Jump to content

User talk:NeilN/Archive 39

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 35←Archive 37Archive 38Archive 39Archive 40Archive 41→Archive 45

Simon & Schuster regarding author Ken Jennings

Greetings NeilN,

I am trying to understand why Simon & Schuster's best selling children's book author, Ken Jennings and his conduct, is not relevant. He publically bullied and mocked an 11 year old on Twitter, offered no apology and instead made a veiled threat about killing. Ken Jennings has made many public appearance promoting his Simon & Schuster's book. I am a children's book author myself and if I did such horrible thing my publisher would dump me in an instant and make a very public declaration of distance. I believe Ken Jennings conduct and attitude towards children is very relevant given his specific children's book relationship.

Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miketucker 123 (talk • contribs) 16:24, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Read WP:COATRACK. And given your past edits, realize that you are on thin ice here, attempting to use Wikipedia for your advocacy. --NeilN talk to me 16:28, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

NeilN at the top of the page it says in big bold letters BE POLITE. I was and I am. Its my understanding that this applies to everyone on Wiki including admins. There is no reason to threaten me. I politely asked for your help and truly wanted to understand why it was deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miketucker 123 (talk • contribs) 22:45, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

@Miketucker 123: NeilN's comment was not impolite. It was straight forward and honest. -- Dane talk 22:51, 1 June 2017 (UTC)(talk page stalker)
The last time you asked a polite question I gave a polite answer and it ended up with you calling me a libtard, screwed up in the head, and a Nazi. The Simon & Schuster edit is in the same category as your prior edit and the admin who declined your first unblock request stated, "I wouldn't be surprised if the block is extended if your actions continue in the same vein." So you are on thin ice here. --NeilN talk to me 00:41, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Albita Rivera Ramírez

Grrrrlll, watchuu takin about? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:387:9:3:0:0:0:B5 (talk) 20:59, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

I've blocked your other account. [1] Adding "cockatoo" to a person's name is not on. --NeilN talk to me 21:07, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2017

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

Administrator changes

added Doug Bell • Dennis Brown • Clpo13 • ONUnicorn
removed ThaddeusB • Yandman • Bjarki S • OldakQuill • Shyam • Jondel • Worm That Turned

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:40, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

am sorry but see no

am sorry but see no Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Common rationales for blocks#Protection did or did i not "confront then calmly and in a friendly manner" see this section. lets look again of what he said "YOU can't promote YOUR ancap BS" i dont like anacap if anything id prefer something totaly diffrent, as for for my friendlyness "problem fixed! i hope you are happy user:Snooganssnoogans" per WP:GOODFAITH, now for how long will this charade go on before the user is blocked? Ukrainetz1 (talk) 14:51, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

I've already replied here --NeilN talk to me 14:52, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
not to provoke you or break wp:point, am allowed to do that on talkpages but ok i guess you cant block me either then?
don't ruin wikipedia just because you can't promote your nazi BS in talk, (i hate anacap, i assume most people hate hitler or stalin) Ukrainetz1 (talk) 14:56, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
Ukrainetz1, if the editor is advocating Nazi ideology then telling them stop promoting their Nazi BS would not be seen as a personal attack. --NeilN talk to me 15:00, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
Ukrainetz1, I see there were some posts and removals from this page. You did not intend "nazi BS" to be a hypothetical example? --NeilN talk to me 15:20, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
no i did not i olny made a point! of how telling people what their personal beliefs are without knowing them (it like telling somone your marxism-leninist beliefs are.. and i tell that person back well you know...) nazism IS the same as pol pot just without borders and self-genocide, the Braunau am Inn guy is not happy until everone that is non-germanic in the world does not well ehrm...you know what...this was this documentary i saw made by revisionists but i dont understand these people, if not for all evidence the ussr and usa goverment have in their archive how come theres so much hatred in the orginial regime books (especial the one written by Braunau am In guy), films, propoganda posters, am actually so lucky am having this conversiation with you because my family was almoust a victim to the worst totalitarian regimes they (no i do not belive in anarchism), my grandmother almoust got sent to the gulag for as a child for writting "i dont like" on pages (in a shool book in which EVERY single page containts the portrait of stalin), and my east ukranian father side family family got lucky for not be a victime for say In the second half of March 1943 after the Third Battle of Kharkov the Germans arrested and shot 2500 Soviet civilians from Kharkov. please dont call me such things, thank you Ukrainetz1 (talk) 15:42, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
@Ukrainetz1: There's a language barrier here. I still have no idea who made a reference to Nazis and you and where. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi has said basically the same thing. --NeilN talk to me 15:49, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
language barrier you say? hmm....meybe you have got a good point there! your comment on this talkpage
"if the editor is advocating Nazi ideology then telling them stop promoting their Nazi BS would not be seen as a personal attack" diff: [2]
can you please explain that, you mean it was not the same as calling ukrainet1 a nazi? Ukrainetz1 (talk) 16:10, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
@Ukrainetz1: You said: "don't ruin wikipedia just because you can't promote your nazi BS in talk". Given the sentence before it, I thought you were using it as an example and asking me what editors can or cannot say. Restating my original reply, if an editor is adding justifications for Hitler's actions to articles, then telling them to "stop promoting their Nazi BS" would not be seen as a personal attack. To use another example, if an editor was adding how the moon landing was a hoax to Apollo 11 then telling them to "stop promoting their fake moon landing conspiracy BS" is not a personal attack. It is commenting on content. --NeilN talk to me 16:12, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Wow

GG, you got me good, can't make John Smith a Velociraptor without you getting me good, GG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheHelper27 (talk • contribs) 15:55, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

re: Panjabis

First of all, it was not me who did the drive-by tagging that you are now using to delete a clear and definitive claim. Pentapotamia is of greek origin, and while many of you continually try to argue that the Muslims and Hindus "thought of it first", some of the most definitive work on the area (i.e. work by Christian Lassen) suggests that Pentapotamia was indeed the term translated by the Persians into Punjabi. He clearly states the word is of Hindi and Persian origin, which he does not argue, but he also states that the structure of the word in comparison to much of the language used at the time was unusual. He therefore asserts that it is more likely this amalgamation termed 'Punjab' was originally derived from the term Pentapotamia, which he states has been named as such as early as Herodotus. It is not acceptable for editors like yourself to remove entire sentences when a claim is in need of citation for only one month. I've seen claims that have "cn" tags that have persisted much longer than a month. It is unacceptable that User:Utcursch, who is supposed to be an admin, is resorting to such speedy deletions when there are myriads of other unaddressed cn claims that are given much longer grace than this term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.10.52.83 (talk) 18:45, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

I haven't edited the article, I just warned you for edit warring. You've now broken WP:3RR by the way. You may want to self-revert. --NeilN talk to me 18:51, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
FYI: Talk:Punjabis#103.10.52.83.27s additions. utcursch | talk 18:55, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
@Utcursch: Well, the IP seems to have disappeared... --NeilN talk to me 07:21, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi Neil

Hi Neil There are no citations for the the link below. If you can point to some valid link or if the information is verifiable through any means it would be welcome. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narendra_Modi The education needs citation which are not available. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pankajdoharey (talk • contribs) 06:50, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

@Pankajdoharey: I have no idea why you're not actually reading the article like you've been told to multiple times or why it took a final warning to get you to this point. --NeilN talk to me 06:55, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
@NeilN: It is under suspicion because the RTI (Right to Information) request have been rejected there are total of more than 14 RTI;s in this matter so there is no true source to determine there are sources in newspapers who themselves have not verified the information. http://www.jantakareporter.com/india/gujarat-university-rejects-rti-request-on-pm-modis-masters-degree/13645/
@NeilN:, Delhi University also rejected the same Request http://zeenews.india.com/news/delhi/du-rejects-rti-plea-seeking-info-on-pm-narendra-modis-ba-degree_1875998.html

@NeilN: Also I am sorry since I edit rarely I wasn't aware of the interface and didn't see your message, which eventually led to this point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pankajdoharey (talk • contribs) 07:07, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

@Pankajdoharey: If the degrees are disputed then you can add info about that to the article provided you have high quality sources saying that. However the degrees themselves have multiple citations, not "no citations". --NeilN talk to me 07:14, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

@NeilN: I Understand, thanks a lot.

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Thanks for looking at the issue and giving a warning before blocking. Pankajdoharey (talk) 07:08, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi NeilN

Hello,

Volunteer Marek is up to his usual edit warring/white washing/cyber bullying here Wikipedia cancer tactics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Soros

I'd appreciate it if you could take 10secs and look at the material.

I added this line which is obviously relevant, in the correct section and properly sourced- In 2017, George Soros, spent at least $1.45 million to help Larry Krasner, win the Philadelphia Democratic DA primary. Resulting in Krasner dramatically outspending his opponents and subsequently going on to victory.[1]

Volunteer Marek reverted it twice under the WP/UNDUE card which is Wikipedia cancer spreading nonsense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.224.251.239 (talk)

Given your talk page posts, I'll be giving you two warnings. First, do not attack other editors. Second, WP:BLP applies everywhere. Do not make unsubstantiated claims or engage in negative hyperbole about living people on talk pages. Your initial talk page post was rightly removed. The article content itself is a matter for legitimate discussion. It would help your case if you found non-local sources covering the matter. --NeilN talk to me 14:46, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
Methinks that NOTHERE applies to this IP editor. More heat than light. -- BullRangifer (talk) 23:41, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/attytood/Soros-Krasner-and-the-trouble-with-throwing-good-money-after-good.html


Hi NeilN,

As an editor since May 2002 under various anon IPs for some reason I had it in my head that you were a NPOV editor. I see now in numerous places that is far from the truth. Not sure when or why that changed. But I will not be bullied, harassed or stalked by the left win cabal that chased off the 35% of active editors that left of which of course Volunteer Marek and Bullnonsense are card carrying members.

