User talk:NeilN/Archive 37

Archive 30

←

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

Block evasion "Human like you"

You recently blocked [1] and [2] for block evasion of indef blocked user "Human like you" who is a notorious for using multiple sock puppets. Now the same user is active again as [3] (edits similar to recently blocked [4]). The user [5] editing on the same page with the same agenda is most likely another sock puppet (their edits were reinstated by 176.33.54.33, again edits similar to [6], also adding material sourced to 'Daily Sabah' like "Human like you" used to do [7]). 84.187.147.161 (talk) 21:49, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Blocked as socks. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:45, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

@NeilN: It seems the same user is now active again as [8] in the same section of the same page [9] pushing the same POV: (the insistance that the police was mounted, the picture caption [10] and at the categories [11] (taken from Turkish pro-Erdogan pro-AKP propaganda) of the uploaded file [12]). 84.187.151.87 (talk) 10:18, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

@NeilN: Same again, now here. Thanks for your efforts. 84.187.153.169 (talk) 14:21, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

@NeilN and Black Kite: And again, now here and here. 84.187.144.76 (talk) 10:48, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

@NeilN and Black Kite: Again here. 84.187.149.64 (talk) 10:55, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

@NeilN and Black Kite: Again here and here. 84.187.157.110 (talk) 15:00, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

This is non-obvious to me and there's no SPI page I can refer to. You should either create one or post on Black Kite's talk page as they seem more familiar with the sock. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:11, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

I posted it to Black Kites talk page and added some evidence linking the IP to "Human like you". 84.187.157.110 (talk) 15:35, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Jacob Barnett

The page suppresses opposing views by being guarded by people who have a history of using personal attacks this dif as well as throughout the archive. Subuey (talk) 18:28, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

@Subuey: If you're providing a single diff from a year ago on a totally unrelated page then your accusations of ownership aren't going to be taken seriously. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:35, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

You only mentioned half of what I said. Subuey (talk) 07:12, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Sławomir Biały's only argument is to put words in people's mouths, and his recent comments clearly show a disdain for the subject matter. Subuey (talk) 20:16, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Subuey, the last time you came here I said the diff you provided was basically useless. You unhelpfully pointed to the archive. [13] Now, again, no diffs. You need to provide diffs and show how Sławomir Biały is being disruptive. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:26, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

[14] [15] I thought you had been following along. How can I point to the archive? It is closed. I can paste this, from the archive "Quack, quack, says the duck. Sławomir Biały (talk) 01:49, 11 August 2014 (UTC)" Subuey (talk) 20:52, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

I did not write or sign the above statement about the duck, although it appears that someone has falsified my signature with the intention of making it seem as if I did. Edit: I see that after writing this, Subuey has corrected this misunderstanding. But I note that he is quoting something out of context, though of course any reasonable editor can go and hunt back through two years (!) of archives and find the actual context of the quotation, and they are very likely to agree with the statement in the context it was made. As far as I am aware, however, it was in this enigmatic edit summary, by Subuey wherein this particular species of waterfowl appears to have entered the discussion. Also, I would point out this edit to @Jim1138:'s talk page, which seems to fit the same overall pattern of disruption, modifying talk page discussions and falsifying what others have written. Sławomir Biały (talk) 22:31, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

@Subuey: I semi-protected the article earlier so it's on my watchlist. I'm not following the day to day conversation except when an edit summary indicates things are going off the rails. "Pointed to the archive" means "referred to the archive". You have now provided two diffs. I have no idea what the first one is supposed to show. The second one is problematic. Sławomir Biały, what source are you using for your "systematically misled the media, for personal financial gain, in every other aspect of this affair" claim? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:41, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

The first shows how he automatically assumes the subject of his response (viewfinder) is arguing about relativity. His good faith is questioned, since this has happened continuously in the archive (again can't use diffs except for here [16]) . Subuey (talk) 15:56, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

@Subuey: You're grasping at almost non-existent straws here. Stop doing that. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:12, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

So we just have to deal with it? "they are very likely to agree with the statement in the context it was made" see above [17] That's not cool. Subuey (talk) 18:00, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

As far as the "statements" go, only one - the first, is remotely true and I would challenge proof of the other two. The Plait source is used, but it is blog.Subuey (talk) 16:20, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Kristine Barnett wrote a book in which she claimed that Jacob had developed an expanded theory of relativity that was validated by the physics community, that his IQ is higher than Einstein, and that he is in line for a Nobel prize. These are completely false statements, per the Edwards source referenced in the article. The Plait source, in addition, details why his claims to have disproved relativity are false. The extraordinary amount of media coverage of Barnett's supposed accomplishments were obvious fake news, supported by misleading statements from the Barnetts. I infer that the reason the Barnetts repeated claims like these on talk shows like Katie Couric, BBC Breakfast, and Glenn Beck, on the book tour was to promote sales of the book and to suggest booking Kristine for a speaking engagement which can be ordered through her website. But perhaps this inference goes too far, and the motivation is not necessary for the point I am making, so I have removed that speculation from the post. Sławomir Biały (talk) 08:51, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Here because of ping. Subuey has been... unconstructive... at Talk:Jacob Barnett. For example, posting attacks in the middle of threaded replies ([18], [19]) is clearly disruptive. I reverted it now twice. Sławomir Biały (talk) 20:55, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Disruptive IP shifting editor.

I understand. Since last December articles I've been involved with and my own edits have been hounded by a series of IP editors who are likely HughD. HughD was indef blocked from climate change and post 1932 US politics due to his behavior last summer and blamed me for many of his issues[[20]]. Starting late last year, before HughD's edit block had expired a number of low traffic articles I was involved with were tagged with often mindless fix-it type tags. The edits originally came from Chicago area IPs (HughD's Chicago connections are clear (member of Project Chicago and many area references [[21]]). I became suspicious of the behavior and the IP's all changed to Amazon based proxies and started raise concerns. In all perhaps 40+ Amazon based proxies were blocked due to this IP editor. Recently DoRD became quick to block the Amazon based IPs and the editor shifted back to Chicago based IPs. The Chicago based IPs probably aren't proxies though they are typically public IPs. The Wordsmith looked into the mater and agreed that the behavioral evidence was very clear [[22]],

There are two issues in place here. The first is that the IP is from a webhost, which has now been blocked per our usual policies. The second is that the behavioral evidence linking the IP with HughD is extremely strong. Aside from the pattern of pages he's been editing, certain grammatical quirks that HughD uses are unmistakably present. While I'm not a Checkuser myself, I'm fairly experienced in sniffing out socks and I'd say they're they same person beyond reasonable doubt, per WP:DUCK.

and [[23]]

After a thorough investigation, we've determined that these IPs are the same person and likely HughD. However, there isn't strong enough evidence to mark it as confirmed. So, the investigation is being closed.

Once that was decided the IP's activities increased over the past few days. I posted to the S&W MP15 talk page on Jan 15th.[[24]] The first time any IP posted to the talk page (since 2010) was Jan 23rd [[25]] (this blocked Amazon IP also posted to the GM chapter 11 page responding to a question I had posted). Since the 23rd 9(!) additional IP's have posted [[26]][[27]][[28]][[29]][[30]][[31]][[32]][[33]][[34]] and 4 have been blocked. We've seen similar behavior at the GM (and talk) pages [[35]][[36]]. Because IPs are thrown away so quickly the only thing that really stops the issue is protecting the page. I understand that even though at least one CheckUser and an Admin strongly feel this is HughD they don't have an IP address to tie it to HughD. That said, is there a way to simply declare that the IP editor is disruptive as is? Yes, if this is HughD then he has violated his edit block and is topic block several times over (difs can be provided). But that doesn't help if the we are dealing with a new IP editor. However, if the IP editor is declared to be disruptive/a troll that would make it easier to request page protection when the IP shows up. Do you have any suggestions how I might deal with this? Thanks Springee (talk) 23:58, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Since I was pinged here, I'll say that I regularly block web hosting ranges. I have no opinion, however, on whether any of this is HughD or not. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 00:15, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

@Springee: I've looked into the matter more and blocked the latest IP for two weeks as per "these IPs are the same person and likely HughD" and the above. We'll have to deal with new IPs as they pop up. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:53, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I understand there is no perfect solution but thank you for the help! Springee (talk) 00:55, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

• Now yet another Chicago based IP is showing an interest in more edits of mine. The IP restored an edit made by yesterday's blocked IP. [[37]].Springee (talk) 15:55, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:59, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I disagree strongly with Springee that this editor has been disruptive. He has added neutral, well-sourced material and made worthwhile arguments on talk pages. It appears to me that @Springee: is engaged in a POV war rather than trying to legitimately reduce disruption. Felsic2 (talk) 00:54, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Felsic2, the editor is not being blocked for disruptive. They're being blocked for WP:ILLEGIT. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:58, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

@Felsic2: And I'm completely unimpressed you failed to mention your involvement in this. [38] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:09, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't know I should include my entire history with a matter. I'll try to be more thorough in the future. Springee left out a lot of history too, despite his long entry.

Springee is going around saying that you've determined the IP editor to be disruptive, rather than illegitimate. Would the IP editor be OK if he logs into his previous username? Felsic2 (talk) 01:18, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

@Felsic2: Yes, he needs to log in. The sooner the better or else he might find himself blocked indefinitely for this kind of anonymous hounding. [39], [40] The Wordsmith, all of Hugh's topic bans are indefinite, right? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:41, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure how we can tell him that.

If those are examples of hounding, then I've got a bunch of others, some related, to report. Here, User_talk:Miguel_Escopeta#Hounding, for example, @Springee: followed me to another editor's page, where I have have an ongoing complaint about hounding, in order to interfere. He has appeared on a number of pages I've edited simply to disagree or revert me. I've asked him to stop repeatedly. He's also followed the IP to entirely separate articles, so it seems to be a common pattern. Felsic2 (talk) 01:50, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

• Appeared on a number of pages? Could it be that many of those pages are related topics that he'd already be interested in? In other words, if you started editing articles about Taiwanese horror movies or Angolan rappers, would he be there? Niteshift36 (talk) 15:20, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

@Felsic2: You missed the first word. Anonymous hounding. If you think you have a case against Springee for hounding then you can present it at ANI. I would tell Springee the same thing if they were complaining about HughD's logged in edits. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:09, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

• It returns [[41]] Springee (talk) 19:08, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

guidance

Hello. Seeking guidance. Have used an other username before which I do not wish to use anymore on wiki, for reasons i do not wish to mention here. Is it possible to block indefinitely or remove the old username? Thanks--Anon=us (talk) 23:31, 30 March 2017 (UTC)anon=us

I do not know how the link to Vladimir Plahotniuc appears on this note. I did not use it. I did not add it to this note.--Anon=us (talk) 23:36, 30 March 2017 (UTC)anon=us

Hi Anon=us. You have a couple options. You can log in to your old account, send me an email, and I will block it for you or you can follow the instructions listed at WP:VANISH. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:04, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Need time to consider either option. Thanks.--Anon=us (talk) 18:01, 1 April 2017 (UTC)anon=us

How do i email you? Can you send the link. Thanks.--Anon=us (talk) 23:07, 3 April 2017 (UTC)anon=us

@Anon=us: Look for the "Email this user" link on the left hand side of this page in the tools box. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:16, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for the trouble. I just set up email address in my profile. I do not see email this user. Please can you guide step by step. I just could not figure out WP:vanish. Thanks for the help. Is it ok if I do this after a day or two? Am in a rush actually. --Anon=us (talk) 23:30, 3 April 2017 (UTC)anon=us

Motor vehicle ranking

In the spirit of WP:BRD, can we all agree to stop editing/reverting articles concerning the ranking of motor vehicle production and to try to discuss it instead. After we have some form of resolution from the discussion (or at least an edict from the administrators), then we can make the articles match to whatever the discussion resolved.

Furthermore, a discussion spread out over many talk pages is hard to follow and mostly results in the same arguments being repeated for no benefit. If it failed to convince anyone at one talk page then why would it convince the same people at another page?

I suggest we put the majority of our discussion at Talk:List of manufacturers by motor vehicle production.

This message has also been placed on the talk page of the other editors involved.  Stepho  talk  01:13, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

@Stepho-wrs: I don't think you understood my gentle nudge. Do not encourage this person to edit. They are avoiding scrutiny and socking and all article or talk page posts may be reverted on sight. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:18, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2017).

Administrator changes

TheDJ

Xnuala • CJ • Oldelpaso • Berean Hunter • Jimbo Wales • Andrew c • Karanacs • Modemac • Scott

Guideline and policy news

• Following a discussion on the backlog of unpatrolled files, consensus was found to create a new user right for autopatrolling file uploads. Implementation progress can be tracked on Phabricator.
• The BLPPROD grandfather clause, which stated that unreferenced biographies of living persons were only eligible for proposed deletion if they were created after March 18, 2010, has been removed following an RfC.
• An RfC has closed with consensus to allow proposed deletion of files. The implementation process is ongoing.
• After an unsuccessful proposal to automatically grant IP block exemption, consensus was found to relax the criteria for granting the user right from needing it to wanting it.

