up for review (namely, cryotherapy) as most of its content is well, dubious. A lot of it sounds like either pseudoscience or a sales pitch and the sources are less than appropriate. The issue here is that I know very little of the topic myself and so find myself unable to fix the article. Hence, I would like to know if there is a way to put the article up for some sort of review, as a way to bring attention to it and maybe have people more knowledgeable than I about the topic to fix it. Akesgeroth (talk) 14:44, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Akesgeroth. The folks at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine are excellent at this sort of thing. I've posted there a few times myself with the same type of query. Just list the article and your concerns. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:51, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Submitted it at the page you linked. Akesgeroth (talk) 14:59, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Sharabha/User:Correcterminator

Neil, thanks for blocking that editor. Was going to report the edit warring, and when I went to their talk page to post the notice, I saw you had already taken care of it. I hate reporting 3RR stuff. But his last comment in his revert "... we will correct it always be sure", made me feel like they were simply going to continue. One thing, I'm going to open an SPI on this editor, along with user:Devasdp and user:Sdpdev, who have all made similar edits. However, I noticed you declined the RPP, and I am simply concerned that this page will continue to be vandalised by newly minted SPA accounts. Just a thought. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:02, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi onel5969. If sock/meat puppets do show up just post here and I will protect the page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:05, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Paradox

As soon as the Johan Anderson and paradox interactive pages unlock on day 30, the same vandals are planning to vandalize again. Can't sign or stop it since I'm on a phone. Keep an eye out please — Preceding unsigned comment added by Podcat (talk • contribs) 17:30, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

@Podcat: Thanks for the note. As a precautionary measure I've added pending changes protection to Johan Andersson (game programmer) which will take over when semi protection expires. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:17, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Removal of message

Hello NeilN,

In the section of the article, proper citations have been added supporting the content. Since i am only a auto-confirmed user, not sure if i am authorized to remove the "clarification needed" messages, so please do the needful.

Thanks Work2win (talk) 18:11, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Work2win. If the issue is resolved, any type of editor can remove any tag. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:14, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

blocked IP socking

FYI, as you blocked 74.101.51.221 (talk), that person is back as 100.33.126.2 (talk). nableezy - 19:19, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

@Nableezy: Blocked, page protected. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:26, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

PP assist - Dedham, Massachusetts - Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles characters

Hi Neil, would you please consider 1-month semi-ing List of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2012 TV series) characters on my behalf? Drmies was my go-to for stuff related to this article, but I'm not sure what's going on with him.

Basically:

An IP-hopper from Dedham, Massachusetts continues to restore cruft walls with no effort to discuss. Some IPs: 108.49.185.106, 108.26.174.18, etc.

I raised questions a few years back about the suitability of the article because it was so frickin' long and overly-detailed. On editor in particular, Rtkat3, seemed incapable of distinguishing between useful facts and detailing every single plot detail for every single character, and numerous attempts to discuss felt like peeling off my eyelids. I think a WP:CIR situation. Fast forward to 2015, after continuously running into Rtkat3 adding walls of useless content (see this version of the article,) I bring this up to Drmies, who skeletalizes the article in August. Since then, if you check the edit history, you'll notice a slew of 108.* IPs adding back the content over and over like 108.49.185.106 here. Never an attempt to discuss, although Drmies and I have comments on the talk page. And, each time I made contact with the IP to say, "seek consensus" or "cruft walls may be considered 'derivative works'". No reply, so clearly disruptive POV shit.

Please note my talk page comment today and their silent reversion ten or so minutes later.

I'm starting to think this user is Rtkat3 editing while logged out, since 3 years ago when I was editing that article regularly, he was the only person I ever had to battle with about the ridiculous use of wikilinks for "rat" and other common words, and for speculation about certain characters' species, which I note here from an IP that geolocates to Connecticut, where Rtkat3 acknowledges he is from (see his user page). Connecticut and Massachusetts are next to each other. It's not unfathomable that this is Rtkat3 editing while logged out and using two different methods for editing.