Silly me, sorry for wasting your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.224.251.239 (talk) 06:51, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

BTW any search engine for George Soros returns 99% controversial political responses. My edit is encyclopedic, well sourced-it is the Philadelphia Inquirer and not undue. I did not post anything unsubstantiated regarding the individual anywhere on the site. The response to it: immediate edit warring from Volunteer Marek followed up by an insulting editor claiming nothing to see here and the latest: threats from Bullnonsense and two warnings from you is embarrassing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.224.251.239 (talk) 07:00, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

You're on your last warning. BullRangifer, I've done enough non-vandalism reverts on the article to perhaps be considered WP:INVOLVED so I can't block. You'll have to find another admin or, if the name-calling/attacks continue, I will take it to WP:ANI. --NeilN talk to me 07:09, 5 June 2017 (UTC)


Thanks for the apology regarding your unfounded accusations of unsubstantiated claims and negative hyperbole. There is no disruptive editing either. Maybe if I used spinbot instead of left wing cabal it might ring some bells? The conduct towards me on this site in the last few days is an embarrassment to the site. It's almost back to the days of uniform contempt of IP editors. I merely edited George Soros including well sourced encyclopedic and was nothing but attacked for the efforts. As long as you are concerned about unsubstantiated claims and negative hyperbole- the whole Russian intererence page is 100% unsubstantiated claims and negative hyperbole-I must have missed your objections? and FTR you as well as I know, there is nothing that anyone could post regarding Volunteer Marek, Bullnonsense or any of the other spinbots that would result in them leaving the site like the 35% active editor exodus that has occurred the last 8yrs largely thanks to exactly the sort of behavior that took place here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.88.4.211 (talk) 07:36, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Oh heck, you're that editor. Your rants deserved to be ignored back then and I see nothing much has changed. [3] And there was no apology on my part - no idea how you managed to come up with that. Do not make unsubstantiated claims or engage in negative hyperbole about living people on talk pages. [4], [5] Finally, stop evading your block or else the current 72 hours placed by El C will be extended. --NeilN talk to me 07:58, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

110.36.182.76

Hi. Thank you for blocking 110.36.176.201. I think you may find [[Special:Contributions/ 110.36.182.76|110.36.182.76]] to be very similar.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 15:57, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: Blocked. Thanks for reporting. --NeilN talk to me 16:32, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Request

Can you semi-protect Jamelia, Lush Life (Zara Larsson song), and Outside (Calvin Harris song) to persistent long-term abuse of Wikidesctruction vandal. 183.171.180.122 (talk) 17:24, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

The first article was hit once. If it gets hit again, please let me know. The second and third articles are semied for two weeks and a month, respectively. --NeilN talk to me 17:30, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thanks for your quick action on that sockpuppet. It has been really freaky how they've targeted me lately. Morty C-137 (talk) 17:30, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

@Morty C-137: You're welcome. They've been pretty persistent. --NeilN talk to me 17:32, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
Yeah. I am 99% sure that they found the UDC page and a couple other pages in the past by stalking my contributions list. If possible can you ask jpgordon to doublecheck them, the last time this sockpuppet maker was caught they were found to have at least 1 other that I didn't even know about to report. Morty C-137 (talk) 17:41, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
jpgordon already performed a CU so I assume he would have caught any sleepers. --NeilN talk to me 17:51, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 Confirmed. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 18:06, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

I hate to ask for more assistance, but Cjhard - who was a suspect in earlier sockpuppetry - has also been stalking my contributions and leaving nasty messages anywhere he can find a spot to do so. This is VERY similar to the sockpuppet's behavior. I'm not sure if they are just imitating it or what, but there has to be some recourse to get them to knock it off. Morty C-137 (talk) 04:46, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

@Morty C-137: Got diffs of the nasty messages? I looked at a few. They're pointed, but not uncivil. --NeilN talk to me 04:53, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
It's that they are hunting down my edits repeatedly, jumping in to attack me. Wikipedia:Harassment#Wikihounding, Wikihounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor. Wikihounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia. Morty C-137 (talk) 04:54, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
I told them to stop it once, and they responded with a passive aggressive "Please move on, and happy editing". But now they followed me to yet another page tonight, and announced an intention to literally edit-war against me. Morty C-137 (talk) 04:57, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
@Morty C-137: All I'm seeing is United Daughters of the Confederacy. What other articles have they followed you to? They don't exactly have a long editing history. --NeilN talk to me 05:03, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
I am concerned because their pattern of editing was close enough to some of the other two sockpuppet groups (Cdg428 and Pepe.is.great/D.H.110/Heroin123/etc), including some of those sockpuppets leaving "warnings" about me on Cjhard's talk page, vanishing from editing when some of those sockpuppets were blocked, and reappearing from a long nonexistence with an edit summary saying (Undid revision 780904416 by Morty C-137 (talk) What? This page isn't yours to police.)[6] in order to restore content that was being inserted by a sockpuppeter. They followed me to The Secret World, and have now followed me to United Daughters of the Confederacy and announced intent to edit war against me. I know we are supposed to assume good faith but it is really, really hard to assume that they are totally unrelated when they are similar in behavior both in editing, and in how they have seemed to be tracking and following my editing for purposes of making me frustrated or just trying to get me into a fight. It is also weird because long ago it looks like they say they often don't even log in before editing [7], which makes me wonder if some of the strange edits I have seen from IP addresses following recent pages like Bill Nye Saves the World could be somehow related. It is really freaking me out. Morty C-137 (talk) 05:10, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Someone just created a user account to make a revert and then Cjhard very quickly made a sockpuppet check request claiming it was me. I am getting afraid that Cjhard created it himself to further harass me. Morty C-137 (talk) 23:04, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
As MelanieN said, let's wait for the CU results. --NeilN talk to me 23:29, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Just FYI, I suspected the possible sock quite independently (although from a very different perspective from Morty's) - and was on my way to create an SPI page when I found there already was one. Also note, Morty is admin-shopping, having so far posted on the talk pages of you, me, and User:Berean Hunter. --MelanieN (talk) 23:37, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
(talk page gnome) Just adding a link for Morty C-137: WP:ADMINSHOP (this certainly is a common new editor practice; you now know)... —PaleoNeonate - 23:46, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello

Got your message, thanks. Did you want to talk to me? Chrisrus (talk) 06:12, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

@Chrisrus: Not unless you have a good reason for reopening a thread started by a serial sockmaster, containing editors sniping at each other and edit warring over a perceived BLP violation, all on an article talk page covered by discretionary sanctions. Leave it be. --NeilN talk to me 06:20, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Some links regarding closing/unclosing of discussions:
Johnuniq (talk) 07:57, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I do. Chrisrus (talk) 12:34, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
@Chrisrus: Which is? --NeilN talk to me 12:46, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Invalid grounds. Chrisrus (talk) 13:13, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
@Chrisrus: You can take my closure as a discretionary sanctions enforcement action and appeal at WP:AE if you wish. Or you can start a new thread, re-focused on whatever you think was of value in the collapsed thread. --NeilN talk to me 13:27, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestions. Chrisrus (talk) 13:38, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Help!

An IP Sock 121.219.136.184 who owns three IP sockpuppets (96.48.254.221, 46.237.104.190, 191.205.214.6) is posting the same message again to another admin user, as he wants to block someone. -112.198.73.9 (talk) 08:18, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
More IP sockpuppets by 121.219.136.184 (like 121.214.41.156, 211.227.124.93, 73.94.24.81, etc.) are playing around and ruining my talk page as the same person is still trying to block me. -112.198.73.9 (talk) 09:47, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorely tempted...

...to say "a plague on both your houses" and to block all the IPs that have been rampaging about admin's talk pages and noticeboards, but I thought I'd better ask for a second opinion before doing something that extreme...by my count, they are at at least four admin's talk pages, SPI, and AIV. Vanamonde (talk) 10:24, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

@Vanamonde: It looks to me as if they're two people. One is using a VPN to hop and one is consistently using 112.198.73.9 but is indiscriminately adding socking tags. I've asked the latter to use SPI so we can get a handle on things. --NeilN talk to me 13:40, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. Yeah, it's two people, but they seem to be fighting with each other and doing precious little else...let's see how this goes. Vanamonde (talk) 13:43, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding discretionary sanctions

Resolved by motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment:

In the interest of clarity, the discretionary sanctions procedures described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions are modified as follows:

  • In the section Appeals by sanctioned editors: Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages...
  • In the section Modifications by administrators: No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without...

For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 13:52, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Reply

Censorship is worth a block. Go ahead.--72.135.16.235 (talk) 00:40, 5 June 2017 (UTC)--72.135.16.235 (talk) 00:40, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Okay, done. --NeilN talk to me 00:42, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Street harassment

Hi NeilN, I'd appreciate more eyes on this, as a disruptive user is using several accounts to add, among other things, Emmett Till as an example. I don't know if you want to block the IPs or if there's been enough vandalism to lock the article, but this is putrid stuff. Thanks and cheers, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:13, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

2606:a000:6284:e000::/64 blocked one week. --NeilN talk to me 03:20, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Thank you very much. Best, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:22, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

My talk page

Thanks for protecting it while I wasn't around. Fun fun. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:30, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

150.129.103.8

TPA revoke? Adam9007 (talk) 18:31, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

@Adam9007: TPA revoked. --NeilN talk to me 18:34, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Continued trolling and harassment

Neil, the trolling and harassment has continued. After all of this, a random IP has continued to troll and harass here, almost 3 weeks after the dust had settled. This is now becoming a great concern of hounding and harassment being aimed directly at myself. Some sort of action needs to be taken to put an end to all of this. Wes Wolf Talk 18:52, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