Technical news

• After a recent RfC, moved pages will soon be featured in a queue similar to Special:NewPagesFeed and require patrolling. Moves by administrators, page movers, and autopatrolled editors will be automatically marked as patrolled.
• Cookie blocks have been deployed. This extends the current autoblock system by setting a cookie for each block, which will then autoblock the user if they switch accounts, even under a new IP.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:55, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks

For protecting King Tut

Dabbler (talk) 15:57, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Ethnic group

Something odd here with at least one editor making changes that make no sense - see my edit summary.[42] I'm not sure if one of the editors is a sock or not. Shashko is clearly editing in an area subject to DS and has had the alert. Doug Weller talk 17:02, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Put Ethnic group on my watchlist and topic banned Sashko1999 from Macedonia for one year. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:37, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Good call. Doug Weller talk 17:38, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

You'll probably have seen this.[43] There is no Belgian ethnic identity, there are the Flemins and the Walloons, two ethnic groups. And of course we don't call European Americans an ethnic group. I don't know what this guy's agenda is but he lacks the competence to even understand what he is doing - I presume, otherwise it is just vandalism. Doug Weller talk 15:09, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Blocked two weeks as per my prior warning. Next block will be an indefinite. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:22, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

intervention

Hi. Please see balija talk page. There are 2 editors keen on their version without sources to back up their claim. What do you suggest? The issue starts from here. As per Kautilya3 and Sitush, all Balijas are called Gavara in tamilnadu, which is not true. Gavara is only one branch or subcaste/ subsection of Balija. Please suggest an option / solution. --Anon=us (talk) 18:05, 1 April 2017 (UTC)anon=us

Anon=us, you can go to WP:DRN but please be aware that Sitush is widely recognized as a go-to editor when other editors have questions about caste articles. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:17, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Will wait for Kautilya3 to reply first. Reg Sitush, i respect him. Also recognize nobody can be right all the time.--Anon=us (talk) 18:22, 1 April 2017 (UTC)anon=us

Hi. Please see Kautilya3's reply. Is it not possible for admins to intervene first? Would you suggest going to WP:DRN directly? Thanks.--Anon=us (talk) 06:19, 2 April 2017 (UTC)anon=us

Opened WP:DRN. Thanks.--Anon=us (talk) 07:07, 2 April 2017 (UTC)anon=us

Request

Can you semi-protect the page Wikipedia:WikiProject EastEnders/List of births, marriages and deaths in EastEnders to persistent long-term abuse. 123.136.107.12 (talk) 18:19, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Two weeks. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:24, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

yor comment

If you look better you will see it wasn't me, but the other user--Kostas20142 (talk) 19:43, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

@Kostas20142: I'm aware. They said they were going to stop with the jokes but they haven't so they got a rather blunt warning not to do that again. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:53, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Alex Khimich

Neil, I see that you issued Alex Khimich an ArbCom sanction. You may wish to know that they are blantently ignoring the sanction and are now illustrating a disruptive manner at Talk:Russia–Ukraine relations in the Eurovision Song Contest#Neutrality (including incivility towards other users in some sort of anti-Russian way. And also being siruptive with their edits on the article too. Any chance of intervening, and maybe temporary protection of the article too, as I fear it is going to turn into one messy bloodshed. Cheers my friend! Wes Wolf ^Talk 23:42, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

@Wesley Wolf: Things have calmed down somewhat, I think. I'll keep an eye on the article. P.S. I know "go crawl back under the proverbial rock that you came out from" is mild, but admins are going to look at that too if they're trying to figure out if behavior blocks are in order. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:22, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

FYI re M briglia05

Hello NeilN. I hope that you survived April 1st. In dealing with a messy article copy/paste (see details here Wikipedia:Help desk#What to do with this redirect.3F) I saw your post here User talk:M briglia05#Please read. The editor has also created this Matt Works. I fear these actions, which have occurred since your post, indicate WP:COMPETENCE problems. I wanted to get your input on how to proceed in this situation. Best regards. MarnetteD|Talk 01:09, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

@MarnetteD: They were on their last warning so now they're blocked until they can explain how they will change their editing. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:07, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for thee update N. MarnetteD|Talk 04:23, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Think before you act.

You reverted my edit seconds after I made my edit. I was trying my hardest to repair the Naturopathy article, but you reverted it without thinking, clearly. Just look at that time frame! Sorry to be harsh, but that was intentional vandalism that I will not support. I am reverting such vandalism immediately. --SliverWind (talk) 20:11, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

@SliverWind: You're heading for a topic ban. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:12, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Sockpuppet. Should have guessed. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:33, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Alternate talk page deletion

Hello, Neil. First, thanks for the heads-up on the ANI discussion. I'll have more to say over there. Thanks also for the edit on my alternate talk page. I have to ask, though, what the content was that you hid. My curiosity is getting the better of me. Cheers! ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 22:49, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

@TheOldJacobite: Emailed you. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:52, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, that was far worse than I would have imagined. Thanks. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 22:58, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Could you have a word

Taking this to you because I don't want to make a WP:HAPPYPLACE case out of this, and you are familiar with the situation. Our friend IExistToHelp has taken to clerking the NPR user right board [44]. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:34, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

DENY needed

I think you might have handled the last case I mention somewhere. Please see Special:Contributions/Dxfcghjh. Per DENY, delete this if you like. Johnuniq (talk) 10:09, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: Widr got it, thanks. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 11:18, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Stupid Question

If disruptive edits, IE:adding duplicate information over and over after several warnings is not Vandalism, why does the templates for disruptive editting refer to it as Vandalism? Example: "Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at blank, you may be blocked from editing".Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 10:13, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

@WarMachineWildThing: I'm not a fan of that wording. Can you suggest better? If so, let's head on over to Wikipedia talk:Template messages/User talk namespace. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 11:26, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

I can't think of any better wording Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 19:08, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

*sigh*

Well, our friend Smalltime0 has just moved on to edit-warring the same material on another page. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:01, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

sorry

didn't get pointed to the consensus, and couldn't find it. The sources don't support the stated position and other wiki pages use white nationalist and not supremacist. Spencer himself uses ethno-nationalist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smalltime0 (talk • contribs) 16:07, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

@Smalltime0: It's not exactly hard to find: Talk:Richard_B._Spencer#RfC:_White_Supremacist_vs_White_Nationalist --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:10, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Fine, I can see that now. The consensus is flawed, and I don't have time to lead the debate against it. Given that the strongest media sources are using opinion pieces to decry him as a supremacist rather than an ethno-nationalist is disturbing and discredits those sources. I'll stop the reversions, but please escape your echo chamber. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smalltime0 (talk • contribs) 16:20, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

@Smalltime0: I don't care what he's called as long as it meets our WP:BLP policy. However the RFC had pretty clear consensus so any changes going directly against that current consensus are disruptive, especially on an article covered by discretionary sanctions. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:43, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for what you said at Talk:Too Much Too Soon (album). I have pretty much no experience in this kind of stuff, so I'm glad that you stepped in. Thank you! RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 16:42, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks RileyBugz. It's difficult for anyone, even experienced editors, when two longstanding editors go at each other disruptively. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:38, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Men's Rights - Statement regarding white men

"Most men's rights activists in the United States are white, middle-class, heterosexual men"

That statement requires statistics, otherwise its an opinion. If it's an opinion it needs to be stated as such. Moreover, sources don't provide any type of study or statistics to back up claim.

According to the list of links to avoid, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided: "2. Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research, except to a limited extent in articles about the viewpoints that the site is presenting.

That statement is not verifiable, at least not through that link.

Redpill's purpose, not to be confused with the documentary, is to seduce women and have a specific view of women. If visited, it doesn't mention any Men's Rights. This is unreasonable conflation. Flamous7 (talk) 19:05, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Reference 33 gives a link to Katz's book that supports the claim (first ¶). References 42 and 44 give direct quotes. The claim they are not verifiable is incorrect. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:21, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Flamous7. First, you should be using Talk:Men's rights movement to discuss this as this concerns content. Second, raw statistics are primary sources. We need to use secondary sources like studies published by an academic press to interpret any statistics. Third, please see WP:ASSERT. Who is claiming that MRM activists are not mostly white, middle-class, heterosexual men? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:23, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I will definitely bring this up in that talk section in regards to your suggestion.

Kat'z book doesn't provide any reference as to where the statistic came from. In fact no statistics or studies are mentioned, only a statement. I agree, Secondary sources are indeed necessary, but the source has no reference to said statistic or survey. I tried finding a source that cites the statistic.

In regards to claim, if those books are accepted, then I can post my own such as sites such as avoiceformen or books from christina hoff summers disputing that, correct? (of course i would have to post in talk:mensrights first).Flamous7 (talk) 19:51, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Flamous7, Summers may be a reliable source. AVM would be considered a self-published source and largely not accepted. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:03, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Requesting an unbiased vote

Hi,
Your unbiased vote is requested here.

Thanks. —usernamekiran[talk] 20:25, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Usernamekiran. I'm not sure why you're notifying me when my last post to the talk page was 3.5 years ago, responding to a disruptive editor? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:31, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Because I believe you can perform a good judgement. —usernamekiran[talk] 20:34, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Some WTF from reddit

[[45]]

God, they should have kept that drawing game online. MikeTango (talk) 21:34, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Baines

Hello, was told this source, Jervoise Athelstane Baines, (1893). General report on the Census of India, 1891. Her Majesty's Stationery Office; ie., this [[46]] cannot be used since it is Raj source. It is not the census but the report on the census. But Sitush calls it WP:Primary. Was intending to use it on all other caste articles too; to show represenation during british period with a short note on enumeration issues at that point itsef (in 1891) and classification issues thereafter. Sorry but wiki appears to contribute in keeping divisiveness. Editors only delete caste puffery; but do not show current socio-political representation as decided by communities themselves. Please take a call on Baines; whether it can be used across all of wiki.--Anon=us (talk) 22:19, 3 April 2017 (UTC)anon=us

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:98.207.85.229&diff=cur

I used Talk to suggest replacing the erroneous 'democratic' with 'republican' in the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Rice article. I would appreciate if you can clarify why did you sent the referenced message? raduv@comcast.net ; Skype:pat20v — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.207.85.229 (talk) 02:50, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, the IP that edited before you was close enough to yours that I mistook them for you. I intended to revert and warn for these edits. However your post still contravenes our WP:BLP policy as you provided no sources for a very contentious assertion. I looked and there were no sources that backed up what you posted. You are welcome to discuss but you need to state what sources actually say, not what you want them to say. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:47, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Just FYI

This rant about you was posted to my talk page. Just figured i'd let you know in case this needs any followup or action. Not sure who the IP is or why they're randomly posting this rant on multiple editors pages. -- Dane ^talk 03:47, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

@Dane: Thanks. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Review_of_AE_block for the full story. They could have sat out a week... --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:52, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

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

Neil, I came across this article and noticed it was flagged for deletion back in September 2016. Is this not an exceptionally clear case of Advertising?

I am surprised that it was not deleted instantly. I am 'pro corporate' - Wikipedia is an exceptional place for us to document corporations and their behaviour free from interference. "Petplan Australia" is not a legal entity. In this case the entry simply describes the features and benefits of a particular marketing brand.

As an Australian editor I would support its deletion. MarekJG (talk) 04:55, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

@MarekJG: I tagged the article for deletion last September but another editor removed the tag which they have a right to do. It'll have to go through WP:AFD but since we have similar (mostly lousy) articles for the U.S. and U.K. it's a tossup as to what the outcome will be. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:06, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Why not talk to me?

Instead of omitting me from discussions, and trying to drum up support for a false accusation? I have repeatedly responded to the claim you are raising here—in private, I night add—and the most I can be accused of is not worrying about annoying, and occasionally confusing people. I am no sock. I edit from IPs, from my account, wherever I am, and there is nothing nefarious going on. Search for "Le Prof" as text, and see. Cheers. Real life and work calls. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 05:54, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

@Leprof 7272: I suggest you re-review the situation. I omitted you from no discussions, did not try to drum up support, and made no claims. I just asked another editor why they were tagging your IPs as socks as I thought that was strange. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 11:22, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

@NeilN: Thank you for the reply. And apologies for any over-reaction. I had thought (and still think) that we are largely on the same page with regard to our emphases and convictions about content here at WP. Please note, I have updated the discussion that prompted me to drop in, and per the example of a UIC history professor who also apparently experiences the same autologout (and so also edits from a variety of locations), I have begun to identify myself at the various IPs from which I might be found. Cheers. Le Prof 73.210.155.96 (talk) 22:01, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Question

How to remove an editor from wiki? — Preceding unsigned comment added by McCouchsky (talk • contribs) 15:47, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

@McCouchsky: If you're asking how to get me blocked, then I really don't have an answer for you that won't sound self-serving. For other situations, you'll need to provide details. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:54, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Ah. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:56, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

A few random questions...

1. How did you make your username on your user page and talk colored?

1. Is there a way that I could just gain the block feature, not admin, if not when and what should I do before I nominate myself for adminship?

• Note: I do not plan on RfA soon.

Thanks CopernicusAD ^(u) (t) :) 20:41, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Please leave me a tb though I do. Monitor my wlist CopernicusAD ^(u) (t) :) 20:58, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi CopernicusAD. The colored usernames come from wikicode you can put at the top of each page:

• For user page: {{DISPLAYTITLE:User:<b style="color:navy">Neil<span style="color:red">N</span></b>}}
• For talk page: {{DISPLAYTITLE:User talk:<b style="color:navy">Neil<span style="color:red">N</span></b>}}

Customize as required.

Only admins have access to the blocking tool. I'll re-state what another admin liked enough to quote at my RFA: "To become an administrator, stick around a couple years, make thousands of productive edits, participate in discussions, and gain the trust of the community that you know Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and won't abuse the administrator tools." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:03, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Okay, thank you.§CopernicusAD ^(u) (t) :) 21:08, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Jacob Barnett 2

Now autism is being questioned. [47] [48] That is insulting User:NeilN:NeilN, both intellectually and personally. It is also a bit conspiratorial. I don't have a problem with the exclusion of autism. I do have a problem that the people who have control over this page are thinking like this. Subuey (talk) 22:56, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

@Subuey: The problem in this case (and documented in the article) is the mass media, when looking for a "feel-good" story, can be gullible idiots. Example. Would I use the term "alleged autism" in the article? No. But I also wouldn't sanction anyone using that term to make a non-disparaging point on the talk page as we have no WP:MEDRS-equivalent sources attesting to that diagnosis. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:34, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Requiring WP:MEDRS is a bit dumb. Barnett wrote a whole book on the subject, it was not some flippant media headline (and even if it was, where on earth would that have come from?). It is just comments like this: "Given that the Barnetts have systematically misled the media, in every other aspect of this affair, that gives us very good reason to be sceptical of their claims of autism Sławomir Biały (talk) 19:36, 1 April 2017 (UTC)".

His mother has no medical qualifications (at least, none are presented in the article) so she's not qualified to give a diagnosis of autism. I do see some issues with the article that other editors seem to be ignoring so let me get involved. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:18, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Looks like IP you blocked has evaded

NeilN, two days ago you gave a 60-hour block to IP 2601:805:400:E074:9D9B:28DE:ADEB:E664, who had been vandalizing various Dancing with the Stars article, initially to give Simone Biles higher scores than she actually earned, but then with increasingly wide vandalism.