Thanks, and sorry to bug you again. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:32, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Protected 1 month to force discussion. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:47, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks mate. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:50, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Mentoring

Hi NeilN, would you consider adopting me as a semi-experienced editor? I feel that although I have a firm grasp of the basics and a number of policies, I definitely have room for improvement. I understand you're pretty busy, so if not, is there another administrator you could recommend bothering asking? samtar ^{t} 22:26, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi samtar. Subject to availability, I answer all good-faith questions posted here to the best of my ability. If that's all you're looking for, ask away. If you're looking for something more formal, I think Swarm is accepting adoptees. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:37, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I'll drop Swarm a message in a mo - though I'm sure I'll keep pestering you in the future, you've always been very helpful. Thank you samtar ^{t} 22:40, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

samtar I'm happy to help answer questions as well, paying forward Neil's kind assistance to my n00b admin questions above. I'm not quite in the market for mentorship, because my mop-wielding is already very demanding and I don't think I have the best personality for it. But help I am happy to assist where I can. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:56, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you as well Cyphoidbomb, I'll have to remember to alternate my glaringly obvious questions between you.. samtar ^{t} 23:00, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Frozen

Trust me, it's not just my opinion. I've seen several opinions from people saying that it's not a good movie. I do hate the movie, but I also hate Wall-e (in fact, I hate it more than Frozen) and I didn't remove it because I know that almost everyone loves it to death. Try checking out some youtube videos and articles where Frozen gets TONS of hate and is considered to be overrated as hell! --DisneyFan3 (talk) 00:58, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

DisneyFan3, and you can say the same thing about almost any film. Citizen Kane? Called boring. Gone with the Wind? Too long and melodramatic. So please re-read the article's introduction, specifically: "Each film listed here has been mentioned in a notable survey, whether a popular poll, or a poll among film reviewers." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:17, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

List of cities with the most high-rise buildings

Why you protected Cities Most Highrise article ? This article based in Emporis sources which is neutral sources and in English. But somebody had edited the article and put Shanghai highrise more than 14.000 based on local sources which is not neutral sources. Its impossible Shanghai highrise : Hongkong highrise + New York highrise — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.246.61.213 (talk) 04:04, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Because you and the other IP were edit warring. Work out your dispute using the article's talk page, please. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:09, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Renew PC-protection for...

Mumbai, Greenwich, New South Wales, Rajdeep Sardesai, Nikki Reed, Firehouse Tales, Paulina Vega? --George Ho (talk) 00:09, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you - from Morinville Community High School

Thanks for protecting the page. I was trying to teach a group of students how to become editors / how to use Wikipedia and things got out of control! I didn't realize you could edit the page without having an account. - Neil Korotash (teacher) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nkorotash (talk • contribs) 16:22, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Nkorotash. I understand. 99% of Wikipedia pages can be edited without an account. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:26, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Aha, now I see what I did

Hello again Neil. It seems there was an update that has made notifications easier to find/access as well as messages on talk pages. I realize there has been a lot of valuable input and information I have missed. I should also always check all notifications before I edit. I can see now that failure to do so is bad practice. I went to backtrack and can now see how some important problems have developed and how some good direction was either forgotten or missed entirely. I've only been able tp locate tge sandbox once and have never been able to find it again, so I became impatient and careless. Also there seems to be no way to access edit history so I can't check anything or get a better sense of what direction the article is taking. I understand how editors new to wiki can be frustrating to admins but rest assured I am not incomptent (a tad impetulant at times but not incompetent).

I need two things the most: how to access my personal sandbox and how to access edit history. I once helped do a "reverse edit" but it was copy paste with no wiki-mark-up which is a big problem, and it's a needlessly lengthy process if I can't get the mark-up and no just the text. I keep losing links and references this way and it's frustrating.