@Wesley Wolf: All we can do is WP:RBI. I've performed the first two. --NeilN talk to me 18:59, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, Neil. It is getting too serious now, see this remark. It is causing distress and I am literally shaking now. Wes Wolf Talk 19:13, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Blocked a /64 range. Will semi the talk page if socking continues. --NeilN talk to me 19:31, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Neil. They posted on my talk page too, but I've reverted it, and will keep in the edit history in case it is required as further evidence of hounding. I have an idea who the real user is (well I have 2 suspects) that is acting with scrutiny. I don't know why they act in this way and find some kick in targeting me in the vicious way that they are conducting. It is deeply distressing and making think more seriously about retiring from Wikipedia indefinitely - an action I don't want to take as I love it here so much. But if they continue they will have forced another editor to leave. Wes Wolf Talk 19:35, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
I noticed the same "person" had trolled you earlier too. This is getting out of hand now. First they target me, and now they expand their list of targets. Here is my list of suspects. Wes Wolf Talk 14:37, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Table modifying not working for me on visual editor

Help!!! Wikipedia becomes unresponsive after I click "Insert after" on a table on a page. 64.237.238.37 (talk) 14:16, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

You're better off asking about this at WP:VPT. Be sure to include the browser version you're using and the page you're editing. --NeilN talk to me 14:27, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Cjhard again

Cjhard has once again stalked my edits, Wikipedia:Harassment#Wikihounding me to a page he has never edited before and has no reason to be at. Exactly how much of this am I supposed to have to put up with, working hard to bring in sourced and well thought out edits and constantly having to worry that he's going to pop up without any intention of reasonable dialogue, just naysaying me to annoy me? Morty C-137 (talk) 23:07, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

@Morty C-137: I didn't say anything last time but you need to start giving links and diffs. Don't make editors hunt for what you're talking about. --NeilN talk to me 02:21, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Franzboas master account

Since you participated in the discussion about Dennis Brown's block of Franzboas, I'm pointing you to this, which presents some proposals for additional action. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:03, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Clean start

Can you comment on please[8]? And what about if an user wants a clean start third time? 92.63.109.253 (talk) 12:47, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Replied here --NeilN talk to me 13:07, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

WP:TPG

I, understand the title is easier on the eyes this way, but the shortcuts break with this title. I figured this out by looking in the address bar and noticing that this shortcut: WP:REDACT points to "Own comments", not "Editing own comments". I realized the wording must have to be an exact match to the address bar for the shortcut to work. So, I changed it to match the address bar. It was ugly, but it worked. It was the same for the section on "Editing others' comments". The shortcuts point to "Others' comments" in the address bar. I tried to change the title on that section too, but it didn't work because that section uses anchors, which are too complicated for me, so I left that section alone. Almost all of the shortcuts are broken on that page. It was the only one I knew how to fix, and that was the only way I knew how to do it. Let's compromise. I need the shortcuts in that section to work and you want to have the title your way, so how about we leave the title the way you like it and you can fix the broken shortcuts for me since I don't know how else to do it. Is that Fair? Huggums537 (talk) 17:05, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

@Huggums537: Thanks for the detailed explanation - appreciate that. I've fixed the shortcuts. [9] --NeilN talk to me 17:11, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
I don't know how you did it, but thanks! It really does look better this way, and now that the links work, everybody wins! One of these days I will have enough experience to be able to fix these issues on my own, but at least I can still contribute by reporting problems while I'm learning. Huggums537 (talk) 17:36, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
@Huggums537: If you look at the link I gave it shows you what I changed. BTW, adding spaces to the beginning of paragraphs formats the text incorrectly. Use ":" to indent (if you edit this section you'll see what I mean). --NeilN talk to me 17:44, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Ok, I got it. I'll check out that link. I didn't notice it at first, so thanks for pointing it out. Huggums537 (talk) 18:18, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
I was wondering if you could help me with an editor who is starting to look like maybe harassing me. Things seemed somewhat amicable up to the point where they went and completely changed my edit for a 4th time with un-sourced false information. The games were not released on "Enter the Matrix" website and they were not developed in parallel to "Enter the Matrix". You can see the coversation on my talk page. (It's the only one there) and here is the most recent [[10]] diff. Thanks. Huggums537 (talk) 20:35, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Disregard my previous request, as I was able to come to a peaceful resolution with the other editor without outside assistance. Thanks. Huggums537 (talk) 22:14, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

2 years of adminship, today

Wishing NeilN a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Mz7 (talk) 21:24, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

@Mz7: And Wikipedia is still standing! :-) Thanks. --NeilN talk to me 21:48, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Still standing and better off for your adminship N. Happy anniversary!! MarnetteD|Talk 22:09, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Yay, —PaleoNeonate - 03:20, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Congrats, Neil. Vanamonde (talk) 03:43, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

The IP you just blocked...

May need a rangeblock, this is the third similar looking IP to be doing the same thing (the random blanking) to two separate articles. This one started after the first one was semi-protected. Would that go under Sockpuppet Investigations? Gatemansgc (talk) 22:37, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

@Gatemansgc: When I blocked, I rangeblocked 2601:43:2:D75D:0:0:0:0/64. Please let me know if they hop to a different range. --NeilN talk to me 22:45, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. I'll keep an eye out as I patrol RC. Gatemansgc (talk) 22:47, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

The Life of Pablo

Hey NeilN, just letting you know: I saw what happened on The Life of Pablo, and the two users' respective blocks. However, it appears after both were blocked, the IP 66.87.121.137 (talk · contribs) reverted Kellymoat's edits, and this IP was reverted by another user for "block evasion". If this is Cjhard, as I am inclined to believe, should that user's block not be extended due to block evasion? Ss112 16:00, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

@Ss112: Elmodivot (an editor with ~15 edits) needs to explain what proof they have for block evasion and why they warned for vandalism. --NeilN talk to me 16:06, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
I don't know who that user is, but perhaps they should be investigated too. The IP is very suspicious though, especially to revert after an edit war has just taken place. Ss112 17:39, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

How could it not beElmodivot (talk) 20:53, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

@Elmodivot: Easily. Now, can you explain why after almost a year of inactivity, and fifteen total edits, you suddenly popped up to revert, make accusations of socking, and incorrectly make accusations of vandalism? --NeilN talk to me 23:36, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
User:NeilN could this please be investigated? This appears to be an attempt at a joe job. Given User:Elmodivot's editing style being similar to User:Kellymoat's, and that Elmodivot became inactive shortly before Kellymoat's account was created, I think it's reasonable to suspect that Elmodivot is Kellymoat's sockpuppet. Cjhard (talk) 13:41, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
@Cjhard: I would open a WP:SPI and ask for a CU. If you do that, let me know, and I will second the request. --NeilN talk to me 13:47, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi NeilN, I have opened an WP:SPI [here]. Cjhard (talk) 14:36, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Nate Speed Ip's

Neil: thanks for your helpful blocks and other interventions. I'm assuming at this point that you are watching the same pages and I don't need to keep updating ANI with their further IP addresses, correct? Thanks again. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:28, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

@Eggishorn: I think I've now protected all the pages he's currently likely to go off on. However he's as persistent as he is foul-mouthed so reprotects may be necessary. --NeilN talk to me 19:39, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Great. Thanks again. I'll ping you if I see any similar activity elsewhere. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:42, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
103.14.116.26 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) on The Home Depot [11]. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:04, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
(Redacted) 103.14.116.25 (talk) 22:33, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Fresh one at Special:Contributions/103.14.116.24. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:40, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

I just saw them trying to vandalize/harass your talkpage here. Per this WHOIS page, do you think it would be possible to rangeblock 103.14.116.0/22 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) for 1 month, or so...? 182.166.13.238 (talk) 22:43, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
I just blocked the 103.14.116.0/24 range. The /22 range is apparently already blocked, according to Special:Block/103.14.116.0/22. clpo13(talk) 22:45, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Great, that range works, too! :-) Though, the /22 range is wider than the /24 one, so I'm not exactly sure why their more recent IPs were not caught by the /22 rangeblock but are now blocked through the /24. Weird... :-/ 182.166.13.238 (talk) 22:50, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
@Clpo13: Please block 188.126.71.76 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). 182.166.13.238 (talk) 22:52, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
That range, 188.126.64.0/19, has been blocked in the past as a webhost, so I've reblocked it. Might be time to start protecting pages, though. clpo13(talk) 22:57, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for taking care of this, Clpo13. --NeilN talk to me 23:31, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
You're welcome. It was some good range block practice. clpo13(talk) 00:02, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
About that. I saw IP addresses today from this editor that locate to Pune, India, Hong Kong, Paris, France, and McAllister, Texas (and some I undoubtedly missed) Granted, IP Geolocation has a whole host of issues, but generally not as bad as getting the country wrong. Rangeblocks, as I understand them, are generally good for an IP that gets their service from one address assigner and not for some-one hopping from range to range as this one seemed to be doing earlier. Is this just a whack-a-mole situation with this person? Thanks for the help. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:41, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
@Eggishorn: We can block ranges from various open proxies but yes, it's largely a whack-a-mole situation. --NeilN talk to me 19:44, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

IP Socksssssss on Rabbit-proof fence

Page protect, mebbe? (yes, the extra esses are deliberate, it's a lotta sox.) Anmccaff (talk) 22:20, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Or simply stop violating core policies. Which is better for the encyclopaedia? 82.132.213.13 (talk) 22:45, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
False dichotomy, Sockie. Anmccaff (talk) 22:48, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Kuru got to it. --NeilN talk to me 23:29, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Potential WP:COI

User:Edawncoughman has edited the Edawn Coughman article, removing information, without giving a reason. This article has had this happen by users as well as IPs lately. Sometime last year, or early 2017, someone claiming to be Mr. Coughman edited the article to remove the information as well. I think something might need to be done, at least temporarily, about the article or user(s). It's the same edit, they just up and remove the entire section without giving a reason of any sort. (talk page stalker) CrashUnderride 06:04, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi Crash Underride. Even though no reason was given, experienced editors should still look at the material being removed and see if it should be removed. In this case the answer is yes. It's unsourced material in a BLP and WP:BLPNAME also states, "...names of family members who are not also notable public figures must be removed from an article if they are not properly sourced." --NeilN talk to me 06:24, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
After seeing your edit, I realized I was in error. For some reason I had thought the information was contained in one of his profiles provided by a former team, however, I was mistaken. Thanks for clearing up the situation, the user has also been informed about what they need to do or what can happen to their account by another user as well. (talk page stalker) CrashUnderride 06:28, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

A query...