A new IP with the same first four fields of the address, 2601:805:400:E074:132:101E:2210:89C3, showed up briefly last night, about 24 hours after the prior IP was blocked, and then again tonight for more extensive changes; both series of edits involved making Biles appear to have scored better than she did, with tonight's going much further afield. Since you were the blocking admin, and since tonight's edits are a couple of hours old and have just been undone, I thought I'd leave it in your hands rather than go to AIV as you recommended the other night for more immediate matters. Thanks for looking into it. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:31, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: The new IP has been blocked. I noticed the same activity actually on the DWTS articles. -- Dane ^talk 04:44, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Dane, it looks like this is a long-time vandal: there was a range block on 2601:805:400:e074::/64 for two weeks, which ended late on March 31; the IP NeilN blocked showed up 13 hours after that range block ended, and was blocked 35 hours after that. The new range block lasts for a month, so I'm hoping we're safe through early May. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:00, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: I hope we're good too. I keep an eye on the DWTS articles as well though so i'm sure if it becomes an issue i'll probably catch it too. -- Dane ^talk 05:06, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Michael Christianson

NeilN, thank you for your help with this draft. I have gone and made the suggested corrections and cleaned it up. Your time is much appreciated! Wondering if you could help with suggestions for including a picture. I have been given a picture owned by the subject of the article but i've been unsuccessful in applying the image and not having someone automatically remove it as a copyright violation. Any suggestions? I'm pretty new to the process. Msboogaloo (talk) 22:04, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

@Msboogaloo: As you were typing this, I was accepting the draft :) For the picture, what license are you choosing when you upload? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:15, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

@NeilN: clearly not the correct one...probably easier to tell me which one I should select. LOL The picture is apparently one they had taken of him while at practice and he has the raw picture.Msboogaloo (talk) 23:26, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

@Msboogaloo: The photographer has the copyright then. The easiest way to do this is for the photographer to upload the photo to somewhere like Flickr and use a CC-BY-SA license. It can then be copied here. Otherwise, the photographer has to transfer the copyright ownership to you (via an email for example) and then you can upload it to Commons choosing a Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 4.0 license. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:11, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

@NeilN: Great stuff thank you again for the help!Msboogaloo (talk) 00:16, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

@Msboogaloo:, you should probably read WP:COI too, and disclose if you're being paid for this work. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:24, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

@NeilN: Nope, no form of payment. Just working on local celebrities here in Idaho... Msboogaloo (talk) 01:01, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Ooops-

-didn't realise you'd left a similar message to me only a minute before- funny we didn't get a edit-conflict- take-care!- cheers — O Fortuna ^{velut luna...} 16:19, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: Four dubious reverts. Urgh. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:07, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, too, Fortuna. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:10, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

You know this made me laugh

[49]! I take it that's not a standard template message. As always, many thanks. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:04, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

You're not a standard IP editor! --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:06, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Oh that's funny. Cheers, 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:09, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Celestina007 (talk) 01:09, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

@Celestina007: You've been asked more than once (including by me) to tone your responses down. This is not toning your responses down. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:23, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)@Celestina007: Although I have been known to have a bit of a grump at NeilN every now and then, in this case I agree with him and think he's absolutely right. The general consensus is the text you added puts a lop-sided and recentism slant on the article that is not necessary. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:43, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

@Ritchie333 you barely coming to tell me this shows that you care, and that's what I really needed at this moment Because what this "administrator" @NeilN did really baffled me, completely reverting an edit with good sources backing it up because he thinks it's "undue" I've learnt not to take these things too personal anymore because he really can do and undo. being an administrator makes him the law, do you have any idea how many potential quality editors we have lost due to such behaviour?? oh well, what can I say, In God i trust. Do have a nice day, thank you once more. Celestina007 (talk) 10:06, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I have spoken to many people who have left Wikipedia or refused to join in the first place, and listened to their complaints carefully. It is the principal reason I became an administrator in order to do something about it. Administrators are not above the law and are fully accountable for their actions (and those at think they aren't tend to get featured in Wikipedia Review and Wikipediocracy where they get summarily tarred and feathered). Anyway, in this case, Neil removed it because we need to make sure that on biographies of living people, we write the article carefully and must ensure we do not make it look like a tabloid newspaper. I think Beyonce has probably seen it all by now, to be honest, but I have been on the receiving end of complaints by people who are upset their article looks like a complete train-wreck through no fault of their own. So we need to proceed with caution. Neil did not act in any administrative capacity, but merely as an editor, and I agree with his action purely on its merits. Reverting an edit is not personal - less than 24 hours ago one of my edits was reverted because I'd forgotten to remove some vandalism that was in an earlier edit; I didn't complain about abuse but gave the reverting editor a barnstar because they did the right thing. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:13, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

@Celestina007: I don't know why you didn't join the discussion on the talk page before going to ANI (and still haven't done so). I explained there why I reverted you. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:41, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

edit war notice

Hi NeilN, thanks for the notice. I am fairly new to the editorial process of wikipedia and I appreciate you letting me know the guidelines and options. Mixelpix (talk) 01:45, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello, NeilN. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

"abuse"

Had a feeling a few months ago there was some uh, behavior worth suspicion about an account and this recent debacle at ANI/AfD makes me think my gut was correct, will be interesting to see how it plays out. Anyway, hope you enjoy a beer, you terrible, terrible admin! Yes, I'm being purposely vague for...reasons.CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 15:36, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Chrissymad, been an interesting couple days. Get hauled to ANI for edits, get hauled to ANI for adminning. I'm waiting for the Talk:Gerry Adams IP to come out of the woodwork and take up the cry of "censorship!". --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:00, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Richard B. Spencer

Would you mind closing Talk: Richard B. Spencer#New RfC: Compromise? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:48, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

@DrFleischman: I've commented there. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:28, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, that's fine. There was a bit there when that discussion looked like it was spinning out of control, but it seems to have died down. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:41, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Trump survey

Hi Neil, sorry to bother you. I started a perfectly neutral survey at the Trump talk page. User:Scjessey hatted it and started a much broader survey which I feel will be more cumbersome and open-ended. Any advice?Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:07, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

My advice would be not to pretend your survey isn't "perfectly neutral" and my survey is "broad", when neither is true. But that's just me. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:12, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

You have yet to offer the slightest reason why this question is not neutral: "Should we say in the lead paragraph that he (A) is a businessman, in present tense, or (B) leave it in past tense only?" You swept this survey aside, and instead offered a completely overhauled lead sentence. I do not need to pretend that my survey is "perfectly neutral" and your survey is "broad". It's blindingly obvious.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:18, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

It wasn't "completely overhauled". It went from this:

"Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American businessman, television personality, politician, and the 45th President of the United States."

To this:

"Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is a businessman, television personality and politician who became the 45th and current President of the United States on January 20, 2017."

-- Scjessey (talk) 20:23, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Obviously, you omit the current version that was the result of a lengthy discussion and survey that ended on April 2. I do not find you to be a reasonable and forthright interlocutor.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:25, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

@Anythingyouwant and Scjessey: This is still about the first (and possible second) sentence, yes? Both your surveys overlap? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:05, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Right. I favor the current lead sentence, Scjessey doesn't.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:12, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Why don't you two work out a compromise that suits both of you? Instead of saying that trump currently is or is not a businessman, why not leave it ambiguous? You're both capable editors; I'm sure you can come up with something. ~Awilley (talk) 18:59, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

The matter seems to be settled by consensus. And saying that he was a businessman before he got into politics does leave it ambiguous whether he's still doing business in the White House (which reliable sources say he is not doing).Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:06, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Anthony Hudson (manager)

Hi NeilN,

Thanks for responding to my request for page protection on Anthony Hudson (manager). However, you've set it to full protection, which is preventing me from editing some of the embellishing material that violates the Wikipedia:BLP policy.

Is there any chance you could reduce it to semi-protection? This would allow us to clean up the article, and prevent brand new accounts from vandalising it like they have been. Currently, I feel like the full-protection is just going to put the unfortunate edit warring off for three days before it starts again. Cheers. Patrick478 (talk) 22:14, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

@Patrick478: Both autoconfirmed and IP editors were edit warring. If there is something in the article that truly violates BLP then please bring it to my attention. Note that I do not consider a bit of puffery a BLP violation. Otherwise, use the talk page to get consensus for what a stable article should have and then we can go from there. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:32, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Shittable

Thanks? --NeilN talk to me 23:25, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Congratulations File:Human Feces (cropped).jpg You have been recognized as a Wikipedian worth shitting on, and so have been awarded your own shit on you day, April 7th - You are a shittable Wikipedian! TimothyJosephWood 22:56, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Mark Dice discussion

Since you commented on Jimbo-talk re: Mark Dice, you might want to join the discussion on the talk page about the sources Jimbo inserted in the lede. Feel no need to, I just thought I'd let you know that a more in-depth discussion is taking place. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:27, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi TonyBallioni. You may have noticed I've used my admin tools issuing protects and blocks for that article so I won't be commenting on content. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:33, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Ah, I hadn't noticed the blocks. Understood. Was reaching out to you as an editor not an admin on this! Thanks for the quick response. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:36, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Personal threats

Saw you did an edit recently - if you're around please take a look at User talk:Sundayclose. I've reverted the threat and reported the vandal to ARV but there will have to be a rev-del/whatever of the disgusting vileness in the edit-history. Shearonink (talk) 04:03, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. Shearonink (talk) 04:14, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Reported to WMF. Same as Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Treat_by_User:Nubailo --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:20, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

It might be time

Re: Nongdamba (talk · contribs). Thanks and cheers, 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:23, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Saw the AIV report. One month. And now I gotta do the extra paperwork. Grumble. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:25, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Shall I revert the edits? 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:26, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

If they look disruptive or caste-related nonsense, sure. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:27, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Likely block evasion by User:Matthewcarleton15

Hello NeilN, thanks for your recent talk page warning to this editor. However I believe this is the latest account incarnation of a previously blocked user, see User_talk:Yamaguchi先生#User:Matthewcarleton214. Since your warning, I've reverted a number of further disruptive edits fitting the same pattern of the prior blocked accounts. I thought you might want to know about this broader context. Thanks Declangi (talk) 08:18, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

@Declangi: Thanks for the info. Blocked. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:57, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello again NeilN. Looks like another incarnation/sock of the above user has emerged. This time it's User:Matthewcarleton19. His latest action is a page move without consensus along with other disruptive edits. Thanks Declangi (talk) 11:12, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

@Declangi: Blocked and page moved back. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:24, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks again. And for undoing the page move. I checked other Ireland-related edits and undid some. With this person most but not all edits are disruptive. And some are quite subtle. Declangi (talk) 15:14, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

@Declangi: Yes, I undid some of the ones that were obvious to me. Thanks for checking on the others. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:26, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello again NeilN, sorry to bother you with this yet again. This time it's User:Matthewcarleton17. A very persistent sock this one. I've undone their edits as of this message (all vandalism in the same vein). Thanks Declangi (talk) 21:49, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

@Declangi: At least they make it easy for us ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:55, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Edit war

Hello
I am sorry for your inconvenience. Is the problem related to Arabs was in 4 April 2017 ? I've returned the page to this version. + Can I remove the notice from my talk page ? Regards -Aṭlas (talk) 21:44, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Atlas. You and the other editor should discuss and try to work out your differences using the article's talk page. You can remove any warnings from your talk page at any time - see WP:BLANKING. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:02, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick reply. I don't have much time to discuss something in the talk page. I reverted two editors (an ip and an user). The first one added unreliable sources to support his unencyclopedic claims (The Great Arab Revolt has had as big an impact on the modern Middle East as the World War I...........) and I thought he/she was a sockpuppet of the blocked user:HailesG. The second one keeps changing images with no reason ([50], [51]). So I reverted all their edits to this version. As you can see, he doesn't want to stop reverting. Kind Regards -Aṭlas (talk) 22:27, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

@Aṭlas: They're blocked. I strongly advise you not to re-revert and to wait to see what others say. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:38, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Okay, thanks b0ss. -Aṭlas (talk) 22:42, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

AstoneInTimeonwind

Could you revoke TPA and email for this one too? Sro23 (talk) 22:55, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Done. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:28, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry!

Sorry about the in use box. I was actually trying to repair the article too. XD-barrelroll.dev (talk) 03:46, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello NeilN, DoABarrelRoll.dev has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Also, For the block notice, that was so if people used User:Alison Price they would see that they had been blocked.-barrelroll.dev (talk) 03:51, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

-barrelroll.dev, thanks for helping out. But please be careful that you're not undoing the fixes of someone who got there faster. And there's no need to tag the user pages of every indefinitely blocked editor. People go to talk pages to communicate. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:52, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Mail call

Hello, NeilN. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 03:53, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks

For the cleanup on my talk page. Jeh (talk) 11:57, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Dispute resolution and sanctions

I need your advice to seek dispute resolution and/or sanctions because at Khan Shaykhun chemical attack i.e. Talk:Khan Shaykhun chemical attack#Npov section three editors (El C, L.R. Wormwood, My very best wishes) are seemingly WP:GAMETYPE and ignore multiple WP:NPOV violation of policy, seen from [52], [53], [54], [55], being disruptive and time wasting for the discussion and improvement of the article.