I appreciate your time, thank-you in advance. I am working out how to do this via mobile. I apologize for the trouble, but in the future please avoid ad hominem attacks because it can the derail editing process. I have bad days too. CheckersBoard (talk) 17:35, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

CheckersBoard, here's a link to the article history: link. You can access history by clicking/tapping the "history" tab at the top of any page. Here is your sandbox: User:CheckersBoard/sandbox. You will have to click/tap the "create" tab. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:46, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Persistent IP vandalism of Foundation for Economic Education

Went to dispute resolution where it tells me to discuss with the other party. That is not possible with a bunch of random ip addresses with no talk pages. Abel (talk) 21:49, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

@Id4abel: You can use the article's talk page. Plus it looks to me as SPECIFICO also has issue with your changes. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:32, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Why would a vandal care in the slightest about an article's talk page? What would someone even put there? "Please stop vandalizing the page whoever you are?" This has noting in the slightest to do with SPECIFICO, it has to do with vandalism from random IP addresses. Abel (talk) 01:24, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

@Id4abel: It's one editor and it looks like they have an issue with your changes. Not vandalism. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:30, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

@NeilN:How on Earth are you able to declare 107.107.61.236, 166.171.186.88, 107.107.61.10, 107.107.63.201, 71.101.47.122, and 107.107.59.153 as one editor? How can you even do more than just assume that they are one person?Abel (talk) 01:55, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

@Id4abel: The IPs doing this edit are probably one editor because of the similar edit summaries. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:04, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

@NeilN:Maybe, yet so what? Even if that assumption is valid, that is one edit out of the plethora of vandalism edits over the past week and a half, hence "persistent IP vandalism."Abel (talk) 02:27, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

@Id4abel: Please read WP:NOTVAND. Disagreeing with your changes is not vandalism. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:30, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

@NeilN:Has nothing to do with my changes. 71.101.47.122 removed the Good article code and replaced it with TAKE A LOOK! then replaced TAKE A LOOK!with (lo-c5)89[]/:-+. 107.107.61.10 attempted to manually revert numerous edits by several editors and broke much of the code while doing that with the edit description "Conflict of interest editer blanking and fanboy." 166.171.186.88 did the same thing with the edit description "promoter fanbuoy." 107.107.61.236 decided that one of the locations of the organization should be erased from human memory according to the edit description "hillside doesnt matter." All of these edits changed large portions of the article and broke lots of the code far beyond what the edit description suggests. Each was a deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia, hence vandalism.Abel (talk) 02:51, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

@NeilN:Should I expect a reply?

@Id4abel: I took a second look. I won't be semi-protecting. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:29, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

@NeilN:The reason being?Abel (talk) 13:38, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

@Id4abel: There is disagreement, not persistent vandalism. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:19, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

@NeilN:Arbitrarily reverting many people's edits, breaking most of the code in the article while doing it, is not disagreement. It is intentional disruption. Disagreement would be editing a portion of an article that is disliked or starting a new talk page section. Abel (talk) 21:52, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

@NeilN:Now the problem, since you are convinced this is one person, they have more than violated the three revert rule. Using many different ip addresses, there is no way to place a warning on a talk page that does not exist, and they would not see anyway as they will just keep using new ip addresses. Abel (talk) 09:50, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

@Id4abel: I suggest you actually read WP:3RR: "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:09, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello. I saw this due to your ping, Neil. Thank you. I have walked away from that article because Abel has repeatedly denigrated me in the past and made wild exaggerated and unsupported attacks on me. More recently he threatened me by stating, falsely, that I am topic-banned from editing that FEE page. He's wrong, but I have no interest in defending myself against whatever accusations he might made at a spurious AE complaint. At any rate, my impression is that Abel seems to have "ownership" issues with that FEE article and that he has undone a lot of good, RS content that was added over an extended period of time by many editors. In particular, whereas the article was formerly an encylopedic presentation of the origin, history and program of this significant libertarian advocacy group, he's turned it into something much more limited. To be frank, I get the feeling he was a student there and has too limited and personal a perspective to edit the article objectively. I don't plan to re-engage there, so this is likely the last I'll have to say about that article. Sad to say, this is one of those articles that are not widely followed so that a single passionate editor such as Abel can do a lot of damage without any pushback or guidance from other editors. Thanks again for your ping. SPECIFICO talk 02:22, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Stating that you have a topic ban, which you do, is in no way a threat. My editing is a function of the project asking for more articles to reach good article status, which I was able to do with this article thanks to the organization being old enough to have plenty written about it over the years. Keep pushing that ownership idea, that will probably work out just as well as when you called me sexist. So for the I-don't-know-how-manyeth-time, this has nothing to do with SPECIFICO, it has to do with the multiple vandalism edits from random IP addresses, hence "persistent IP vandalism."Abel (talk) 02:35, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