I posted this on BURob 13's talk.......But since you seem to be currently active........How do I redirect a series of pages with AWB, fully automatically?(That is make it replace the entire content of page with a pre-set #REDIRECT[[XYZ]] ).I tried to use the find and replace function but was unable to solve my problem. Another option is the prepend but that does not blank the page!Thanks!Winged Blades Godric 16:02, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi Winged Blades of Godric. I don't use AWB. Have you asked at Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser? --NeilN talk to me 16:33, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Yeah!That should have been the first place to req. help.Anyway let's wait for Rob to post an reply.Winged Blades Godric 16:38, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Cjhard, again

He's following me virtually everywhere.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Richard_J._Jensen#My_edit_summary_was_pretty_clear. Going after me the moment he arrives, he's never edited there before. Morty C-137 (talk) 18:09, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Editor Posting Hate Speech

If you could take a look at this link, this editor has been posting hate speech and bigoted information and vandalisng the Leonard Pitts Wikipedia article, could you please block this person or otherwise deal with them to stop this in the future, please see this link:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Leonard_Pitts&diff=779638722&oldid=777752466

Thanks. Neptune's Trident (talk) 18:50, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

@Neptune's Trident: The IP is innocent; they were simply reverting back to the old version. This diff (and subsequent diffs near the two listed] would be better. Even then, it's not really vandalism; furthermore, quoting something is not posting hate speech. I'm going to invoke WP:AGF and say that all edits involved are of good faith, not vandalism.
With that said, the incident happened about a month ago, so no action could really be taken anyways. (talk page stalker) SkyWarrior 19:01, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
@SkyWarrior: I'm trying to figure out what prompted Dabean to make the "dindu nuffin'" change. What's the source of this supposed quote? I think Neptune's Trident is right to be concerned. --NeilN talk to me 19:39, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
That phrase is a new online bigoted slur that online trolls post it means "didn't do nothing", it is basically a way to post bigotry by not using old fashioned racial slurs and just using new ones that have been created for the internet, you can read more about it here:
http://www.rawstory.com/2015/11/revealed-accused-minneapolis-shooters-fascinated-with-guns-militia-groups-and-the-confederacy/
https://www.google.com/search?q=dindu+nuffin&oq=dindu+nuffin&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.2699j0j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
Neptune's Trident (talk) 19:52, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Neptune's Trident, yes but how did that turn into a quote from Pitt? --NeilN talk to me 20:02, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Because one of the editors in this link changed the quote that was in the actual referenced article that was "cry me a river" and changed it to the other fake dindu nuffin quote, which, of course, Leonard Pitt never said, it was just an online troll posting hate speech in the form on a new online term not everyone knows about:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Leonard_Pitts&diff=779638722&oldid=777752466

Neptune's Trident (talk) 20:07, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Editor Vandalizing And Blanking Wikipedia Pages

If you see this link you can see this editor is blanking and vandalizing Wikipedia pages, if you could possibly warn or block this user, thanks:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/27.123.1.162

Neptune's Trident (talk) 03:02, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

@Neptune's Trident: Cluebot already warned the user. --NeilN talk to me 04:50, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! Neptune's Trident (talk) 04:52, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Reverts today by 86.155.33.235 on article Proposed Catalan independence referendum

Is this a currently blocked user deliberately circumventing his block by any chance??? Wikimucker (talk) 19:51, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

@Wikimucker: If you're thinking the IP is Impru20 (talk · contribs), I don't see any compelling evidence of that. --NeilN talk to me 19:58, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
None other and many thanks for your fast response.Wikimucker (talk) 20:08, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Some neutral eyes please?

Edit war on List of Lehi members over bolding names in a list. I've left the user a usertalk EW warning (immediately removed) but I don't want to exceed three reverts. I have attempted discussion on Talk:List of Lehi members, but the user appears to be stonewalling rather than discussing. If it's relevant, the user has been blocked 7 times in 4.5 years for edit-warring and battlegrounding [12]. Would appreciate some neutral eyes if possible. Softlavender (talk) 08:20, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

And he just now told admin Zero0000 to fuck off: [13]. -- Softlavender (talk) 13:43, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

AE again

Neil is on vacation; let him alone and take your squabbles somewhere else. --MelanieN (talk) 22:58, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Hello NeilN.

I fully acknowledge that you are a volunteer here and that you have no obligation to any editor or to the Project to involve yourself in any matters except when you choose to do so. Having said that,

I recall that there was no resolution to the long "AE question" thread on this page some time ago. In that thread one editor, @Thucydides411: was particularly animated in his participation. In my opinion that editor is again disrupting the talk page at Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections and in my opinion should not be permitted to continue disrupting that article over a long-settled consensus he has continuously disputed for months. The thread is here [14]. I believe you've already reviewed his previous participation at that page which repeatedly strayed toward uncivil and disparaging remarks to other editors.

Regards. SPECIFICO talk 17:21, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: This post by Thucydides411 was unnecessary and they should follow their own (paraphrased) advice: "If you don't have anything of use to add, then it's best not to post in this thread". If it continues, I'll look at sanctions. That being said, you have to realize that if there was anything approaching consensus, "disruption" would be minimized. There are contentious statements in other articles covered by AP2 and I have no issue enforcing the presence of those contentious assertions through the use of admin tools because editors can point to a clear-cut consensus. I see that editors don't want yet another RFC - how about formal mediation? --NeilN talk to me 17:41, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Excuse me, but Objective3000 has been replying to each of my comments with an accusation that my participation is disruptive. I think I'm fully within my rights to tell Objective3000 to cut that out. You'll see that I have been following my advice, and that I have been discussing the factual issue - it's precisely that factual discussion that Objective3000 has repeatedly called "disruptive."
There have been repeated attempts to ban me and others who don't agree with the majority at the Russian interference page, this request by SPECIFICO being just the latest. We editors who don't agree with the majority know we're walking on egg shells, because every week or so there's another threat of some sort of sanction. On the other side, I don't see the same sort of cautious behavior, and it seems that anything goes - accusations of disruption, accusations of misogyny, etc. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:53, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
I have made no attempt to ban you, no threat, and no mention of misogyny. I merely pointed out what other editors have pointed out. You have been saying the same things for months now and have convinced no one. You keep saying the same things, over and over, and claim no one has responded when there have been detailed responses. Life is short. Objective3000 (talk) 19:07, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
We'd be getting off topic here by discussing specifics of the discussion, but my general impression from the discussions is that editors calling this a dead horse have consistently failed to address the actual issues raised by editors who think the current formulation of the article is POV, and that they have repeated the same arguments that don't actually address the concerns. If the actual concerns we're raising were addressed, we wouldn't raise them again. But they aren't being addressed - we're just getting the same responses that avoid the main point. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:45, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Please consider the possibility that your inability to sway other editors after months of trying might not be the fault of the other editors. Objective3000 (talk) 20:51, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
It goes both ways. Everyone has their positions, and nobody's budging. There's largely the same majority on one side of most issues on the page, and largely the same (not small) minority on the other. I happen to think that one side of the POV issue has presented pretty strong evidence for their position, and that their main point hasn't been answered - that we're going against BBC, Reuters, AP and a whole host of major news agencies in how we portray the issue, based on the assertion (never actually established) that BBC et al. are at variance with how most reliable sources treat the issue. Every discussion on the matter seems to devolve into claims that this has already been settled, so paradoxically the issue is never actually settled. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:29, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
You're doing it again. Reuters no longer uses the wording you want inserted. I don't believe AP does either. I gave you links to counter your claims. Melanie painstakingly looked at every source and detailed results. We are following the leads of the major RSs in their current reporting. Your edits sound like WP:IDONTHEARYOU. Objective3000 (talk) 21:39, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
You're illustrating precisely my point. Absence of the exact word "alleged" in a news article related to the Russia issue doesn't mean that the given newspaper considers "Russian interference" to be an established fact. I've explained this several times on the talk page, with an example of a CNN article that doesn't contain the word "alleged," but which clearly doesn't contain any implication that the allegations about Russian hacking are true. Yet you, MelanieN and MrX have continued to do the same thing - simply searching for "alleged" in particular articles and then claiming that its absence proves that given news sources treat "Russian interference" as something more than a possibility. That's obviously very frustrating, because it's plainly wrong, and because the problem with that methodology has been pointed out to you multiple times, by myself and others. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:28, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
We do no such thing. We do not draw conclusions. We say what RS say. That's my last statement on the subject as I hate repeating myself. Objective3000 (talk) 22:52, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Edit alerts

On ANI, you said that you'll "...be alerted whenever JohnWilkinson edits...'. Can I ask how? I assume this is more than manually checking his contributions on your own. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 14:47, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

@Jauerback: User:Crazycomputers/WatchlistBot --NeilN talk to me 14:56, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
So much for that vacation, huh ↩️  ;) — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 15:08, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: I love playing with the rugrats but... thank god for nap times. --NeilN talk to me 15:11, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
One of those vacations you then need another one right after to help recover?! Know them... — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 15:14, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
Awesome, thanks. (In my defense, he was answering questions on ANI so I will blame him for my question here; whether I'm right or not). Jauerbackdude?/dude. 15:20, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

JB

Oh jeez, Slawomir is trying to include the Beck section again. (add) Sorry I saw you are on vacation. Subuey (talk) 17:39, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

@Subuey: Let's see if discretionary sanctions alerts will prod editors into following basic policy. Seems like a few of them, who should know better, need to take a step back. --NeilN talk to me 23:32, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
There is disagreement about whether the first sentence of this comment, which was removed and then restored, violates WP:BLP. Cunard (talk) 07:10, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