Unrelated to the topic, can the "POV" template at 2017 Shayrat missile strike be removed, or how long should we wait to remove it, because the tagging editor did not innitiate a discussion nor supported it in the last few hours? See Talk:2017 Shayrat missile strike#Neutrality dispute.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 01:40, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

@Miki Filigranski: These editors are discussing their objections with you in a proper way. In some cases, you're simply not going to get what you want. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:58, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

By "in a proper way" do you mean that the discussion did not escalate to such a point? That theirs proposition and consideration is not a violation of NPOV policy? I understand your second sentence, perhaps I should look for some intermediate option or better explain proposed content change. Please answer my second remark about the template, and need an additional clarification; does creating a sandbox imply it can be used to prepare a major edit, instead to make multiple minor edits on an article, and can be used to make examples of proposed content change in a discussion which for e.g. needs a consensus? Such examples could ease the explanation of content change proposition and prevent edit warring.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 02:19, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

@Miki Filigranski: Another editor has removed the POV tag so that issue is moot. All major changes to the article should be proposed on the talk page. You can use a format like:

I propose changing:

• [old paragraph]

to

• [new paragraph]

--NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:18, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I am going on a two day professional trip. In the mean time, could you examine and reply me what's the procedure with 1RR when some editors continue ([56]) to make more disruptive rather than constructive edits, or make a good faith edit ([57]), but still it is contradicting editing policy, editors seemingly ignore the warning to discuss it or correct it, and thus negatively affecting improvement of the article? Per WP:REV both partial and complete reversion are considered as a revert and should be followed WP:STATUSQUO "good-faith edit which you feel does not improve the article, make a good faith effort to reword instead of reverting it" and if "there is a dispute, editors are encouraged to work towards establishing consensus", however per WP:DOREVERT "a reversion is appropriate when the reverter believes that the edit makes the article clearly worse and there is no element of the edit that is an improvement". In all this where and what is the weight of editing policy violation compared to reversion? Even if is appropriate per DOREVERT, does 1RR overweight the appropriateness?--Miki Filigranski (talk) 17:40, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

That was my edit, and it was explained on article talk page. That was my reply to the question by Miki. I think this user should stop blaming others of something they did not do. My very best wishes (talk) 18:45, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Miki Filigranski, there will be editors who you see as disruptive. There will be editors who see you as disruptive. That's why 1RR and prior consensus restrictions were implemented for these types of articles. If you cannot gain any kind of consensus for your changes that's a pretty clear message that the edits you're complaining about are not disruptive. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:07, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

I would like to hear specific answer to my questions, because I am still not sure about the issue. I disagree with your remark about consensus. What you said seems like a loophole, because nevertheless of contradicting editing policy, or lack of improvement for the article, if editors (with specific reasoning) who consider such an edit are in the majority - then Wikipedia is not a neutral encyclopedia, yet becomes a biased WP:BATTLEGROUND.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 20:26, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

@Miki Filigranski: That's as specific an answer as you're going to get from me in this venue. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:30, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Alright, thank you.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 20:32, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Phil Cornwell

Thank you. I was about to leave a note specifically for you, but opted to give you a vacation and went to the noticeboard instead. Cheers, 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:53, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Satoshi Hino

Hi, because you protect that page in 4 days if I was to report it? 148.0.105.234 (talk) 02:13, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi 148. I protected that page because of your WP:RFPP report. You should use the article's talk page to explain your concerns. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:21, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Ok, but you can change the level of protection for 1 year to see if we solve this problem of names, you know an example. 148.0.105.234 (talk) 03:26, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

We're not fully protecting an article for a year. I expect discussion to take place on the talk page. Anyone who reverts without taking part in discussion may be blocked. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:32, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thank you for being so kind. I am trying my best to sort this out. I would like to request you to take a look at the Mosaic Festival Mississauga document and help post it. I have tried to put every thing in there. I am the founder of the project but now work as artistic director. it is an on going project and I usually see various on going festivals on wikipedia but do not understand why we can post our event. Kindly guide me to how we can get the Mosaic page posted..Thank you Asma

Asma Mahmood (talk) 02:36, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

@Asma Mahmood: The article formatting needs a overhaul but the major problem is providing sources showing the event has an impact beyond the local community. See WP:GEOSCOPE. Do any national or foreign papers have coverage of this event? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:08, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

HI Neil, all articles from Mississauga News are national news paper articles as Mississuag aNews is a subsidiary of Toronto Star and metroland who are our major media partners..here is another link from Mississauga News..We have many articles from Toronto Star for our film festival bt I am not using those as MISAFF has its own recognition ..asmaAsma Mahmood (talk) 03:14, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

@Asma Mahmood: "The Mississauga News is a local tabloid newspaper in Mississauga, Ontario." Editors here will not recognize it as a national newspaper. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 09:34, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

:N_I_H_I_L_I_S_T_I_C

Any reason why WP:CLEANSTART doesn't apply in this situation? If their block is also based on their edits, I can understand - but if it's based on them clearly having edited Wikipedia before, then I don't get it.

Oh and before people put 2 + 2 together and get 5 - no, it's not my sock, I'm just nosey. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 09:19, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

@Spacecowboy420: "Certain articles and topics are particularly contentious, and have attracted additional community scrutiny in the form of requests for comment, community sanctions, or arbitration cases. These areas should be completely avoided by the editor attempting a clean start." and "The guiding principle is that clean start is not a license to resume editing in areas under heightened scrutiny." The Vipul matter and advocacy editing are contentious areas and attract heightened community scrutiny. Being to ANI twice within a week of your first edit means that editors have a legitimate interest in reviewing your contributions. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 09:30, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

That makes sense, thanks for the clarification. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 09:31, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

UNJUST DECISION -- Abuse of Wikipedia

UNJUST DECISION: Neil, it is with great sadness to see some people treating Mr Moglica (an author of 15 books) to unfairly. UNJUST. How would you feel? Treatment of this author this way, is an abuse of authority. And, in my best understanding, abuse of authority is in violation the Wikipedia's policy. Abuse can come in many forms: one of them is the unjust decision taken by a group of friends. Thank you. British Spelling 12:56, 10 April 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hot British (talk • contribs) 12:56, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

@Hot British: Given your use of sock/meat puppets just be thankful you remain unblocked. And please fix your signature. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:02, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

As such, I address you to restore the page. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hot British (talk • contribs) 13:03, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

@Hot British: WP:DRV. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:07, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

@Neil. Thank you for your reply. First of all, I would like to discuss this matter at the same level. How would you feel if someone treated you like this author? Thus, if you have any authority, I would like to reslove the matter at this level. If so, I address you to restore the page. It has been so much abuse against this author over and over? Thank you in advance for your time. Have a lovely day!British Spelling 13:33, 10 April 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hot British (talk • contribs)

@Hot British: Stop wasting our time defending your advertising for you/your friend and using sock puppets to further waste our time. Seriously. I am this close to blocking you for your antics. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:51, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

And blocked, based on Freshacconci's new evidence at SPI. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:01, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Your ruling

You completely disregarded the fact that this user violated the WP:1RR and needs appropriate consequences for his actions. Please think again on your ruling of "Stale". TheBD2000 (talk) 17:38, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Yo, TheBD2000: Please see WP:NOTPUNISHMENT- stale means, in this case, that any action would not prevent disruption. Cos it stopped, an now there int any. Cheers! — O Fortuna ^{velut luna} 17:46, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @TheBD2000: You completely disregarded our policy that blocks are designed to be preventative, not punitive. There's nothing for the editor to "correct" as they were reverted days ago. This is the second time you've badly attempted to apply some process to that article. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:47, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Sethism

Dear NeilN, as you kindly blocked Theoneandonlyseth and Sethrod1, could you please, perhaps, have a look at their (at least) third try and obvious sock SethRod1269 also? And, as a followup question: is there anything we can do to avoid this just going on for ever? Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 20:35, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

@DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered: See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Theoneandonlyseth --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:46, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Wow, that's very efficient - many thanks! DBaK (talk) 20:54, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Developing thicker skin

Personally, I think that this sort of edit here is unwarranted; and I am trying to figure the best way to handle it. My thought is to simply revert it, even though it is a talk page entry, on the grounds of WP:NPA. Or is it best to just leave it be? I addressed the editor's question as to why I had removed removed these additions to the page on my talk page. Thanks for any advice! Scr★pIron^IV 20:47, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you - that works for me. Scr★pIron^IV 20:58, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi. I am really not trying to cause offense. The concern that I raise about COI users are valid in this instance. I accept the commentgs that my entry lack neutrality, but my question then is" Why didn'y the user rather edit the entry to be more neutral. Why was the entire entry deleted? It would have been a very simple excercise to make the entry more neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RodinsDrinker (talk • contribs) 08:28, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

@RodinsDrinker: If an editor doesn't think content belongs, they are obviously under no obligation to keep any part of that content. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:09, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Block of Willchamplin1

Hi, Neil, you appear to be the admin who blocked this user for having a username that matched his Wikipedia article. He submitted an OTRS ticket containing a legal threat (I am the agent handling the ticket). I advised him that this wasn't helpful, and told him to submit an appeal of the block rather than demand a lifting of it via OTRS. If you have any questions on any of this, please let me know. You seem like a very busy person (!). KDS4444 (talk) 22:38, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi KDS4444. He should be emailing info-en@wikimedia.org to prove his identity. It's going to be interesting handling his COI editing if/when he gets unblocked... --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:43, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Indeed... Especially as verification of identity can be tricky if the client has real world notability (as in this case). KDS4444 (talk) 22:45, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Okaaaay, well, Mr. Champlin has now verified his identity via OTRS. I have given him a heads-up regarding his conflict of interest and asked him to talk with me if he has any questions about editing his own article— for now, he seems to be in the clear as far as his identity goes. What will be the next step to (gulp) getting his account unblocked? KDS4444 (talk) 05:25, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi KDS4444. I've unblocked them. Thanks for your efforts in dealing with this case. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:27, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Disruptive edit warrior

Could you please do something about this edit warrior who's only interested in inserting Berber everywhere and has broken the three revert rule in the Houari Boumediene article. Regards. M.Bitton (talk) 22:58, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Can you explain why you have not engaged in discussion on the talk page? Can you explain exactly how The Encyclopedia of Islam is unreliable?--Kansas Bear (talk) 23:01, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I started a discussion. I'm in WikiProject Berbers that's why I'm interested in editing anything related with Berbers. + I don't think I am an "edit warrior". I edited hundreds of articles (dynasties, reverting vandalism, figures, created two articles and I have many others to create...) with no problems. Your edits shows that you are the edit warrior. You're just reverting, reverting, reverting....with no reason.

Sorry NeilN! This is the second time you see me in an edit warring.-Aṭlas (talk) 23:34, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

@Kansas Bear: I know you're acting in good faith, but I think it's time someone brought Aṭlas' canvassing to light. In all honesty, I'm not in the least surprised that he quickly contacted you and Doug Weller (here and here), just like he did previously concerning Ibn Tumart's article, where no less than 4 editors where canvassed.[58][59][60][61] I could be wrong, but as far as I can tell, this kind of behaviour is not acceptable. Maybe NeilN could shed some light on this issue.

While you could be forgiven for thinking that he's new, and that maybe he doesn't know what he's doing, you can't help but wonder what's going on when you see the editor deliberately introducing unreferenced categories, when it suits him (one of many, despite having been been made aware of WP:CATDEF) and removing them from certain articles, when it doesn't. M.Bitton (talk) 23:18, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Per WP:APPNOTE

An editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion can place a message at any of the following:

• "On the user talk pages of concerned editors. Examples include:"

• Editors who have made substantial edits to the topic or article. (Walrasiad)
• Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics) (Kansa Bear, Doug Weller, Cplakidas )
• Editors known for expertise in the field(Cplakidas, Kansa Bear, Walrasiad)

Mouloud Kacem Naît Belkacem was born in Ighil Ali (kab:Ighil Aεli) in Kabylie and that's makes him a kabyle (Berber !!?).

Ibn al-Azraq was born in (Málaga, Al Andalus) and he could be (an arab, a Berber, a Muladi, a Black...).

Achamán is from guanche mythology. Gunche mythology is related to Berber mythology like (The tuareg mythology).-Aṭlas (talk) 00:48, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

I won't insult anyone's intelligence by going through the concerned policies, nor will I list the many articles that have been subjected to his original research (I'll repair the damage in due course), but there's an edit of his that I believe is worth sharing with the editors who are here to build an encyclopaedia and whose time is being needlessly wasted (Kansas Bear and Doug Weller). I won't be commenting on it (it speaks for itself).

Last month, an IP editor corrected a typo in the Ceuta article, in the next edit, Aṭlas not only introduced the word Berber (even though it's not the source), he did it with a misleading edit summary (rv, not a typo). M.Bitton (talk) 00:27, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

I was talking about this Tarook97's edit.-Aṭlas (talk) 00:35, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Sure you were. What about the fact that you deliberately introduced wp:or ? M.Bitton (talk) 00:41, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

It's none of my business. The editor claimed that it's a typo (which is clearly not a typo), and I restored it. So You want to exploit any (good faith) gap from me ? You don't have anything else to do ?

Are you looking for other lapses ? I can act the same way. You was blocked for 1 week (Disruptive editing!), your first edit was a revert, edit warring ([62], [63], [64]). Do I really have to search in your past? I don't think so. -Aṭlas (talk) 00:49, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Pokes head up: The main issue is the insertion of "Berber" in various articles, correct? Is this term not properly sourced when added? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:15, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

I accept any solution you ask me. Just revert my bad edits, and I promise you that i will not go back to cause any problems. -Aṭlas (talk) 01:24, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Email

Hello, NeilN. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Sure, take your time. I just wanted to let you know that we've reached the canvassing stage — the discussion isn't going quite our way, so let's drop some invitations to people we're sure will take our side. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:39, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

@Biruitorul: I've issued a clear warning. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:59, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Brainydad

You might want to see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kashmir2/Archive. I'm sure her current incarnation is due to not being able to access her account, but Brainydad can't be explained that way. She's trying to contact you on her talk page by the way. There's a real CIR issue here. And an obsession with me, who she thinks is the cause of all her problems. Doug Weller talk 08:48, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Brainydad has stylistic tells. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 11:49, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Hey NeilN, who wouldn't be obsessed by Doug Weller 💔 👄 Ha! 😉 — O Fortuna ^{velut luna} 12:14, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Lol! This needs to be written up at SPI as a sock relating to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kashmir2/Archive so there's a record. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 13:47, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

She seems to have forgotten which account she was using.[65] She caught it and reverted it. Doug Weller talk 14:13, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

It's soooo complicated running multiple accounts -- HAGGER oops --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:18, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Tecsatan

As the blocking admin, I believe you may wish to peruse the edits this user has made to their talk page and consider whether revoking TPA is appropriate. They are continuing to rant about this issue, even to the point of sending me emails "requesting" that I "consider just how inappropriate [my] admin's responses have been". I can reproduce the email if desired. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:39, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

@MjolnirPants: Both TPA and email access removed for both Tecsatan's and the community's benefit. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:55, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Borinquen96

Ni. In March you blocked User:Borinquen1996 as a sock of User:Juantheman96. Now we have a new account, User:Borinquen96, who appears to be a re-incarnation of the earlier editor. Could you take a look and block if you see fit? Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:46, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: Well that was fairly easy. Thanks. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:48, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

No, thank you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:49, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Apparent block evasion via sock puppetry

Yesterday you issued a 2-week block to User:Suzanne Olsson for sock puppetry [66] later adding that this was a relatively light penalty, but repeated offences would result in much more significant sanctions[67]. Unfortunately, I think a repetition has already occurred. Before being blocked, User:Suzanne Olsson never quite figured out how to sign her Talk edits correctly. Originally no signature was given, then when the use of the four tildes was pointed out, she did not understand and started flanking her typed username with them, putting four tildes, then typing her full username, then another four tildes, such that you got this: Suzanne Olsson (talk) 23:30, 10 April 2017 (UTC) Suzanne OlssonSuzanne Olsson (talk) 23:30, 10 April 2017 (UTC) [68]. This is not something I have ever seen before, and it is not the kind of thing that a new user is likely to emulate, because it looks ridiculous and is not immediately evident to a novice how it would be generated. I edited some of these out when responding, but she just kept doing it right up until she was blocked.