User 96.255.79.37 has violated the 3-revert rule

Hello. I just wanted to let you know that the anonymous user 96.255.79.37 has violated the 3-revert rule on the page "Focus (song). If you could ask them to stop of ban them for a little while, it would be appreciated. TswiftARTPOP (talk) 23:00, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

TswiftARTPOP, editors cannot be blocked for WP:3RR without being first properly warned about it. I've done so now. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:37, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

They have been warned numerous times, but ok. TswiftARTPOP (talk) 02:41, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

TswiftARTPOP, at the time I looked into this, they had not reverted after being warned. They have now done so and earned a block. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:25, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Staffing

Hello, please give the student who's editing Staffing a chance. I have met with them and I anticipate that the changes to the article to follow will be encyclopaedic. --Raya 01:15, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

@Raya.sharbain: Your first sentence is a bit odd. If their changes are encyclopedic then of course I won't have a problem with that. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:21, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

@NeilN: Ok, but please give the student an opportunity to learn. Instead of reverting an edit, perhaps you can post on the article's talk page suggesting a possible "fix" (for lack of a better word)? I will keep in touch with the student to ensure that they work on the tone of voice used, but I simply don't want them to get discouraged.--Raya 01:53, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

@Raya.sharbain: Have you read the first "Staffing" section on this page? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:57, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

@NeilN: Yes I have. (edit: forgot to sign... but it's still Raya with a new username)

@Raya.sharbain: Another editor who I blocked after processing a report at WP:AIV. Whoever is running this course needs to keep better track of their students. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:50, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Another editor that needs guidance. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:58, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

@NeilN: Thank you for letting me know. I just want to say that I do in fact appreciate the work you're doing, it's just that the students are given little support in this assignment. But we will use your contributions as means to feedback into how the assignment is run. So, thank you :) --Flycatchr 16:40, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

NQ

Hi Neil, do you know anything about Nathan's absence? He hasn't edited since mid-August, and recently blanked his user and talk pages. I sent an email to the wiki-email I have for him, but got an auto-responder message that he is no longer monitoring that email. I don't know who he was close to on Wikipedia to ask, but I had noticed the two of you communicate occasionally. I just hope everything is OK with him; also it would be nice if he returned someday .... Softlavender (talk) 01:45, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

@Softlavender: Nathan is thankfully still around as NQ-Alt. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:59, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Actually he isn't. That account is blanked too and redirected to NQ, and he stopped editing from that account a day before he stopped editing from NQ. (So I'm guessing you have no info on his disappearance? That's too bad, I wish he had given some notice or explanation.... I hope he's OK.) Softlavender (talk) 02:05, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

@Softlavender: ???. That account was regularly editing up to a week ago, not mid-August. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:07, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I see what you're saying, but he's still clearly totally gone now and also inaccessible even via email. (His last message on his own talk page a week ago was "On an extended wiki-break", which he then blanked the next day when he cleared the pages of both accounts.) Unless you have an email address other than his standard wiki email. Do you? Softlavender (talk) 02:26, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

@Softlavender:, I don't, sorry. But I'll keep an eye out. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:34, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protecting List of current heads of state and government

Hi there; the IP has just been banned, although there is another user (Jerus82) who has vandalized additionally. My specific reasoning for the semi-protection is this article: List of current state leaders by date of assumption of office—which has been semi-protected since 2010. I honestly do not see any reason not to do the same with the requested article in question, with a similar subject. It would be tireless to warn every single IP / non-autoconfirmed user; the article is, I must repeat, regularly updated by autoconfirmed users. Thanks. Neve-selbert (talk) 02:00, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Neve-selbert, that indefinite semi-protection of List of current state leaders by date of assumption of office seems dubious at best, given the protecting admin was also heavily involved in editing the article. Also, sports-related articles (for example) are regularly updated by autoconfirmed editors. This does not mean we lock out IPs - they are not second-class editors. However, I have applied two months pending changes protection to the article - let's see what that does. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:40, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I totally understand where you are coming from. Neve-selbert (talk) 03:42, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