Hello! Please help in preventing edit wars in the page Who Are You: School 2015. Anonymous editors have been deleting information in the page's reception section (things they find unflattering as they are fans of the show) even though a reliable source was provided which explicitly states that the show did suffer from poor ratings. Thank you for your help! 36.8.61.234 (talk) 15:38, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the article for three days so that the involved editors can discuss on the talk page and try to work it out. If not, then it gives admins more to go on the next time around.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 17:12, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Urgent Intervention

Urgent intervention: On 26 December 2016, Wikipedia's WP:ARCA ratified a new amendment affecting all articles broadly construed with the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, making all newly deleted content subject to consensus before it can be restored. But, as you can see by my edit made on 16 June 2017, where the word "illegal" was deleted (see edit), since it did not apply to settlements around Husan, User:Huldra followed in suit by responding in a questionable manner, (see edit), deleting this time valid content, knowing that she can hardly be held accountable in Palestinian-Israeli related articles after the ratification of the new amendment, although, in actuality, what she did is considered WP:Gaming the system. Another edit that can clearly be construed as "Gaming the system" is that of User:nableezy, whose recent edit on the Wikipedia article, Urif, deliberately caused valid sources to be deleted, those sources which showed that, by one account, no Israeli had set fire to a field, and that it had been set ablaze by somebody else, perhaps even unintentionally. See edit. He deleted what was "balanced" reporting, to make Israelis appear as the sole culprits. What disciplinary measures can be taken against this phenomenon, to assure that we maintain a basis of cordial collaborative editing, and without abusing the system?Davidbena (talk) 19:26, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Since I see I was mentioned in several places, Ill copy and paste the response from one: :You should try writing on the talk page and explaining why you continue to engage in OR and write things in articles that simply do not appear in the sources cited. nableezy - 19:34, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
That is misleading. Anything written by me in the main article has always been backed-up by sources. That is not the problem. The problem is with your Gaming the system.Davidbena (talk) 23:21, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
(talk page gnome) Note: please also see User_talk:Doug_Weller#Urgent_Intervention, User_talk:Zero0000#Urgent_Intervention and User_talk:GoldenRing#Urgent_Intervention. @Davidbena: contacting multiple administrators for the same request may be considered admin shopping (WP:ADMINSHOP). If contacting only one is considered insufficient, it may be better to post on a noticeboard to gather more attention, rather than making multiple individual requests. This can be a general noticeboard related to the topic, or an administrator noticeboard if necessary. In the case of discretionary sanctions enforcement, WP:AE, for instance, but concerned users should also have received an official notice about these discretionary sanctions in the last 12 months (see Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Awareness_and_alerts). NeilN is also currently on vacation, so his reply may be delayed. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate - 22:00, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Okay, I will desist from sending multiple requests to administrators to intervene. As you rightly pointed-out, there are other options.Davidbena (talk) 23:18, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Anyway, I have just learned that the need to gain consensus before restoring a deleted edit has been removed. So, my concerns were unfounded. See Modification.Davidbena (talk) 01:55, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Indefinite self-block

I would like you to indefinitely block my account, and block account creation. I have no intention of returning, and this is definitely what I want. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 13:48, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

FYI, User_talk:Drmies#Self-block. — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 14:06, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Removing unnecessary category

I created this category and then realized it is not needed, there is already a category for this subject called Category:Tangerine Dream soundtracks -- could please delete this category listed in the link below, I tried using the move option but it wouldn't work for me:

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

Thanks! Neptune's Trident (talk) 17:40, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello, User:Neptune's Trident. Neil is on vacation. You could try tagging it with {{Db-c1}} . You might have to wait a week so that it fulfills the criterion of "empty for at least 7 days". --MelanieN (talk) 16:33, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Done, thanks 4 the tip! Neptune's Trident (talk)
@Neptune's Trident:  Done ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 05:41, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! Neptune's Trident (talk) 18:07, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

70.44.233.118 up to their tricks again

On the 19th of March you wrote on User_talk:70.44.233.118 that you were giving them a final warning with regards to "unfounded insinuations" and "pure whinging". (Most of the rest of their contribs since are in the same vein, particularly reiterations of the "only liberals can edit Wikipedia" moan). Can I ask you to take another look, please? Pinkbeast (talk) 10:13, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Big RevDel

Hi Neil, hope you're well. Was looking for a second opinion: this article contained a significant copyvio added here by an IP editor last year. Should I revdel everything from 25 Jan 2016 to present? That's a big revdel that'll produce a wall of strikethroughs. I don't mind doing it, but since it's a biggie, I thought I'd double-check. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:33, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) (Non-administrator comment) Neil is away. @Cyphoidbomb: I would say yes. Diannaa would be able to confirm the appropriate action. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:38, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Shouldn't we retitle this The Big RevDel? Especially since the cat is away, and we can play on his talkpage? Softlavender (talk) 05:42, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Agree that revision deletion is the appropriate action. Note Big RevDels typically have to be completed in two or more batches, as the system can only handle so much in one batch. This one looks like it might go in one batch though. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:42, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
@JJMC89 and Diannaa: Thank you both, and thanks to Softlavender for the levity. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:06, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Just keeping it real, dude. At least until the mouser comes back. Softlavender (talk) 03:10, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

"Consensus required" enforcement

Hi. Could you take a look at this? [16] [17] [18]

This seems to unambiguously violate the "consensus required" general sanctions remedy you placed on that page. I shouldn't handle enforcement myself directly here since this editor has recently voiced displeasure with an admin action of mine - bad optics. ~ Rob13Talk 05:51, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

BU Rob13, Neil is away on vacation, so there is no telling when he will see this. Softlavender (talk) 07:21, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
But, when you do, note that that template should not be removed before there is consensus on the talkpage that the issue has been resolved. Per 3 July 2017, it's not. Erlbaeko (talk) 07:29, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Tags cannot be placed on an article at a whim; if it is an article actively viewed and edited by a number of users there must be a consensus that one is warranted. Tag placement, like article content, is by WP:CONSENSUS. I have just now initiated a discussion to that effect on the article's talk page. Softlavender (talk) 07:41, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
That is not what the Template documentation says. Erlbaeko (talk) 07:49, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Khan Shaykhun chemical attack

I think there may have been a bit of confusion about the extra sanction you left at the above. I brought it up at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Khan Shaykhun chemical attack. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 11:38, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Happy Fourth of July! And a serious note

Hi NeilN,

Sorry for the disruptive editing. I am now self-reverting what I found as potentially disruptive. For example, an edit protected request that has a similar request above it. I will listen to that advice I was given by User:Aiken drum and start editing appropriately. Like I mentioned at the top of my talk page, I undo potentially problematic edits. I should have not mass-created pages redirecting to the main page. I have learned. And I understand blocks are preventative. I did not perform sock-puppetry. This note may seem a little serious, but I have learned.

Now on to the fun stuff! I hope you had a great 4th of July, if you celebrate it, and have a good summer (or winter if you are in the Southern Hemisphere).

--UpsandDowns1234 (🗨) 06:56, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Censoring based on articles being nothing but editorials

Why do people think that editorials and scandal blog opinion sites like gawker and it's million copiers are relevant, neutral or news sources? Those are used as citations on the santacon page ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.207.81.124 (talk) 10:22, 6 July 2017

Administrators' newsletter – July 2017

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

Administrator changes

added Happyme22 • Dragons flight
removed Zad68

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Miscellaneous

  • A newly revamped database report can help identify users who may be eligible to be autopatrolled.
  • A potentially compromised account from 2001–2002 attempted to request resysop. Please practice appropriate account security by using a unique password for Wikipedia, and consider enabling two-factor authentication. Currently around 17% of admins have enabled 2FA, up from 16% in February 2017.
  • Did you know: On 29 June 2017, there were 1,261 administrators on the English Wikipedia – the exact number of administrators as there were ten years ago on 29 June 2007. Since that time, the English Wikipedia has grown from 1.85 million articles to over 5.43 million.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Your userpage

Hey, it says "NeilN is not an administrator or an account creator. Therefore they have been disallowed the use of adminstats." But since you are an admin I assume there may have been some error? Just wanted to let you know in case you already didn't lol. ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ᐁT₳LKᐃ 15:47, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

@El cid, el campeador: there is no error or NeilN's part; rather, it's a bug with Template:Adminstats. See this discussion; this has been going on for a few months now, and NeilN isn't the only admin affected. (talk page stalker) SkyWarrior 15:54, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for the info! Just wanted to make sure he was aware, but it looks like everyone is. ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ᐁT₳LKᐃ 16:02, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Racinated

A mug of freshly poured racinette.