Today, a brand new user started editing the Suzanne Olsson page, User:Bambi2017, and it took her less than an hour to violate 3RR [69][70][71][72], removing text that User:Suzanne Olsson had specifically complained about. That was suspicious to begin with, but then the new editor made two edits to the Talk page,[73][74] and both of them had the same odd signature syntax (e.g. Bambi2017 (talk) 18:24, 11 April 2017 (UTC)Bambi2017Bambi2017 (talk) 18:24, 11 April 2017 (UTC)). I don't see any way this is not a duck.

Given the repeated sock puppetry, protection of Suzanne Olsson may be required. Agricolae (talk) 19:17, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

@Bambi2017: the ever efficient Bbb23 handled it. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:16, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

I've also added the article to my watchlistbot list. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:20, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Chinese IP hopper

Neil, the other day, you protected the article for George Gently because of edit warring by a Chinese IP hopper. MarnetteD and I are also having difficulty with him on Endeavour (TV series) and on An Inspector Calls (TV series), where he refuses to discuss, and is determined to edit war in preferred edits. The article on Endeavour was just protected for three month because of his edit warring, and a day after it ended, he was right back at edit warring the same edit. It's really frustrating. He does have one IP where he does most of his editing, 223.71.245.147, but then hops at times. What a mess. Thank you for any help you can offer. --Drmargi (talk) 03:30, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

@Drmargi: Nine and three months respectively. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:34, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Hope that does it. Grass doesn't grow under your feet, that's for sure! Thank you! --Drmargi (talk) 03:36, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

My thanks as well N. The one other article that I've seen them hit is Inspector George Gently (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). The protection you applied ends later today. Maybe they will leave it alone but if you wouldn't mind placing it on your voluminous watchlist that would be great. Thanks again. MarnetteD|Talk 04:27, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Already there but I'll keep a closer eye on it. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:30, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello N. They moved to this IP 211.100.11.189 (talk · contribs) today and hit a few articles other than the already protected ones :-( MarnetteD|Talk 14:05, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

User:World's oldest living people

You may wish to revoke talk page access.--Cahk (talk) 07:01, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

@Cahk: Guess so. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:16, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Revision of article addition

I have met this person in real life and know her well and have got to see she has high moral standards. A view of her twitter page will show she cares for animals deeply — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.136.96.36 (talk)

Hi 81. Please read our verifiability policy. "Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:52, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Edit war notice

Hello, NeilN. I've removed the ethnic group bar box from this page [75] to prevent editorial wars. Before the recent edits of the user @Linaduliban: was that as of 16:18, 12 April 2017. I explained to him/her through his talk page. So did I do the right thing or what?. Regards--Canbel (talk) 15:47, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Canbel. You should open a discussion on the article's talk page explaining why you removed the infobox so that Linaduliban and other interested editors can comment. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:58, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

I did ([76]).--Canbel (talk) 16:21, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi, Neil, Thanks for your welcome to me, a newcomer to Wikipedia.

Hersei1960 (talk) 18:46, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

@Hersei1960: You're welcome! Hope you decide to stick around and build and maintain the encyclopedia. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:51, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Not wanting to add further to an already lengthy talk page, I will instead take the opportunity presented by Hersei1960's thread. Thank you NeilN for your kind welcome.Ambiguosity (talk) 09:21, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Kate McKinnon

Oops—2 weeks looks fine as well. Best, Airplaneman ✈ 19:30, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

@Airplaneman: Ha. Already reversed myself. If I re-reversed would I be wheel-warring with myself? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:31, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

If you did, you'd be in trouble! Airplaneman ✈ 21:31, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

ANI

Please can you unprotected WP:ANI, hopefully the sockmaster has got bored and wandered off by now. 88.151.223.162 (talk) 19:57, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

It's been protected for less than ten minutes. If you want to post something, post it here, and I will copy it over. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:59, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

I've noticed the protection expires in under 2 hours. I'm sure I can live without it for that long :) 88.151.223.162 (talk) 20:10, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

CSD for sock's common.js

That clown at the AN/I who was playing with 1click archiver has this page User:Sucesssuper/common.js, but neither TW or page curation will let me tag it for deletion under G5 and G6. Can you please take care of this? I'm pretty sure he won't need it any more. Thanks L3X1 (distant write) 20:49, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

@L3X1: Poof! --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:51, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Anthony Hudson (manager)

Hi NeilN,

Thanks for your recommendation, I will try to refrain as suggested and keep the edits minimal.

Could you also look at edits made by Users: Patrick478, NZ Footballs Conscience, 02ndBest as they are constantly adding negative elements only to the Subject's article.

I believe their edits are not good faith edits when they discuss the subject on a forum that is designed to negatively talk about the subject. (Redacted) Many thanks for your time, GDN0417 (talk) 00:58, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi GDN0417. You need to be a bit careful here. Posting links to accounts on other websites can be seen as a violation of our outing policy. Now, as to the article, we strive to have a neutral point of view. That is, the article should have both criticism and praise for the subject in the proper proportion. So if the subject has many successful seasons and championships then the article will be largely laudatory. If the subject consistently has poor records then criticism will be more prominent. So does the current version of the article reflect the proper balance? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:39, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Deleting a message from my Talk Page

Hi NeilN, I am wondering why you deleted a message (by someone else) from my Talk Page? [77] Cheers, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 10:26, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @Koertefa: See here. Cheers! — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 10:41, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

FYI

Since you're the one who left this, may wanna add this to your watchlist. You know... for the sake of the women and babies...tiny babies. TimothyJosephWood 17:49, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Alphabet

See my warning on the editor's talk page and the discussion on Favonisn's talk page. I'm off to bed. Doug Weller talk 20:59, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

I see... So adding factual visual proof of this with noted major Egyptologist/Linguist Alan Gardiner and Champollion does not enhance Wikipedia and understanding? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ameninhat (talk • contribs) 21:14, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

@Ameninhat: You are free to directly cite reliable sources. Your self-published book is not a reliable source. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:19, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

OK... I get it now! I cited my work in addition to Gardiner, Champollion and such. I am clear now. Thank you. Don't self promote or self cite. Cite established well noted sources. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ameninhat (talk • contribs) 21:25, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

@Ameninhat: You also need to crop out the copyright notice from the picture you uploaded on Commons before someone notices and decides to delete the file. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:31, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Got it! Will do right now. Thanks. I'm learning. Ameninhat (talk) 21:41, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

User talk:000meow

Hi, Neil. How do you remove extended confirmed status after a user has 500 edits? I don't mean why — that's obvious, and well done — but how, technically? Where? Bishonen | talk 16:09, 14 April 2017 (UTC).

@Bishonen: Go to the user's user or talk page and click the "Change user groups" link in the tools box in the left hand sidebar. Uncheck "extended confirmed user". --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:14, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Ha. And then you get cries of admin abuse? Bishonen | talk 16:16, 14 April 2017 (UTC).

@Bishonen: To which you reply, "discretionary sanctions!" (yes, it's come up before). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:19, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

@Bishonen: I've done it at least twice and I would have today if Neil hadn't gotten there first! Doug Weller talk 18:24, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Umami editing

Hello Neil. You previously supervised a block on an editor whose version is now being reinstated by an IP user 76.169.72.11 here. Possibility of a sock, so would be grateful for your review and action, please. --Zefr (talk) 19:23, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

@Zefr: Blocked the IP. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:33, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt work. --Zefr (talk) 19:39, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Not quite sure why there is so much policing against editing of this subject. Valid sources are being provided to the edits which you are reverting. This seems very biased. 75.82.56.175 (talk) 19:47, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

You can argue that on the talk page after you log in. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:51, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Actually, you can't. This triggered a memory and I recalled this account. @Zefr: I'll be blocking the master indefinitely so any further posts by this editor may be treated as block evasion. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:47, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

You and other editors have been more than patient with this persistent vandal. Given the user's pledge to disrupt Wikipedia however possible, we'll likely see more of him under a different IP, but his calling card comments are conspicuous and we can act collectively again. Thanks. --Zefr (talk) 21:00, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Vandalism? The subject of umami is obviously BS. And you can ban all you want. Really don't care. In fact I'm going to start getting as many ip's banned as I possibly can. You will be doing good work for me. If Wikipedia wants to play stupid games then so shall it be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.0.207.147 (talk) 22:49, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Not vandalism, but disruption - your "stupid game" of using IPs to pretend you're someone different. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:36, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

I really don't believe I'm being too disruptive though. Not enough to warrant such administrative action. Really do feel as if you are going overboard. Policy doesn't need to be enforced by the letter, such as you are doing. This is made quite clear several times throughout Wikipedia policy. I honestly believe your actions to be petty, Neil. I do a pretty good job of contributing my own quality content when I'm not "trolling", or being vilified for calling out obvious BS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.144.111.181 (talk) 19:25, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry about that...

I'd just realized it was an archive, and was in the middle of self-reverting. Where, if anywhere might that question belong? I realize that ANI itself is a little over-metified at the moment. Anmccaff (talk) 04:14, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

@Anmccaff: Totally not your fault. These idiotic games are tripping up admins too. I would post on WP:AN, giving your question some context. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:18, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. As someone who saw the snuh troll-fests at alt.folklore.urban, I gotta say these things could be a lot worse, but I suppose they are bad enough. Anmccaff (talk) 04:43, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

List of LiveJournal users

I saw this mentioned at WP:BLPN for an unrelated matter. Looking at it (even the article title), I have no idea why it exists other than as promotion for LiveJournal. We don't have a List of _____ users for any other item/brand/website that I am aware of, and the article gives zero indication that these people's use of LiveJournal is in any way encyclopedically notable any more than any notable person's use of any product, blog site, micro-blog site, website, or web host is notable per se. I've tagged it for notability, and someone is edit-warring to remove the tag. I actually think it should go to AfD. It doesn't even have any references. Softlavender (talk) 10:00, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

That "someone" would be me. Removing your tag once and then immediately asking you to discuss the matter on the talk page (which you so far haven't done) is not edit-warring. —Psychonaut (talk) 10:40, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

@Softlavender: Agree with AfD. The previous AfD was so long ago (over ten years!) that it is irrelevant as far as consensus goes. And even then, there were a hell of a lot of 'weak' keeps and even at least one who acknowledged it shouldn't be here either. I think all the previous arguments for deleteion still apply, whereas the community backbone against this kind of self-indulgence has been (AFAICT) much strengthened in the passing of all that time. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 10:52, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

• If anyone wants to do the AfD honors, I pretty much would rather have root canal than post something there because it takes me so long (I don't use Twinkle). This post on Neil's page is basically my way off begging off on doing that and passing the buck to someone with faster skillz. Softlavender (talk) 10:57, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

• Another editor has put it up for AFD. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:53, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you, Captain Obvious. Softlavender (talk) 15:21, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

• @Softlavender: What's with the snark? I didn't ping you and I often post the resolution of a thread in case I want to review it in the future. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:26, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

• It wasn't obvious to me and I wanted to voice my, hopefully, mildly amusing !vote on killing it with fire. Luckily I did watchlist this page eons ago. Oh Captain, my Captain. PS; I think SL was kidding. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:26, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
• Neil, Neil, Neil -- have you lost all since of humor? Or did I inappropriately expect you to read my mind? (PS: There is obviously only one correct answer to this question. Choose wisely.) Softlavender (talk) 15:48, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Removing troll's edits to my user talk page.

Hello, I am curious to know if you could delete the diffs of two recent trolls to my talk page, going back at least five days. One is the ip address 2600:387:B:7:0:0:0:9F, and his sock IP is linked in his user page (the regular IP). I would appreciate removal of their edits from the public view and perhaps additional action with the IP. I have already requested page protection for my talk page. Thank you!! ḾỊḼʘɴίcả • Talk • _{I DX for fun!} 14:41, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

@Milonica: Revdeleted. If the IPs come back, please let me know. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:51, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Hussein saaed sonic

You blocked this user indefinitely and also blocked one of their IP socks 45.247.224.123 (talk · contribs). However, they are now continuing to make the same disruptive edits on a new IP address: 45.247.73.231 (talk · contribs). --The1337gamer (talk) 16:53, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

@The1337gamer: Blocked IP and closed the AFD. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:02, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Still continuing after block expiration: [78] --The1337gamer (talk) 08:18, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

@The1337gamer: Blocked again and page protected. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:18, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Input please

Hi NeilN and talk page stalkers!

I have a quandary... over at List of terrorist incidents in April 2017 a few editors repeatedly include entries that fail WP:V. The sources given do not call the incidents "terrorism". I've tried engaging with folks on their user talk pages, on the article talk page, and through edit summaries. But to no avail (and even got a "final warning" from a user over it). Is this something I should take to ANI? I don't want to get dragged to AN3, but these edits clearly violate the policy of WP:V and are WP:OR. I worry ANI would just say "content dispute" and dismiss it. I can't just go to AIV either as it's not clearly vandalism. Any advice would be appreciated. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:03, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Also see 2017 Aleppo suicide car bombing and List of terrorist incidents in 2017. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:20, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: I've protected List of terrorist incidents in April 2017 to slow down the ongoing shenanigans. While I try to notify any new editor I notice making major edits to pages related to the Syrian Civil War and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, you can help yourself by making and logging notifications to editors editing problematically (see WP:GS/ISIL). Draw attention to "This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies" and emphasize that verifiability is policy. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:25, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you NeilN. The 1RR that comes along with the GS/ISIL applies to me too, though, right? Reverting unverified material is not in WP:3RRNO. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:27, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: Yes, 1RR applies to you too. So you'll have to wait a bit for non-BLP issues, hope that someone else notices and agrees, or post a neutral note at an appropriate location (maybe the talk page of a "main" article) asking for more eyes. And for the record, I have zero issues sanctioning editors edit warring back in uncited/unverified material in this area. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:35, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

FYI, List of terrorist incidents in April 2017 is just as bad if not worse... EvergreenFir (talk) 22:28, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Mark612

Hi NeilN,

As you know, this editor has professed a professional interest in Solon, Ohio. Today, once again, he has reverted my deletion of his poorly sourced puffery and original research at that article. His edit summary: "The city of Solon Commerce Committee sees that this version is best, and most accurately represents the city's retail and dining scene."