My correction is not a vandalism! The correct name of that Vatican office is GovernATorate, not Governorate! See President of the Pontifical Commission for Vatican City State --Jerus82 (talk) 05:16, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Neve-selbert? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:22, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Per the Vatican, "Governorate" is the correct term for that office. I've updated the article cited by Jerus82. General Ization ^Talk 05:29, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Ok. I updated Template:Politics of Vatican City. --Jerus82 (talk) 06:12, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Vandalism in Cities Most Highrise

Vandalism in Cities Most Highrise article. This article based in Emporis sources which is neutral sources and in English. But somebody had edited the article and put Shanghai highrise more than 14.000 based on local sources which is not neutral sources. Its impossible Shanghai highrise : Hongkong highrise + New York highrise

In this source Shanghai only had 1,232 building. Emporis data completed with list the name of the highrise so we can verified not just city claimed. There is a pattern for building more than 180 metre : Hongkong had 143, New York had 100, Chicago had 50, Shanghai only had 70. For the city without height restriction there is impossible Shanghai only had 70 buildings more than 180 metre but had more than 14.000 highrise building. New York had 100 building more than 180 metre but New York only had 6.000 highrise building. Except city with height restriction such as Sao Paulo. http://www.emporis.com/statistics/skyline-ranking — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mirandajovi (talk • contribs) 03:28, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Mirandajovi, as I told your IP, use the article's talk page to discuss. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:32, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Oke but please change the article its a vandalism Shanghai had 14.000 buildings. Shanghai is international city why no single foreigner report it to Emporis ?? For example in the year 2014 Emporis count the highrise in Moscow only 3000 buildings. But there is a report completed with the name of the building. So Emporis change highrise count for Moscow more than 10.000 highrise.--Mirandajovi (talk) 03:35, 31 October 2015 (UTC)--Mirandajovi (talk) 03:35, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Mirandajovi, I don't think you're listening to me. You were edit warring with another IP. Right now, you have three options to change the article. 1) Best option - Post to the talk page and get agreement for your edit. 2) Wait until protection expires and edit the article yourself. 3) Get autoconfirmed and edit the article yourself. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:45, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

'Dictionary' articles

Hi NeilN, quick question - came across Staffing as I have your talk page watched and sometimes stalk it. In my opinion the article is just a glorified dictionary definition, and although I'm not claiming any 'violation' of Wipedia is not a dictionary, I'm curious as to why it does exist samtar ^{t} 11:13, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) The talk page reveals all: Talk:Staffing. See the banner at the top; the article was created as a homework assignment, and was consequently bloated and non-encyclopedic. Now that it's been trimmed down it really is little more than a dictionary definition. Softlavender (talk) 11:40, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I did have a quick look at that Softlavender, unfortunately it makes me torn between AfDing it as almost solely a dictionary entry or leaving it be as someone's assignment... samtar ^{t} 12:44, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

samtar, you're right in that right now it's little more than a dicdef but a AFD probably would (and should) result in a keep or redirect. It would be redirected if the AFD participants decided to TNT it. However since it's going to be worked on, it would probably be kept. If done properly, the AFD should not only look at the current state, but also if the article has the potential to become more than a dicdef. If you nominated the article for deletion, you would be responsible for doing a WP:BEFORE. Do you think you could find sources that would allow you to expand the article beyond a dicdef? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:33, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

• I don't see any indication it's going to be worked on further. Right now it's a single sentence. I would AfD it for sure. (By the way, most homework assignments on Wikipedia cause more harm than good, in my observation.) Softlavender (talk) 03:28, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Halloween cheer!

Happy Halloween!

---

Hello NeilN:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!
    – --I am k6ka ^{Talk to me!} _{See what I have done} 15:46, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

→

Archive 35