This means a person follows the manners of the race of which she/he does not belong. Ever seen white boys acting like blacks they have been racinated into "Blacks" mannerisms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaggajat (talk • contribs) 19:29, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Jaggajat, many, if not the majority of your contributions here have been POV pushing, unsourced, or BLP violations. You've already been blocked for a week for this. If you continue, the next step would be to seek a long term block. --NeilN talk to me 19:37, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Raisinets are OK, but will no one think of the Goobers? Anmccaff (talk) 21:11, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Back soon

Sailing vacation is almost over (no Internet except in ports!) and home beckons... --NeilN talk to me 19:39, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Admin noticeboard

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. THE DIAZ talk • contribs 18:51, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Notice about undoing protection

A fair while back you semiprotected my user page at my request (at RFPP I think?) and since the RfC on WP:UPROT late last year I think that protection level has become redundant, so I removed your protection just now. Just letting you know for transparency's sake, I guess. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:35, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

OR dispute @ List of countries by median wage

Hi, if someone is taking a legitimate source, but then combining it with four other sources and saying that's the end result, wouldn't that be OR? See the talk on "median wage" Lneal001 (talk)

(talk page watcher) @Lneal001: See WP:SYNTH. Cheers, — fortunavelut luna 16:18, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. Now that I know it is OR, what is the policy with a skeleton page, i.e. one which says there is a list, but which for reasons stated above are not allowed. Can page itself be deleted. Lneal001 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:29, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

DJT

Per this comment of mine, I plan to resume editing that article in November, which seems like a more than ample duration under the circumstances. Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:23, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

It’s November now. I’m not planning any edits, but may feel the urge eventually. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:40, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

174.105.188.178

Good afternoon -- The above IP, fresh off a 3-month block, has returned to exactly the same activities. He has been doing this for literally years, under a series of different IP addresses that all geolocate to the same place (central Ohio). I and others have reached out to his various aliases multiple times -- asking that he at least explain why he persists in making the exact same unsourced edits time after time, despite block after block -- but he refuses to initiate any sort of dialog. I don't know what else to do but refer him back to you. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 20:17, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2017

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

Administrator changes

added Anarchyte • GeneralizationsAreBad • Cullen328 (first RfA to reach WP:300)
removed Cprompt • Rockpocket • Rambo's Revenge • Animum • TexasAndroid • Chuck SMITH • MikeLynch • Crazytales • Ad Orientem

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:12, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Personal Attacks on Russian Interference Talk Page

Hi NeilN, MPants_at_work has been making an escalating series of personal attacks at Talk:Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections#Remove_all_mention_of_wikileaks_from_the_lead. After being admonished by MelanieN, MPants even threw in this little ditty. As you know, this article is under discretionary sanctions. I don't feel that as an editor there, I should have to put up with this sort of abuse, and am requesting some sort of sanction, as you see appropriate, against MPants. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:34, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Thuc, NeilN is on vacation and should not be disturbed. Please take it to AE if you think this is a valid complaint. SPECIFICO talk 23:46, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Thucycides, I was about to say the same. You might try EdJohnston or GoldenRing, they have been active recently in enforcing sanctions. --MelanieN (talk) 23:48, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Well, this really needs to go to a board like AE where there's an open process. Otherwise any sanction will just be appealed and the open discussion will begin with the appeal. SPECIFICO talk 00:06, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Prakash Neupane

Hello NeilN, can you please help me finding who created Prakash Neupane for the first time so I can go with the SPI because user Hermanonline recreated the article which is almost same as the previous version you deleted under A7 and G4 few days back, so I would like to know who is the master so I can fill the SPI. Thank you – GSS (talk|c|em) 10:31, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

User:GSS-1987, Neil is on vacation. Maybe a talk page stalker can get you the information you want. I would if I could, but I don't have access to my tools right now. Or you ask at another page. --MelanieN alt (talk) 16:30, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Create a page

Crest Wikipedia:Inactive users — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1001:B000:B7E6:ED0C:A0B6:A9F8:9335 (talk) 21:29, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Great British Bake Off

Neil, would you have time to do a wee bit of housekeeping? The new season of The Great British Bake Off is about to begin, and we've got a small title issue. Someone set up the article with the correct title: The Great British Bake Off (series 8), then put in a redirect back to the main article. Recently, rather than removing the redirect, someone else built a second article with the title The Great British Bake Off (Series 8) (note the cap). I tried to move #2 to #1, but can't, of course. Would you mind deleting #1 so #2 can be moved? Thanks! ----Dr.Margi ✉ 16:31, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

What's Your Opinion?

Do you think this edit is the handiwork of one of the "(Disney's) Pete is a wolf" vandal's sockpuppets or meat puppets?--Mr Fink (talk) 00:57, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

NeilN is on vacation

Like the sign at the top of the page says. Softlavender (talk) 15:14, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

IP 2600:387:2:803:0:0:0:76

Hi NeilN. You blocked 2600:387:2:803:0:0:0:76 a couple months back for block evasion, etc. I'm not sure it's the same person, but the IP is back being disruptive at User talk:Wildthing61476/Archive 10 , adding non-free images and copy-pasting entire articles into somebody's talk archives. Same person is also probably 2600:387:2:803:0:0:0:90 and 2600:387:2:803:0:0:0:67. I don't know what the IP's fasicnation with RickinBaltimore, but the same content was being copy-pasted into User talk:RickKJr/Archive 2 and User talk:Wildthing61476/Archive 2 by a different IPs as well, and these redirect to subpages of RickinBaltimore as well. Any idea as to what is going on here? -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:36, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't notice you were on vacation. There's no great rush here, and perhaps a talk page watcher will know what's going on. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:38, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
One of my "admirers" apparently. Post a note at AIV about it if you can, I'm not readily able to handle at the moment. RickinBaltimore (talk) 01:55, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
I added a request for page protection at WP:RFP. That's probably the easiest way to stop the disruption for the time being. Also, to the IP(s) claiming to be Favonian, please refer to items 3, 4 and 5 of WP:NOT3RR with respect to 3RR. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:22, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Disruptive editor

The WP editor User talk:Redom115 continues his history of edit warring. This editor was warned several times this year for edit warring and for removing sourced information without an edit summary. His behavior this week in the article "United States" alone is worth an admin's review, as are POV edits in other articles (with gratuitous edit summaries such as "Adding info" and "That is incorrect"). Please let me know how to proceed. Again, I am notifying you because your name appears on the editor's Talk page as having taken action already this year. Thanks for your time and attention. Mason.Jones (talk) 15:19, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Twelve years of editing, today.

Hey, NeilN. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee!
Have a great day! Chris Troutman (talk) 01:04, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Alcohol Justice Page Protection

Protecting Alcohol Justice's article, or taking any other measure to stop criticism from being added to the article, is tantamount to denying that the organization is being criticized at all. The "POV-pushing" bologna being used to justify not allowing criticism into the article is no excuse, since not all the criticism is coming from people connected with David Hanson. You can look at Alcohol Justice's Facebook page and see for yourself that a lot of people are criticism the organization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.79.234.62 (talk) 16:03, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2017

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

Administrator changes

added Nakon • Scott
removed Sverdrup • Thespian • Elockid • James086 • Ffirehorse • Celestianpower • Boing! said Zebedee

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • You will now get a notification when someone tries to log in to your account and fails. If they try from a device that has logged into your account before, you will be notified after five failed attempts. You can also set in your preferences to get an email when someone logs in to your account from a new device or IP address, which may be encouraged for admins and accounts with sensitive permissions.
  • Syntax highlighting is now available as a beta feature (more info). This may assist administrators and template editors when dealing with intricate syntax of high-risk templates and system messages.
  • In your notification preferences, you can now block specific users from pinging you. This functionality will soon be available for Special:EmailUser as well.

Arbitration

  • Applications for CheckUser and Oversight are being accepted by the Arbitration Committee until September 12. Community discussion of the candidates will begin on September 18.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:35, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Another sock of Hoggardhigh

... per pages and pattern: This is the future (talk · contribs). TIA. ATS (talk) 01:31, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Invitation to Admin confidence survey

Hello,

Beginning in September 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Anti-harassment tool team will be conducting a survey to gauge how well tools, training, and information exists to assist English Wikipedia administrators in recognizing and mitigating things like sockpuppetry, vandalism, and harassment.

The survey should only take 5 minutes, and your individual response will not be made public. This survey will be integral for our team to determine how to better support administrators.

To take the survey sign up here and we will send you a link to the form.

We really appreciate your input!

Please let us know if you wish to opt-out of all massmessage mailings from the Anti-harassment tools team.

For the Anti-harassment tools team, SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 19:52, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

Neil, since you participated in the discussion at Talk:Crowdfunding#New spammish text, you might find Wikipedia talk:Rouge admin#Please consider the harm to Wikipedia that this page does. We should delete it to be of interest. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 18:15, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – October 2017

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

Administrator changes

added Boing! said Zebedee • Ansh666 • Ad Orientem
removed Tonywalton • AmiDaniel • Silence • BanyanTree • Magioladitis • Vanamonde93 • Mr.Z-man • Jdavidb • Jakec • Ram-Man • Yelyos • Kurt Shaped Box

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

  • Community consultation on the 2017 candidates for CheckUser and Oversight has concluded. The Arbitration Committee will appoint successful candidates by October 11.
  • A request for comment is open regarding the structure, rules, and procedures of the December 2017 Arbitration Committee election, and how to resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:23, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Yooka-Laylee JonTron Racist

I already posted this on Jd22292's talk page, but I wanna ask you the same question, so I'll repost it here:

I got rid of one word. How is that disruptive? It didn't change the point of the topic or change it in any way, I got rid of the word "racist" because that's a subjective statement and not an objective fact. JonTron made statements on Sargon's stream, he didn't make "racist" statements. Are people gonna read that article and think "Oh no, the word "racist" is removed?! All is lost!"? No, they're not. So again, how is removing one word disruptive? — Preceding unsigned comment added by KillThad (talk • contribs) 02:48, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @KillThad: Please see my Talk page for my reply. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 18:51, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Vacations

Welcome back, —PaleoNeonate – 05:45, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, welcome back. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:49, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

A sock of HughD appears to be back

NeilN, you had removed IP sock edits here [[19]] and here [[20]] (related IP edits, [[21]]). It appears the sock has user name [[22]]. I've filed a SPI [[23]] which was amended by another editor. Can the editor be blocked in the mean time? Thanks. Springee (talk) 01:27, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

@Springee: Handled the SPI. --NeilN talk to me 04:08, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
I am not a Springee, nor do I play one on TV, but I want to say thanks here...and, on the assumption that no good deed goes unpunished, ask a question: is there any straightforward way of rolling back these two's later edits? They were all squarely in areas HD was banned from. Anmccaff (talk) 04:22, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
@Anmccaff: Here's how I handle sock editing (any editor can do the same):
  • Any talk page posts are rolled back if there are no responses. If there are responses, then the sock's posts are either struck out or the section collapsed, depending on which option causes the least disruption for other editors.
  • Vandalism removal, BLP issue fixes, and trivial article improvements are left alone. Anything remotely controversial or touching upon why the master was blocked is reversed. For example, if the master kept pushing Pink Floyd trivia into articles, then adding a Pink Floyd factoid to Rock music in the United Kingdom would be reverted.
--NeilN talk to me 05:12, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Sanjay Dalmia

Hello Sir please check this page and help me to remove those notification I there is massive edition is going on as per notification. Please suggest me what to do.