Needless to say, the Solon City Council and its Commerce Committee don't have veto power at Wikipedia, and the encyclopedia's policies and guidelines apply to the article about Solon, even if they're not happy with the resulting article. (As you can see from the article's lead, reliable sources have very nice things to say about the city, but editors can't make up their own sources if none have written about the local stores and shopping plazas.)

I have tried to reason with this editor, but the result was the edit summary cited above. As somebody who hasn't been revert warring with him, maybe he'll see you as a neutral party (which you are). Any suggestions would be appreciated. Thank you. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:16, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

@MShabazz: Hopefully this will get their attention. You would think mentioning "conflict of interest" would give any elected official pause but I guess not. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:49, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry it came to that, but thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:56, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Christy Clark Page

Hello NeilN

I want to clarify that the "Controversies" section which is being warred now is the result of political interference. The copy and edits which are being deleted in entirety, with no negotiation, by questionable editors, and it is vandalism. I am only trying to restore the legitimate copy that resides under "Controversies" for this political subject.

jAnd fyi I just posted the following on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents:

Hello-- Christy Clark is currently engaged in an election campaign, seeking reelection as Premier of British Columbia on May 9, 2017 . Over the last week, since the election campaign began, my edits and copy under "Controversies" on Ms. Clark's page have been repeatedly vandalized. I can testify that my copy is well-cited and the references are sourced according to WIkipedia guidelines. I am happy to debate tone and neutrality, and I am also happy to comply with reasonable requests for edits and adjustments when warranted, and I do. In this case the section is "Controversies" and it so happens there are many. The sense or suggestion of non-neutrality called for in one dispute (perhaps the only legitimate editor?) is odd--sensing perhaps that a scandal should not be referred to as a scandal? Even when the news sources cited refers to it as such? When an Ombudsperson or an Attorney-General calls it such? I suggest that the sudden interest in disrupting my copy is not actually questions of neutrality, but may actually be a politically motivated attempt to eliminate from the public record this politician's long list of actual, verifiable, scandals. A clue as to the latest episode of vandalism, to note: The editors tracked from a time zone +7 hours from our Pacific Time Zone, which puts them just off the coast of Africa and Europe in the Atlantic Ocean. I think only a few remote islands lay claim to this time zone. Again, whole passages of copy just wiped out clean. I have referred to the WIkipedia Dispute Resolution for your protocol and I find this: "When you find a passage in an article that is biased or inaccurate, improve it if you can; don't delete salvageable text. For example, if an article appears biased, add balancing material or make the wording more neutral. Include citations for any material you add."Italic text

In all of the cases of vandalism--and there have been now several, from varied editors--there has been no attempt to improve or balance any of my copy. In all cases the editors have simply stripped the copy outright to eliminate the majority of the content under "Controversies", as far as the Wiki will allow, I suspect. I hope an impartial Wikipedia Administrator might review the recent week's history on this page. I am bringing this also to the attention of media because I am certain this amounts to political interference. I also wish to grow and maintain good standing as a WIkipedia editor, in the public service, and I hope we might favourably resolve this matter for the sake of integrity and the public record. Sincerely, Theadjuster (talk) 04:11, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I am hoping to settle this asap. But I can not let the vandalism undermine the purpose of this Wikipedia record.

Sincerely,

Theadjuster (talk) 04:24, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

@Theadjuster: See my reply at ANI and also please read WP:AGF. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:28, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

[User:NeilN| ANI? Also, I appreciate the AGF guideline but to clarify, again, my copy is being deleted completely. These are legitimate, substantiated records which I have put in their proper place, under "Controversies". Hard to maintain reasonable doubt and AGF given the repeated vandalism. Theadjuster (talk) 05:00, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

@Theadjuster: ANI = Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. And you've been told why other editors are objecting to your content. Persisting in calling their edits vandalism instead of participating on the article's talk page is going to end badly for you. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:11, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Rollback privileges of Beyond my Ken

So User:Beyond my Ken put me on the Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Cs_california for putting in maps on buildings which I am ok with since an admin can review the points made by both me and him and give guidance on proper edits that are best for wikipedia. But what I have a problem with is this guy is abusing his rollback privileges (see my Admin Noticeboard comments) and removing edits that have nothing to do with the subject at hand these include complete infoboxes boxes, updated to maps with better resolution, updated images, and inclusion of gis coordinate. Not sure if it counts as vandalism but he remove content reviewing it this seems like a good case to put his privileges on hold. --Cs california (talk) 05:42, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Forgot to add that he previously had been blocked for edit waring but I did not engage him. I think he is just trying to stir the pot because I accidentally added #USA to some maps he regularly patrols and he disagrees. --Cs california (talk) 09:21, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Cs california. The matter is already at WP:ANI so there's no need to open a second conversation here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:17, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Ok cool sorry to bother you on the issue -Cs california (talk) 12:20, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Urgent deletion

Hello. Could you please delete Talk:FA_Women's_Super_League because a page needs to be moved there, and since I do not yet have the page mover rights yet, I cannot complete it, so it will otherwise be a mess. I do not know why system allowed me to perform just the one deletion. Thank you ----Kostas20142 (talk) 13:05, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

@Kostas20142: I've moved the talk page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:14, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you!--Kostas20142 (talk) 13:15, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Possible drafts on user talk pages

Hi NeilN. You were helpful in sorting out WP:AN#User talk:Best of Luck Nikki, so I'm wondering if you wouldn't also mind taking a look at User talk:Mohammad Shahid, User talk:Benjamin Thonggh, User:Dj Futurustic and User:Dj Futuristic. The first two appear to be articles copied and pasted onto user talk pages. I'm not sure if they are intended to be drafts or if the editor simply mistook their talk page for their sandbox. The last two appear to be the same draft and were possibly being edited at the same time by the same user. It's possible the spelling of the name was incorrect in one of them so the editor just created a new account. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:12, 17 April 2017 (UTC) 　

@Marchjuly: All four have been deleted as copy-pastes of existing articles. One had an introductory paragraph for a new article which I saved to a sandbox. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:35, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for checking on these. I htink I may have found another one at User:DRONACHARYA partially taken from Dronacharya College of Engineering. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:13, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: Okay, I think that one was started as a draft and then was redone in article space. G6'd the user page and soft-blocked the user because of their name. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:27, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for checking. I thought about the name as well, but then I tried Dronacharya which redirects to Drona, so it might not be simply due to the school's name. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:39, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi again NeilN. I came across User talk:Kenricklenno2001 before, but couldn't remeber the username until it just popped up again on my watchlist. I have no idea what this editor is doing. Part of the page does include posts form other, but they also seem to be copying a pasting article content on to their user talk page. Any idea what might be going on here? -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:11, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Kaspersky Lab/draft is another strange one. It appears some made added a draft as a subpage to Talk:Kaspersky Lab. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:31, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: It turns out that neither of these needed admin tools. Kenricklenno2001 was hosting his fictional writings on his talk page. Removed that and told him about WP:NOTWEBHOST. Talk:Kaspersky Lab/draft was a draft discussed at Talk:Kaspersky_Lab#Draft. I blanked the content but the page needs to be kept for attribution purposes as its content replaced the live article. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:40, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look at these. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:19, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Arbitration restrictions

Thanks for this. Please ping me when you put in the request, as I'd like to follow the discussion. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:14, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

@DrFleischman: Assuming Arbcom members start replying to my request and assuming there's an opening for this related request (if not, I will open a new one) here's what I plan to say.

WP:ACDS has instructions for admins placing editing restrictions. To wit, "Any uninvolved administrator may impose on any page or set of pages relating to the area of conflict semi-protection, full protection, move protection, revert restrictions, and prohibitions on the addition or removal of certain content (except when consensus for the edit exists)." It has no instructions for admins wishing to modify restrictions placed by other admins. Being the cockeyed optimist that I am, I have to believe that not all restrictions will be needed in the future, especially ones custom tailored to address a current controversy. I'd like Arbcom to clarify the process of getting restrictions removed. I suggest copying the process laid out for modifying sanctions. Briefly, fresh disruption can be met with new restrictions placed by any admin. Restrictions may be lifted only with the agreement of the admin who placed the restrictions. If they are unavailable or disagreement occurs then a request for review may be made at WP:AN or WP:ARCA.

Does this address your question? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:08, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

It would, although I disagree somewhat with your proposed solution, specifically the part about restrictions only being lifted with the agreement of the admin who placed the restrictions. To cut to the chase, there have been some admins who have been placing restrictions on pages that have seen no disruption at all in order to preempt disruption that they predict will occur in the future. I think that approach is detrimental to the project and I think it merits discussion by the admin community, at least on an article-by-article basis. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:29, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

One more thing I was thinking about today: article restrictions and editor sanctions are really quite different. Sanctions affect one editor and are usually temporary. Article restrictions affect whole articles (many editors) and are usually permanent. A single admin should not be able to keep an article under restriction indefinitely without any opportunity for community oversight. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:15, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

DrFleischman, if you're talking about WP:ARBPIA3, throw your brickbats at Arbcom :-) They're the ones who mandated preemptive protection for that area. In other areas, discretionary sanctions give individual admins a great deal of power and there's nothing in WP:ACDS I can see that keeps that in check. I quite firmly dislike preemptive restrictions so you're not going to get an argument from me that admin actions need some boundaries. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:01, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Not ARBPIA3. I understand there's nothing in ACDS. It seems to me that the lack of anything about page restrictions in WP:ACDS#Appeals and modifications is probably just an oversight and wasn't intended to silently give admins completely unfettered discretion for page restrictions while creating avenues for review of sanctions. Something should be added there or there needs to some less formal avenue for review, such as just going to WP:AN. I will patiently wait while your clarification request is on hold. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:49, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

• Is it time to inquire about this? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:09, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

• @DrFleischman: I got the go ahead last week and will open an ARCA this week. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:53, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
• @DrFleischman: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Clarification_request:_Discretionary_sanctions_.282014.29 --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:34, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

User violating topic ban

Sashko1999 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Editing Macedonians (ethnic group) (diff in clear violation of their topic ban (a one-year topic-ban imposed by you in July of last year), in addition to doing mass POV changes, including mass removal of content and replacing reliable sources with a non-RS source (joshuatree.net), on articles about virtually all Slavic nationalities/ethnicities (see their contributions) right after coming back from a two-week block for POV edit-warring. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 17:23, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I believe that the topic ban was placed on 1 April 2017, but may have included an erroneous time-tag. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:31, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

You are correct, David Biddulph. Fixed that. @Thomas.W: Blocked one year, TBAN is now indefinite. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:42, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Formerly productive editor

Hello,
I saw your post at User talk:Laurelpeter122. There's something amiss with this account. Seems to have suddenly become disruptive and filled up their user page with a 'raw' link to a Wiki article repeated over and over. Something odd happened when I tried to scroll down or otherwise navigate and I was crashed out of Wiki. I reverted it (perhaps I should not have?). Does the account need investigating? Thanks. Regards, Eagleash (talk) 19:02, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Oh! Blocked whilst I was typing! Eagleash (talk) 19:04, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Hey Widr, I'm wondering if this is a compromised account? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:20, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Seems so. I've extended the block to indef until they explain their recent edits. Widr (talk) 19:27, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

another User:GR.no sock

See [79] Meters (talk) 19:17, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

@Meters: Blocked. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:24, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

And another [80]. Persistent. Meters (talk) 20:41, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

@Meters: Ha! Already blocked. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:42, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

You're quick, sir. Meters (talk) 20:44, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Pahela Baishakh

may need a 48 hour extension to the pp-dispute. We are making progress, but it seems fair to give Akib.H some more time to draft something or suggest revisions to the two proposals on Talk:Pahela Baishakh. I would be okay, in case you decide otherwise. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:08, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch: I don't think there's any need to extend full protection. All of you can edit responsibly. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:52, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank You

Thank you very much for approving my unblock request. I will edit responsibly from now on! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seaniemaster (talk • contribs) 20:38, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Oxford redux

Hoggardhigh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)—another editor who insists on the serial comma (and has been known to both revert and rewrite to subtly reinclude them), has been warned before, and has never engaged anyone. TIA. —ATS 🖖 talk 21:35, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Now invoking WP:MYWAY. —ATS 🖖 talk 23:03, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Your warning didn't work, I'm afraid. —ATS 🖖 talk 01:37, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

You around? It's now belligerent. —ATS 🖖 talk 03:50, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Jimmy Fallon

Hi NeilN. The IP has again begun making major changes in the article without discussion or consensus. He/she is doing it with multiple IP addresses, so I'm sure how to proceed. But I thought I'd let you know. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 22:00, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

@Sundayclose: They've been reverted. Let's see what happens next. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:57, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Talk

Hi NeilN,

Thank you for your message. I am not in any way affiliated with the Yale School of Drama, simply a fan of the school and just trying to improve the page. thanks!TheKingLives (talk) 00:09, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi TheKingLives. Will you help clean up the copyright and WP:CLOSEPARAPHRASE violations? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:17, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I'd be happy to, I'm just not sure where exactly these violations are. If you can help out with that i'd like to do so and help get these violations removed.TheKingLives (talk) 00:19, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

@TheKingLives: The second paragraph of the History section is one I spotted. The entire article could use a check. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:22, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

FYI

I sent you an email. --David Tornheim (talk) 08:39, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

IP block

Hi NeilN. Could this IP please be given a timeout. They have ignored all warnings on their talk page, including a final warning. They are persisting on vandalizing McKenzie Moore. Cheers. DaHuzyBru (talk) 13:49, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Blocked. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:53, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia has slowed. Do you see it?