Regards Bullus 14:57, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Bullus. I've looked at the article and fixed it up a bit. You may want to add more content - one of the sources said he was a MP. Also, please fix your signature. It needs a link back to your user or talk page. --NeilN talk to me 18:23, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank Sir for your help. I will keep in mind and fixed this. Regards Bullus 02:50, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2017

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

Administrator changes

added Longhair • Megalibrarygirl • TonyBallioni • Vanamonde93
removed Allen3 • Eluchil404 • Arthur Rubin • Bencherlite

Technical news

Arbitration

Obituaries

  • The Wikipedia community has recently learned that Allen3 (William Allen Peckham) passed away on December 30, 2016, the same day as JohnCD. Allen began editing in 2005 and became an administrator that same year.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:50, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Nassim Nicholas Taleb

Hello NeilN, I have restored an edit because it violates the community standards described in policies and guidelines, but another user came and reverted my edits without explanation. I asked him why did you reverted it but he ignored the question.--Sarah Canbel (talk) 17:39, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

@Sarah Canbel: I've removed the bit in the infobox as it was not properly sourced and the potential nationality of a subject's ancestors does not belong there. --NeilN talk to me 05:26, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Nnyway, thank you.--Sarah Canbel (talk) 18:29, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Lee Corso

Do you think the extended confirmed protection might be a too much for this? I've put if on my watchlist to revert any possible vandalism also. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 23:56, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi WikiOriginal-9. We have a troll that has literally spent years vandalizing the article. It's had lengthy periods of full protection because the vandal would regularly blow by ECP by making 500 trivial edits. ECP will expire in February but probably will have to be restored soon after. --NeilN talk to me 05:32, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

More abuse by OPNsense

Hi!

I'd like to report continued promotion of non-notable software by user Hagennos. If you recall (and I don't mind if you don't) there is a constant promotion of OPNsense going on for years on Wikipedia. The latest one is by user Hagennos. He or her also has another Wikipedia account Deepsikha.

If you check his contributions you can see the continued abuse and attempt to get new OPNsense page approved (I've skimmed trough his draft, seriously biased and lacking of information).

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=50&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=Hagennos&namespace=&tagfilter=&start=&end=

After inserting OPNsense promotion in many places and also getting his draft rejected, he decides to flag pfSense page as promotional material.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=PfSense&type=revision&diff=809981732&oldid=809881608

Person also left unsigned comment on my talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mr.hmm

Is there any way to prevent this?

Thank you for your help! --Mr.hmm (talk) 19:08, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi

I would like to post a rebuttal to the above accusation from user Mr.hmm. When I started to post content regarding OPNSense which has been compared to other OpenSource firewalls I noticed that the only significant contributions by Mr.hmm (Contributions by Mr .hmmconsisits of removing all references to OPNSense from multiple pages whenever created. The user seems to have a vested interest in removing from Wikipedia all references of competition to PfSense from where OPNSense has been forked. OPNSense is not a non-notable software as it has been included by Sites like TechRadar in their comparison of OpenSource Firewalls Comparison of free Firewalls : Tech Radar where it has been rated higher than PfSense. This should re-inforce my earlier assertion that the objective of the user Mr.hmm seems to be to misuse Wikipedia to remove competing content. The OPNSense page is still under development. On the users second accusation of me flagging PfSense Wiki page as promotional material is due to the following statement in the article (s of 2016 pfSense is described by servethehome.com as the "gold standard" for open source network appliances in its buyer guides) where serverthehome.com is not a very reputable source as most of the posts are from a single user who is the owner of the site Patrick Kennedy. In addition the page of PfSense contains a long list of features of the product which is out of place from a real encyclopedia article. In addition the user Mr.hmm removed the tag from PfSense without any discussions on the talk page which is against the stated procedure to remove tags. I request Wikipedia administrators to review the user account Mr.hmm and ask him to refrain from removing references to OPNSense just because it is perceived competition and there seems to be a conflict of interest with the user regarding OPNSense.

Thank you for your help Hagennos (talk) 20:16, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

This really proves my point. Not only you promote OPNsense but you confirm you want to damage the existing pfSense page. What you flagged as :promotional material is actually an example of notability. ServeTheHome is well respected and popular technology web site with several authors. I have no idea why you claim :there is a single person behind it, here's at least two others:

https://www.servethehome.com/author/arohitkumar/ https://www.servethehome.com/author/cliffrobinson/

It's quite clear that's more than a "single" user. OPNsense Wikipedia abuse has been happening for several years and it has to stop. This is not your personal website.--Mr.hmm (talk) 23:24, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
In addition to my previous comment, here's another proof that Hagennos is malicious. Twitter profile from ServeTheHome has 8,317 followers (at the time of writing), which is many thousands more than OPNsense's own twitter profile. For comparison, pfSense Twitter page has around 13.3k followers. It just proves that ServeTheHome is very notable and respected page. Claiming that it's "not a reputable source" is just falsehood. But even if we use Hagennos logic, if ServeTheHome is not reputable then OPNsense definitely has no place on Wikipedia.
Proof: https://twitter.com/servethehome
Thanks!--Mr.hmm (talk) 23:34, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

This response from Mr.hmm shows that the user has some vested interest or COI in getting references to competing products removed from Wikipedia stating that the product is non-notable. The fact is that both PfSense and OPNSense are derivatives of m0n0wall which was discontinued in 2015 and the developer of m0n0wall in the announcement of discontinuation of the product referenced OPNSense as its potential replacement. End of M0n0wall project.

In addition I would like to bring to this discussion the implicit threat by Mr.hmm to get me banned from Wikipedia on both the user's talk page and mine. If you look at the reverts of the references of OPNSense from Wikipedia it is clear that Mr.hmm is the main user account having an issue with the content and as has already been referenced this has been going on for the past 2 years. Contents posted on the user's talk page is met with hostility instead of having a healthy discussion.

I don't think that Twitter followers can accurately compare PfSense and OPNSense since the former has been in development for more than 13 years and OPNSense has been forked from PfSense only in 2005.
Hagennos (talk) 01:07, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Using reverse psychology only proves you are malicious. I refuted your claims that ServeTheHome is not reputable source and that it's ran by a single person. Personal attacks really do not do you any good. It's not the first time OPNsense sock accounts were removed from Wikipedia.--Mr.hmm (talk) 01:28, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

I never claimed that ServerTheHome is run by a single person, but Most of the articles at the site was written by a single person. if you look at the statistics of the site and the users that Mr.hmm quotes

https://www.servethehome.com/author/arohitkumar/ has 15 posts in the site

https://www.servethehome.com/author/cliffrobinson/ has 75 posts

Patrick Kennedy has more than 1300 posts and lists himself as the owner of the site.

Claiming accounts as sock does not make them so. Wikipedia administrators should be able to verify it. I have never indulged in personal attacks but stated that Mr.hmm seems to have a COI as his primary contributions are to remove posts related to a competing product to the one he appears to promote / defend.

Hope the Adminstrator's can see a pattern here as Mr.hmm states that he has been removing content and getting users blocked whenever OPNSense has been mentioned.

Hagennos (talk) 02:48, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

The only pattern that's visible is continuous abuse and manipulation by OPNsense promoters like you. What's visible is that you're attempting to discredit reputable website after your OPNsense propaganda was blocked. I will not engage further in argument with you as it's pointless and out of respect to NeilN. I am pretty sure you weren't supposed to be arguing on his talk page at all. --Mr.hmm (talk) 11:18, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I had a question. I have noticed that a Italian user has uploaded photos of an artists paintings on commons (here and here) using the {{self|cc-by-sa-4.0}} license listing them as his "own work". I have the following questions

  1. I have tagged both the files using {{Disputed}}
  2. I have tried (probably not so correctly) to inform the user using Twinkle. What's the right way to do this?
  3. Is my advice to the user accurate (even if not in the right format)?

Thanks in advance. -MayureshK 18:19, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi MayureshK. Your general thrust is correct but the policy link you gave goes to a non-existent page. To be extra helpful, point the editor to an image that has the correct licensing. Example: File:Matteo Olivero Straße in Kairo.jpg --NeilN talk to me 05:54, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
I have amended my message to the use accordingly. Thanks for the prompt response. -MayureshK 10:13, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Question regarding accusations from another user

Dear NeilN, I found your name here, and a link called "talk to me". I hope this edit is alright with you.