Is it just me or does it seem like Wikipedia has significantly slowed? You know how on Sundays it's like there is barely anyone on Wikipedia? Well, I'm feeling that to a small degree on weekdays too. Seems like significantly less people are editing. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:17, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Objectively speaking - because right :-) - for the number of edits, it's slower than it was ten years ago but busier than it was a few years ago: Wikipedia:Time Between Edits. For the number of editors, look at columns C and D on this chart. What would be interesting is if the WMF ran these stats based on major article categories to see if subject focus has changed. My guess is that we're getting more editing on BLPs and company/organization articles and less on general knowledge topics. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:25, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd already noticed that it's not nearly as active as it was back when I was a newbie. Back in 2007, for example, it was very, very active. But I mean that it seems slower lately; this is noticeable when I'm all caught up on my watchlist and it changes a little for the rest of the day; this usually happens on Sundays, but it's been happening a little on weekdays as well. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:41, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

@Flyer22 Reborn: Be careful what you wish for. Gender role --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:11, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Not what I wished for. I like Wikipedia not being as busy; it means less vandalism, less corrupt editing, less faulty editing with no bad intentions as a motive, and less time focused on those irritating aspects of this site. Sure, it can also mean less good work is getting done. But in my experience, the long-term editors are the main ones doing the good work. The drive-by and newbie editors? Not so much. This is obviously because they have much to learn. Anyway, I've weighed in on the Gender role matter. Thanks for keeping a lookout at that article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:44, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I figured as soon as you saw those edits your reaction would be something like, "well, that's no good" :-) I think it's some kind of school assignment. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:50, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Ping

Hello, NeilN. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

- BilCat (talk) 01:06, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Mario shabow edit

Hi, regarding user simone001 he keeps adding the youth caps on the page of the footballers senior caps in the info box... that should not be there but hes arrogant and does that on heaps of other footballers pages. i removed it yet he still keeps putting it back on .can you please advise him from doing that or get someone to look at the issue?

(user talk:Manunited20) 19 April 2017, 14.20 (UTC)

This issue has already been discussed on numerous occasions with the same result every time. Simione001 (talk) 22:25, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

@Simione001: Discussed where, please? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:33, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

There is a fair bit here: [81]. Simione001 (talk) 22:36, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Simione001. Manunited20, you can add your thoughts to that discussion or start a new one. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:40, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

FYI, you can find the ladder here [82]. Simione001 (talk) 22:45, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

The problem here is that doesn't know his football and the fact is Youth caps are not considered senior caps world wide. otherwise why would they have the word Youth?

the A-LEAGUe is the top division not the Youth league, therefore that's where the senior caps come in play. But this guy is just arrogant.

(user talk:Manunited20) 01 may 2017, 15.24 (UTC)

@ Simione001 --NeilN The National Premier Leagues NSW are semi-professional soccer competitions and in saying that proves that they are not a professional comp like the Hyundai A-League.. there fore the caps sould not even be considered as it is not a professional league. check the link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Premier_Leagues_NSW

(user talk:Manunited20) 01 may 2017, 19.24 (UTC)

Its clear that User:Manunited20 doesn't know what he's talking about. It is totally acceptable to display Semi-pro senior football in the infobox under Senior Career. Simione001 (talk) 01:06, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

@Simione001: I've opened a thread at the Footy project (you've seen it). When you are in a dispute with another editor, it's a good idea to neutrally solicit the opinions of other knowledgeable editors. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:13, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

You Deleted My Post?

Please i dont know where the advert is located, i have removed so many writeup you keep deleting my post, please tell me the points i will remove let me remove and rest — Preceding unsigned comment added by BirialaGday (talk • contribs) 14:48, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi BirialaGday. Promotional text is just one issue. The main problem is that you are writing an article about yourself. This isn't Facebook. We only have articles on people meeting our notability guidelines. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:55, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

its not the only thing that i have done i want to promote my culture it is not just bcuz of me, know my ethnic group far way behind civilization am trying to use this medium to let the world know that Ijaw is a language in Nigeria, expecially my town i hardly see anything about it online, so please just help me remove anything that is removeable and Post it for me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BirialaGday (talk • contribs) 15:08, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

@BirialaGday: No, sorry, Wikipedia is not here for you to promote things and people. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:12, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

So I Cant even write what i know?

one more finall question before make my decision, cant i write what i know? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BirialaGday (talk • contribs) 15:21, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

@BirialaGday: The answer is in our verifiability policy. "In Wikipedia, verifiability means that other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:39, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry I am new do not understand what I did wrong :(

Please explain what this is about (cream colored box on bottom half) due to my complete bewilderment: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sinsearach I don't understand. I just dont get it Ive been so very very very careful..... and it says I edited that Article, which i cant because it is protected, I just put a thought on the article's talk page. I made a proposal..... and I have then contacted 7 or 8 frequent editors of that article for their feedback regarding my proposal.......as due diligence on what I clearly could see what a supremely controversial articleSinsearach (talk) 21:19, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

PS ok sorry I just noticed this"It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date." so then that notice on my talk page is just a heads up?Sinsearach (talk) 21:20, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

@Sinsearach: Yes, it's just a heads up. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:47, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Edit

Vanamonde93 warned me to not edit without giving an edit summary, I gave an edit summary, what is the problem now Abhishek0831996 (talk) 18:21, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

@Abhishek0831996: Only partially correct. Vanamonde93 said, "You've received a number of warnings for a number of different disruptive tendencies: unsourced content, not leaving edit summaries, and disruptive editing. Please consider this a final warning for all of those issues..." What is the source for this change? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:27, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Please don't block me from editing Abhishek0831996 (talk) 18:27, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

@Abhishek0831996: I'm not going to block you but I would like an answer to my question. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:32, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

http://m.timesofindia.com/india/Narendra-Modi-gets-clean-chit-in-SIT-report-on-Gujarat-riots-Zakia-Jafri-vows-to-continue-her-fight/articleshow/12612345.cms Abhishek0831996 (talk) 18:37, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

@Abhishek0831996: First, that source was not provided. Second, please read sources more carefully. As stated, "The Ahmedabad Metropolitan Magistrate on Tuesday declared that the Supreme Court-appointed Special Investigation Team had not found any evidence..." The Supreme Court appointed a team to investigate. A lower court was presented with the findings and judged there was no evidence. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:45, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I am sorry, I will read the sources more carefully Abhishek0831996 (talk) 18:47, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

RevDel request

I accidentally edited my CSD log while logged out here. Can you revdel the IP on that edit? —MRD2014 📞 contribs 12:57, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

@MRD2014: Done. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:03, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Information needed

Hi, I'm new to Wikipedia and Just learning how it work

Well, you can share with what actually issue with page which is reported so next time I will not do such mistake

and also how new pages notified for review and where we can check all new pages which is created on Wikipedia ?

Hope I'll get your reply

Thank You — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rnsharma1993 (talk • contribs) 15:47, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

@Rnsharma1993: Please see WP:WEBCRIT for notability guidelines that determine if a website should have an article or not. To create a new article for review use WP:AFC. New page creations are listed here: Special:NewPagesFeed --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:56, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Typical abuse of non-PC users and its consequences.

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. 97.120.54.196 (talk) 17:51, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Removed before you even got here, amusingly. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:53, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Bengali calendar

Needs a watch. A new editor, already cautioned, warring with Kautilya3 and I, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 02:05, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Nsmutte back at it again

Another obvious sock. Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball!} 06:13, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

@Boomer Vial: Boom. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:15, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll let you know if i dig up any more. Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball!} 06:18, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

@Boomer Vial: Basically keep an eye on every noticeboard like this. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:21, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

I'll keep that in mind. Their three favorite editors to harass are Bonadea, Oshwah, and BethNaught right? Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball!} 06:26, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

@Boomer Vial: Yes. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:34, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Funny name, indeed!

:p but thanks for dealing with that- I admit I wasn't sure whether user pages could be 'salted,' or the equivalent. Cheers, — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 07:18, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Unblock of user: Maleidys Perez

Hello. please, nobody is using the account of user named Maleidys Perez. can you please unblock. I am not using the account, so the user can edit his/her own talk page, and re-enable account creation and email. I am sooooo sad about this, but Neither vandalism. Now that the block is indefinite, unblock the account or decrease the block time to a definite (minutes, hours, days, weeks, etc.) one because indefinite blocks look too permanent. Will not make disruptive editing and vandalism. Ask the one who blocked the account to unblock. and add the unblock request accept notification to the user's talk page . Thanks!!! 2600:387:9:3:0:0:0:AE (talk) 17:22, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

And sock blocked. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:26, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

RFC closure

FYI, I closed this RFC, and endorsed your warnings in the close. Revent^talk

IP hopping harasser

83.46.137.248 who you blocked for disruption is now IP hopping to harass both Mlpearc and I. So far they have used 213.143.51.33, 213.143.50.194, 213.143.50.198 and 190.39.118.224. Can anything be done to stop or at least slow them down? Justeditingtoday (talk) 22:35, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

@Justeditingtoday: Page protections and rangeblocks put in place by Barek and myself. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:40, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. I don't know why that person decided to go so militant all of the sudden but thanks for putting a stop to it. I imagine that protecting user talk pages is a last resort so I'm sorry everything escalated to that so quickly. Justeditingtoday (talk) 22:41, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

question

Can you please do something about this? It's beginning to feel like harrassment. I've disengaged from that thread as I have had my question there answered. I've had several pings to that page. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 13:47, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

@SW3 5DL: You can do that yourself by stating something like, "I have said all I want to say here". --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:04, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

It will continue if I do that. If he wants to start an issue on ANI he can open a thread. I've said all I have to say on that thread and my disengagement shows that. I've had my question answered. If nothing is done, he will continue there and on the article talk page. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 14:14, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

A different queestion

Hello N. Are these a candidate for rev/del? I know the attack on Acroterion is unfounded nonsense but the content is an insult to all those who lived and died in that event. I know that I am letting my personal feelings get in the way so I thought I would ask for your opinion. Best regards. MarnetteD|Talk 15:08, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Hey Writ Keeper, while you're here, what do you think about this? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:42, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Mmm, all in all, I'd probably say yes, but it wouldn't surprise or alarm me if someone else said no. Stronger case for revdel for the edit in mainspace, I think, though all of them are within the boundaries of admin discretion. What I'd do is probably revdel the edit in mainspace and then let Acroterion decide what they want to do with the ones in their userspace. What do you think? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:48, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

@Writ Keeper: I was on the fence. Good advice - thanks. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:53, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look N and @Writ Keeper:. That is one sturdy fence because I was on it as well and that is why I appreciate your input. Best regards. MarnetteD|Talk 18:08, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

RevDel plz?

The edit I just undid at Qamar Javed Bajwa contains what looks like a personal phone number and several other bits of information. It looks like this user is trying to dox either Bajwa or a member of his family. CityOfSilver 16:38, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) done. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:40, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

carl cowl

hello, not sure why i have been directed to this page or why my comments on Carl Cowls page were considered partisan. can you please explain

thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rickblackman1917 (talk • contribs) 00:51, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Rickblackman1917. C.Fred and another editor undid your changes but I'll explain why here. First, article content needs to be verifiable. You need to provide citations to published sources that back up the material you're adding. Second, text like Always an anti-war activist, I saw Carl speak in Chicago, just as the first Gulf war was coming to a close 1991. He received a standing ovation after he spoke to a massive audience, laying out his anti-war position, explaining he had been campaigning against imperialist wars since the age of fourteen, and he was "getting a little tired of it". A generous and extremely witty man, a great pianist and mischievous to the end. Much Missed has an unencyclopedic tone. You wouldn't expect to see that in the Encyclopedia Britannica, right? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:02, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Madhesi people

Hi, you protected Madhesi people on 21 April when I requested that the article be locked due to a content dispute. One disputant has provided what appear to be rock-solid sources on the talk page but the other (an anon whom I suspect has been hopping for months) has not responded. I doubt that they will respond because the article at present reflects their POV. The protection does not expire until 5 May, at which point I would be inclined to reinstate the earlier version per the sources provided on the talk page. Doubtless, some anon will then return to war. Is it worth delaying things in these circumstances? Somehow, we've got to get the anons into the discussion and that doesn't seem likely to happen while the article shows their preferred version. (Yes, I do know about WP:WRONGVERSION.) - Sitush (talk) 11:58, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

@Sitush: General sanctions gives me more leeway. What specific version would you recommend? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:17, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't realise that, sorry. I'd go for this version and then see if anyone of good standing objects. As I understand it, the IP was pushing a secessionist POV, to achieve which they needed the article to reflect a position that is not well sourced. I'd be happy to show both "sides" (NPOV) but only if the anons can come up with sources of an equal standing to the academic ones that have been given in the article and on the talk page, ie: not agenda-driven news sources etc. - Sitush (talk) 14:40, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

@Sitush: Sorry, that's a diff so it shows me two versions. This is what you recommend? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:52, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

The next one along, ie: as at 13:27 on 21 April. - Sitush (talk)

Thanks for doing that. - Sitush (talk) 15:07, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Administrator or not?

Hi - at the op of your talk page it says "NeilN is not an administrator or an account creator", yet elsewhere on the talk page you link through to claim the category of an administrator. Can you clarify your status please? Thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 12:41, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Template:Adminstats is generating that error message. The template appears to be broken at the moment. You can confirm that NeilN is an administrator here. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:45, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Since Contaldo80 has been here nearly twelve years, it is hard to imagine that they don't actually know that already?! — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 13:47, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I have little interest in how administrators organise their work (don't believe that all editors breathlessly keep track of internal house-keeping discussions), so no I didn't know. Perhaps worth taking a less patronising tone - thanks! Contaldo80 (talk) 10:16, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

I have the same problem. So does Ivanvector. So does every admin I checked except User:Drmies; his template still works! Did he bribe somebody? Or is he the only active admin left on the wiki? What's your secret, Doc? --MelanieN (talk) 14:03, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

@MelanieN: Look at the date. He's checked out a long time ago :) [83] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:08, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

So the bot works, but only for actions before October 23, 2015? But hey - I was an admin then! So were you! I checked a couple of admins who have been admins since the beginning of time!! I still think he did something nefarious to get HIS stats to work when ours don't. 0;-D --MelanieN (talk) 14:18, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

@MelanieN: The bot creates a new version of each admin's page every day for admins who actually use the template. It's been erroring out on the daily runs lately. [84] Drmies stopped using the template so the bot doesn't run for them. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:25, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Ha, what a funny history! So some days I have adminstats, and some days I'm a fraud pretending to be an admin. It all depends which day you look at. Timing is everything. --MelanieN (talk) 14:34, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I really have no idea what y'all are talking about, so perhaps I don't deserve to be an admin... Drmies (talk) 14:35, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

This is what we are talking about: Right now Template:Adminstats is giving results like this:

MelanieN is not an administrator or an account creator.

Therefore they have been disallowed the use of adminstats.

Apparently your adminstats still work because you modestly stopped having them updated. Clever decision on your part. Sorry to ping you away from your day! --MelanieN (talk) 14:52, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

It was no problem, he wasn't busy; just whiling away the hours pretending to be an admin ;) — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 15:15, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Pretending? Whaddaya mean? According to Adminstats he's the only admin in the place; he must be busier than a whole hivefull of bees! --MelanieN (talk) 15:21, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

So, today I have adminstats. Tomorrow I'll probably be a fraud again. --MelanieN (talk) 23:24, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Highest-grossing Kannada films

Hi Neil, hope all is well with you. I'm curious if you think Highest-grossing Kannada films could be speedied under A10: Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic. There are a number of issues I'm mulling over in my head, but the most important one is that the content already exists at List of highest-grossing Indian films#Highest-grossing Kannada films and there has been no attempt to expand. (They didn't even include the references found in that parent article--so technically, it's a DE-expansion.)

Secondary considerations are:

• I've been dealing with a lot of financial vandalism surrounding Kannada-language films lately. There's been a push to inflate the gross values of the film Raajakumara.
• Article was created by an SPA.
• When article was created, it included fabricated data, for instance the ₹75 crore claim for Raajakumara is unsubstantiated, and it's not even consistent with the parent article, which shows a ₹40 crore gross.
• "Highest-grossing Kannada films" is not the proper article title. It should be "List of highest-grossing Kannada films" to be parallel with similar artilces. Buuuuut,
• List of highest-grossing Kannada films was already created by a user/sock operator that I have indeffed. He fabricated the entire thing as I've detailed quite thoroughly at Talk:List of highest-grossing Kannada films and I have since turned that into a redirect for being a den of lies.

So in my expert opinion, I suspect the recent creation of Highest-grossing Kannada films was an attempt to circumvent community scrutiny, and to continue the same campaign to fabricate data about Kannada-language films. A10 criterion seems like it could work, but I also think maybe G3 for vandalism could fly? What do you think? Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:35, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: There's actually a simpler solution. The article was obviously an unattributed copy-paste of the existing article. Revdeleted the offending versions and semied the redirect. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:48, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Ah, there you go. Thanks for the brain power! I'll keep this in mind for the future. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:54, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Re. discussion at ANI

Our discussion at ANI has now been closed. I added a note immediately following the closed discussion:

"In the discussion above, I said 'going to the talk page within ten minutes of the revert'. On both my iphone and laptop, this link goes where I intended, but then jumps forward for reasons I do not understand. Here is a diff in case anyone else encounters the same problem."

I really have no idea whether you ever tried to look at the article talk page to see what I was pointing you to, prior to closure of that section in which you said that you would have warned or blocked me for misconduct. Nor do I have any idea whether the link worked properly for you, nor whether any of this matters to you. I voluntarily pledged at ANI to stop editing that BLP. I have no idea whether you're aware of that either. See ya later! Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:50, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

@Anythingyouwant: The "link jumping" problem has existed on Wikipedia for years. No idea why the devs haven't put more effort into mitigating the behavior. But MastCell had a good close - why not just move on? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:59, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I still have no idea whether you looked at what I was pointing you to. That's apparently by design. Let's both move on now, me to continued honorable editing, and you to whatever it is you do. Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:02, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Madhesi people

Dear sir, Madhesi people are the indigenous Nepalis originated from Madhesh plains of Southern Nepal. Please correct the false statement sponsered by Bhagymani on that article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.34.48.253 (talk)

Hi 27.34.48.253. Please continue the discussion at the talk page of the article where Sitush has replied to your post. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:48, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

References

Thanks for blocking Catsarebad12397

Thanks for blocking Catsarebad12397, saved me from making an AIV report. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 04:34, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

@TheSandDoctor: You're welcome! --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:35, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Happy editing and thanks for helping take care of vandalous accounts. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 04:44, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Repetitive page blanking

Please take a look at this [85], they have ignored a 4im notice (forgot to include that in AIV report - oops) --TheSandDoctor (talk) 04:53, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

 Done By Materialscientist in the time it took me to type this - that was fast! --TheSandDoctor (talk) 04:53, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

@TheSandDoctor: That's a sockpuppet. Any time you see a new account causing disruption like that with regards to "zeitgeist" just report to AIV referring to ShantaePirate --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:00, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know as I did not know and I shall, is it the same (different user of course) for edits regarding changing anything saying Taiwan to the Republic of China? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 05:02, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

@TheSandDoctor: Probably not as that change is constantly done by many people. Kind of the constant changes from "England" to the "U.K." and vice versa. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:07, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I was asking as accounts that I have come across changing it have all been blocked for vandalism because of it (I think there was a sock investigation at some point regarding this that blocked like 20+ accounts doing it but not sure on specifics). --TheSandDoctor (talk) 05:09, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Self tests

I have come across this user [86] who is repeatedly doing editing tests in articles and then self reverting despite a warning for it. Any ideas? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 05:12, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

@TheSandDoctor: Basically warn and then report. I would do a test1, test2, disrupt3, disrupt4 and then report. If they have hundreds of edits like that no one has caught (like in a sandbox) then it's likely they're trying to game 30/500. In that case, grab a friendly neighborhood admin. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:19, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

self-revert is a single issue notice though? And what do you mean by gaming 30/500? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 05:21, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

@TheSandDoctor: If they keep doing it after a warning they need to be warned again (and so on). Gaming 30/500 means trying to get extended confirmed status illegitimately. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:25, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I did not see test2 in Twinkle so thanks for telling me about it (I have since found it) and giving the proper route to follow in dealing with cases like this :D --TheSandDoctor (talk) 05:26, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, NeilN. You have new messages at Cyfraw's talk page.
Message added 17:26, 27 April 2017 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

cyrfaw (talk) 17:26, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Theadjuster

Hi NeilN. I am wondering whether the link Theadjuster added to his last talk page post needs to be removed. It links to an external website where he basically makes the same claims he tried to include in the article. In fact, it seems to also include a downloadable file of his preferred version of the article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:44, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: The external page hosted a version of the article that had copyright violations (since revdeleted by another admin). We don't link to copyvios so, poof... --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:23, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for checking. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:36, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

A concern

I recently warned user:Shahrizal shahanshah for edit-warring on Qutb al-Din Aibak, which they have been edit warring since 11 March.[87] Now appears user:Malika Sultana making the exact same edits on Qutb al-Din Aibak and Nasir ad-Din Qabacha. Also, Malika Sultana created Shazia Begum which Shahrizal has edited four times. I suspect sockpuppetry. Your thoughts? --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:40, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

And Malika Sultana restored user:Shahrizal shahanshah's unsourced edit again. --Kansas Bear (talk) 07:24, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

@Kansas Bear: I've asked for an explanation here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:05, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Judging from this edit(where Shahrizal links to a newly created article), it would appear Shahrizal shahanshah has another sock puppet account:Majunu Mamat

Both of Shahrizal's socks have created articles along the same lines.

Mention of the Razia Sultan TV series,(Qutub Begum,Shazia Begum), both articles were created with little or no unreliable sources, and both articles are quickly linked or referenced by Shahrizal[88]. --Kansas Bear (talk) 15:37, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

@Kansas Bear: Indef blocked the socks and blocked the master for one week. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:50, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Of Pandas and People

I submitted what I thought were legitimate edits to the Of Pandas and People Page

I felt that using to term pseudoscience to describe Intelligent Design was a little too inflammatory to be included in the first sentence of the first paragraph of the introduction. It seems reasonable to move that particular description to the main body of the article where it could be presented in a better context.

I suppose that if you want your post on Of Pandas and People to appear liked a biased hack-job then by all means keep that phrase in the introduction.

But I think it is rich that I am being accused of starting an edit war when all I am trying to do is make the article appear a little more balanced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mathezar (talk • contribs) 19:04, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

@Mathezar: Obviously more than one editor disagrees with your assessment. That's why you need to use the article's talk page to discuss your concerns. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:32, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

I just read his talk page. He either doesn't understand or strongly disagrees with our policies and I doubt he'll ever be happy here. Doug Weller talk 07:47, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

New names

We went from being clowns to morons... Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 19:21, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

@Corkythehornetfan: I'm just happy they haven't found the span or font tags to give their posts that extra multi-colored oomph. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:37, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

haha, I know! Give them time, I'm sure they'll figure it out eventually... especially if you keep posting on their talk page! Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 20:36, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Validity of proposed deletion in question

The account that nominated the article for deletion has blanked it numerous times. I do not believe this nomination to be valid and am tempted to remove it myself but thought I better double check, is this valid? [89] --TheSandDoctor (talk) 04:59, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

@TheSandDoctor: That reason is not a valid reason for deletion. If it cannot be speedied then it needs to be taken to WP:AFD. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:31, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the confirmation, I reverted the edit with the reason/edit summary of that it is not a valid delete reason. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 06:51, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

IP 77.101.6.102

Hello, you blocked the IP address 77.101.6.102 some time ago for persistently making the same (wrong) edits to Scottish independence opinion poll articles. It came off block a few days ago and has immediately started doing the same edit again. It hasn't broken WP:3RR, but clearly has no intention of discussing the issue and just wants to impose its point of view. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 05:35, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

@Jmorrison230582: Blocked for a month again. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:36, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Please apply ARBAP2 DS on new article

Greetings, NeilN. Pertaining to a talk page discussion, I have created a new article Timeline of the Trump presidency, 2017 Q2 split from Timeline of the presidency of Donald Trump. Could you kindly place the new article under the same standard DS/1RR restrictions as the original one? I have already added the relevant messages on the talk page and the edit notice but I suppose this needs to be logged by an admin somewhere. Also, the source article will be moved to Timeline of the Trump presidency, 2017 Q1 shortly, so you may need to add this title to the list of sanctioned articles as well. Thanks! — JFG ^talk 09:19, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi JFG. I don't see a lot of disruptive editing on the article or heated discussion on the talk page. Do you know why the editing restrictions were put in place? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:33, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't remember when or why DS/1RR was applied here; I took the restrictions as standard practice in this topic area. It's hard to know whether the refreshing lack of drama is natural or thanks to the preventive notice. — JFG ^talk 15:37, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

@JFG: Seems like a knee-jerk application of restrictions. I've been wanting to ask Arbcom to clarify the process of lifting restrictions placed by another admin. Guess this is a good push to do that. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:42, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes. For my own part, I'd be fine with a lower level of protection, in line with WP philosophy. — JFG ^talk 15:47, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Dan Barker

The editor who made the libelous edits to Dan Barker has also made such edits to the Freedom from Religion article. Can you help with a revdel? 32.218.33.26 (talk) 04:42, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Done and blocked. Thanks for reporting. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:52, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

What is the deal

...erasing a request for clarification for an action taken, by another editor? "Not here" (your edit summary) hardly moves the matter along. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 04:47, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Look at where you're posting. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:49, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Then address any issue with the where, via a Talk reply. I began an edit, and was informed of a block to an IP address. That block had the attendant name "Ivanvector", an editor and an accountant (?!). I see no issue with asking him where the discussion is to be found, that led to his action. What policy have I violated? And are you violating any in your involvement and actions here? Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 04:55, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

@Leprof 7272: Oh my god. How about opening your eyes and looking at where you posted (twice). Hint: It's not the talk page. I even said I moved it from the user page! --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:00, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

I am not your "god", and am unclear what any deity has to do with this. Stop playing games. Your hint is just as time-wasting as all previous posts. I have no idea what you are on about. Please reply at Ivanvector's Talk page, to put all of this in one place. There, I have already explained myself fully. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 05:03, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

@Leprof 7272: Do you know the difference between a user page and a user talk page? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:06, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Not discussing further here, and not replying to condescension that does not clarify matters. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 05:09, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

[bangs head against wall] At least talk page watchers will get a chuckle out of this and Ivanvector's user page and talk page history. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:14, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Not discussing further here, and not replying to condescension that does not clarify matters. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 05:09, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Given your continued inability to see you posted to Ivanvector's user page instead of his talk page and your inability to understand that "Moved from your user page" was not a reply to you despite your subsequent refactoring I thought it was a fair question. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:22, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

• It is worth noting that Ivanvector, in his administrator's note on your talkpage [90], linked directly to the specific discussion in question, as well as stating very clearly that "If you have questions about these actions you may ask here [meaning your talk page] and/or appeal at the administrators' noticeboard". -- Softlavender (talk) 05:22, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Neil, you're right, I did get a good chuckle out of this. :D ^{(talk page stalker)} CrashUnderride 05:27, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Even the newest editors understand "moved from user page". And yes, posting to a user page is an understandable mistake but you would think they would have checked their contrib history before wasting time on two talk pages. This is the second time in a month on this talk page that they would have been much better off looking at the situation with more than a cursory glance. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:39, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Well we did learn something in this conversation: Ivanvector is an accountant, which is apparently cause for incredulity and alarm "(?!)". Apparently however the fact that he is an admin does not merit mentioning. Softlavender (talk) 06:04, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

@Softlavender: And rightly so. NeilN can only block; Ivanvector will block and start a SEC investigation ;) — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 07:19, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Most of accounting is just showing up places unexpectedly and demanding to see the records. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:09, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

• I am responding to the various places this issue has spilled over by attempting to consolidate them all on the user's talk page. Please see User talk:Leprof 7272#Tagging acknowledged, tag-bombing and other misrepresentations belatedly denied; reply to the foregoing, on learning of it. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:09, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

172.58.171.175 == 172.56.5.179

Just a note, in case it's of interest. —░]PaleoNeonate█ ⏎ ?ERROR░ 06:24, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

@PaleoNeonate: They're hopping around. Hopefully the semi will stop the disruption. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:44, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

F0rmation122

Can you explain your blocking of F0rmation122? nihlus kryik (talk) 08:10, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

@Nihlus Kryik: Trivial edits to get autoconfirmed and then straight to making edits that helped caused the articles to be semi-protected in the first place. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 08:45, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

So you indef them without any warning? Not all of his edits were meaningless or trivial, so this is an egregious abuse of admin privileges and a piss-poor way of assuming good faith. nihlus kryik (talk) 12:09, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

@Nihlus Kryik: I do not think they're a "new" editor. And to be honest, your editing history seems pretty odd too. If you edited as an IP before, welcome aboard as a registered editor. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:20, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Archive 30

←

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40