Jimthing claims I have violated something to do with WP:DRNC. I don't get it. What is wrong with wanting to make sure a claim has reliables sources? I tried to do this WP:BRD thing, and discuss it, but Jimthing just kept adding back his/her changes, and accused me of purposefully "*misinterpreting* facts to suit [myself]" (among other things). Please see Talk:High_Efficiency_Image_File_Format#Pronunciation_of_acronym. Can someone please explain what I did wrong, if anything? I don't like being accused of stuff, for no apparent reason. 2A03:1B20:2:F702:0:0:0:2DE (talk) 17:27, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

There were no accusations, just you using straw man arguments continually to make out something happened, which obviously hasn't – both in the conversational points I said to you on the talk page, along with what the actual subject matter that is in the citations. The WP:DRNC is an essay, trying to explain to you how your argumentative and aggressive determination to be right, despite what anyone else says in clearly thought out and reasoned explanations put to you, is entirely unhelpful and is essentially a complete waste of time. You know this full well, of course, so why are you now wasting yet another longtime WP users' time, in complaining about things you are choosing not to accept out of spite. As if we don't have enough to deal with. Jimthing (talk) 18:57, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
What "straw man arguments" have I made? Please specify. 2A03:1B20:2:F702:0:0:0:2DE (talk) 19:35, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Note to NeilN, they've been reported now at WP:AN/3. Thanks. Jimthing (talk) 20:22, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Continued on the talk page. --NeilN talk to me 02:59, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Obvious sockpuppetry is obvious

Hi NeilN. Is it possible to check this ip[24]? Or his range? The ip is making questionable edits, giving unconsistent and dubious answers and his location and ISP are totally the same with a banned long term COI sockmaster. Take a look at this[25] He also claimed that he abandoned his account since 2015 but all his questions are about "accounts" (e-mails, ips that logging with accounts, etc.). "I don't use my account because i am shy" is also a very nonsense reason, i think. There are also other inconsistencies and i have mentioned them on the page. It seems that there is an obvious sock putting out feelers on wiki talk pages. Please have a look. Thank you. 115.74.205.174 (talk) 12:06, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Looking at the /18 range I don't see any particularly objectionable edits but I don't see anything productive either. Several editors including an admin are participating in the help desk thread. It should be indicated to the IP that they need to start contributing productively soon instead of making statements like "And If I wanted to hack Wikipedia, which I can't do without hacking skills, I would do it right now." --NeilN talk to me 15:47, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. Could you clue me some of the edits by this range, so i can file a SPI case. Were their edits on archeology and archeological cultures, races, cultures, ethnic groups, Central Asia, East Europe, etc.? By the way, did you read all the comments under the section on help desk? Thank you. 171.240.69.78 (talk) 15:56, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
This will give you a list of contribs of the /17 range. You'll have to point out the block evasion or a violation of WP:SCRUTINY if you want a SPI case to be acted on. --NeilN talk to me 22:20, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Saqib

He's been causing trouble with Miyagawa's entry too and nominated a perfectly valid article for AFD....♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:53, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Seriously @Dr. Blofeld:? Have you seen my correspondence with Miyagawa on his talk page? I have concerns about this BLP, but I am not in anyway causing trouble. --Saqib (talk) 14:56, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

[26] that was disruptive as well, though I agree a lot of the sources don't look reliable. I've tagged it, better that than an unsourced BLP.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:56, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Saqib There's some truly horrific Pakistan articles on here, a lot of them are among the worst on the site. Why not focus on improving those not ones which are actually sourced and not as bad as the real tripe?♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:58, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

@Dr. Blofeld: I am failed to understand why would you reinstate the unreliable sources on a BLP (Ghana Ali). And BTW since when removing unreliable sources from a BLP has became "disruptive" thing? Would you mind explaining? Concerning poor Pakistani BLP's, I am very well informed about them and try my best to fix them whenever time allows me. Just to let you know I was recently able to bring at least two high trafficked Pakistani BLP's up to GA status – Shahid Khaqan Abbasi and Ishaq Dar. Cheers! --Saqib (talk) 15:16, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
You removed sources. I added a tag to look for better sources, but sourced is better than unsourced. RS or not.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:19, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
@Dr. Blofeld: I removed obvious unreliable sources and I was not aware of policy which states that unreliable sources can not be removed. WP:RDD says "Don't cite unreliable sources." And in fact the Unreliable sources tag that you've placed on the BLP itself says "Unreliable citations may be challenged or deleted". @Niel: would you be able to give your 2¢ in this regards. --Saqib (talk) 15:28, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
@Dr. Blofeld and Saqib: Using unreliable sources is often worse than being unsourced, especially in a BLP, as many readers will assume the info is cited properly and the source is "Wikipedia-approved". If the info is contentious (and many things in a BLP can be regarded as contentious) or trivial, remove it, otherwise consider placing a {{unreliable source?}} tag beside the cite. --NeilN talk to me 16:20, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for input Niel. Since BLP Ghana Ali contains several unreliable sources due to which placing inline tags wouldn't be feasible thus I am reverting the edits of @Dr. Blofeld: and removed the unreliable sources. --Saqib (talk) 16:24, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
@Saqib: Why isn't feasible to place inline tags? It's more effort than simply reverting but if you really want to work towards improving the article, spend the extra couple minutes. --NeilN talk to me 16:52, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

It may often be worse Neil but in this case it looks as if the same material largely exists regardless. The whole article looks like it should be nuked and rewritten from scratch with proper sources, why not do that Saqib instead of loeaving unsourced material and ugly tags? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:41, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

@Saqib: You really need to start respecting other people's work, opinion and efforts. If you don't have the courtesy to add to the article, stop destroying it by removing all the sources and tagging it disgustingly. You have made this more of a war of pride than to actually try and help and encourage new writers/ contributors. Maybe take sometime off and reflect at your attitude. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aqsatahir (talk • contribs) 17:40, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
@Neil: As far I am aware inline cleanup tags are intended for minimal usage on pages but if an entire article has issues rather than just few passages, then it is more appropriate to tag on the top. I hope I am not wrong. @Dr. Blofeld: I have plans to work on this BLP and I hope to finish it by later today so no worries.
@Aqsatahir: You better avoid COI. Your edit history clearly tells that you're here to edit Wikipedia in the interests of your relationships or connections. --Saqib (talk) 05:50, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

@Saqib, Dr. Blofeld, Derek R Bullamore, and Störm: Hi all! Can anyone please clarify me what is the reason of reverting my edits on Ghana Ali? I wasn't aware if there was her BLP on wiki, until someone linked her on Rangreza. Thanks! M. Billoo 16:57, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

@M.Billoo2000: I have reinstated the article back to your version. I somehow failed to notice your edits. Please go ahead and fix this bio. --Saqib (talk) 05:49, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

That mass RevDel on John Currie (athletic director)...

My edits (reverting to the last clean version) were in your group of Revision Deletes, though looking at that in my history makes it look like I vandalized something. Can you fix please? All edits of 5,778 bytes are clean. Gatemansgc (talk) 00:35, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

@Gatemansgc: The problem edits were happening so fast that reverts were missing some of them. I've restored your reverts. --NeilN talk to me 00:45, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for the fix! I'm just wondering why these streams of vandalism are happening? Did something major happen in college football? Gatemansgc (talk) 00:51, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
@Gatemansgc: I'm thinking this. --NeilN talk to me 01:00, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Well, that makes sense, then. I've also noticed quite a bit of stadium-hate. Those are probably just boredom, though. Gatemansgc (talk) 01:31, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Laughing

[27] (scroll all the way down). So tempted to claim that last section... --NeilN talk to me 05:18, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Ayumu Matsuo RPP

Hi NeilN. Regarding this RPP, there's not only been no IP edits to the article, there's also been no vandalism. Honyarism is "new" editor who has been trying to add content to Ayumu Matsuo, but unfortunately the content has problems; therefore, it has been removed/moved to the talk page for further discussion. The editor also has uploaded a copyvio to Commons to try and use in the article, but that has been removed as well. I'm assuming these are just good faith mistakes and have tried to discuss them on the article's talk as well as the editor's user talk (apparently what I posted is considered a "personal attack message"), but so far no response. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:56, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Marchjuly. The request for protection may have been a request to lock down a preferred version of the article. Hopefully they'll learn quickly that's not the way we do things here. --NeilN talk to me 23:40, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
I assumed that was the reason the request was made. Anyway, no harm no foul. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:13, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Your protection of vandalised Tucupita Municipality

You protected Tucupita Municipality in a vandalised state. This is a formal request to unprotect. 78.51.212.48 (talk) 13:15, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

No. Please discuss your desired changes civilly on the article's talk page and work towards consensus. --NeilN talk to me 13:49, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Wikilaj back at it again

Notifying you since you filed an ANI report on him in March this year. I've given him a 4IM warning; should I be taking any further action at this point? Thanks, Patient Zerotalk 14:12, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

@Patient Zero: Blocked the IP before I saw this. I didn't file the ANI report, just notified them of it. If further disruption occurs at the article from IPs/new editors I will semi again. --NeilN talk to me 14:31, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
@Patient Zero: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wikilaj --NeilN talk to me 18:13, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
My apologies - I just saw your notification on Wikilaj's talk page and mistakenly made that conclusion. Thanks for your help - it is very much appreciated! Patient Zerotalk 08:51, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Deleting whatever you like for no valid reason?

Again, you are wrong. The site you are accusing me of stealing copyrighted material from and also promoting (wierd mix) mentions Attribution CC BY-SA 3.0, so I had to mention the source for the text I used. Also, I see nothing wrong with adding such a link, or why this was seen as promotion or advertising, as you still haven't provided a valid reason. The Marketing page has references to other similar websites of schools such as http://www.cim.co.uk/resources/understandingmarket/definitionmkting.aspx

How can I report an editor abusing it's permissions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.76.167.0 (talk) 17:20, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

I apologize for missing the CC-BY-SA note - it was obscured by the cookie message. However I still believe this is WP:REFSPAM. Comparing a SEO Online Marketing school to a >100 year old institute with a Royal Charter seems kind of a mismatch. --NeilN talk to me 17:30, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
That was only one example of a school, you can find others also on the same page, like https://www.masterstudies.com/MSc/Marketing/ (from 2002). Still you're refering to London Marketing Academy, a school with thousands of students in over a hundred countries as a SEO Online Marketing school. Sounds like a personal opinion not a real reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.76.167.0 (talk) 17:44, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
If you find other instances of refspam, you are welcome to remove them. And my description is based on the course listing: SEO Course, AdWords Course, Analytics Course, E-mail Marketing Course... --NeilN talk to me 17:48, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
The discussion provided no valid reason for the deletion, just unfounded accusations and personal opinions on what website can or can't be used as reference. I have opened a discussion in the Administrators' noticeboard concercning your editor activity.

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Deletions without valid reasons. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:22, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, replied there. --NeilN talk to me 19:09, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Archive 35←Archive 37Archive 38Archive 39Archive 40Archive 41→Archive 45
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:NeilN/Archive_39&oldid=1142523869"