User talk:Sro23/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Sro23. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

J. Walter Thompson

I've added to the list of SPAs that have been active on this article. See the talk page. I didn't bother checking IPs. Meters (talk) 16:33, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

JWTWorlwide has been blocked now, so we have the option of starting an SPI later. Meters (talk) 17:13, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Wow, that's a lot of accounts. Maybe SPI would be appropriate in case there are more. Sro23 (talk) 17:28, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Spain national basketball team

I am guessing you are a fan of the Spain national basketball team :-). Sorry but according to Fiba.com, Diop is off the team. According to ESPN.com, Spain's ABC, and others, M. Gasol hasn't recovered from his injury and can't play. Don't worry, I think Spain can still be competitive against the US :-). Worldviews2016 (talk) 16:44, 21 July 2016 (UTC)Worldviews2016

I'm actually not really a fan, but I just noticed this edit instated some vandalism, but I can understand if it was unintentional. Sro23 (talk) 17:28, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

User talk page move protection

I've move protected your user talk page so only admins can move it. I can undo it or lower the protection to confirmed users if you want, but I don't really see why it's not the default (seeing how the only time we have to move it is when an admin renames an account). Ian.thomson (talk) 21:50, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that Ian.thomson. The attacks on Sro23 are really out of line. S I would recommend leaving it. Today's move came by an editor who made just enough nonsense edits to become confirmed before messing with your page. I do admire you putting up with this so stoically. Many Many Many thanks for your work here at WikiP. MarnetteD|Talk 21:54, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Articles I created

I think vandal fighters and primarily content contributors are both needed. I'm more interested in reverting vandalism because I think I'm good at it and because I like maintaining quality. I don't believe this makes me less valuable of a user. Some people think I don't contribute enough, like this is some sort of contest to see who can contribute the most? Well here is proof this is false, so no more whining about how I don't create enough articles! In fact I've created/started several, mostly biographies of living people. Maybe they're not the best written, but that's still content from ME. Sro23 (talk) 17:46, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Honestly, article creation is becoming a less reasonable measure as time goes on. Ten years ago? Yeah, we needed articles. But outside of attempting to fix systemic bias, we're getting to a point where most new good-faith article attempts need to be wary of WP:NOTNEWS or WP:GNG; or else require doctorate-level research skills (and tools). We've also got a few users (no names) who act as though making articles when we barely had any to excuse their rather flagrant violations of WP:DICK.

If we're going to be the inclusive community we pretend to be, we do need to start emphasizing stuff like fighting vandalism, resolving disputes, gnome-ish edits, and so forth. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:22, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

The articles get more obscure, but we'll always need articles, if only because the newly notable people worldwide each year is a very large number. If y'all ever need articles to create, I have a literal encyclopedia of sports statistics from Canadian football where every single entry to notable as per WP:NGRIDIRON and there's enough information there to at least create a stub. I've gotten GA credits out of that book, though. Having said that, your work is obviously extraordinarily valuable to the project, Sro, and you shouldn't let the vandals who say otherwise get to you. I've known you for a couple weeks and you've already become my go-to when I need to identify a sock. The only reason you'd ever "need" to create substantial content would be to go for adminship, which I certainly hope you'll eventually do once you're ready. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 19:02, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your support, that's not something I can really see myself doing. I just want to say I really appreciate all the work you've already accomplished in the short time you've been admin. Sro23 (talk) 19:36, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Sock-puppet of JovanAndreano

Dear Sro23, I noticed that the user user:JovanAndreano, has returned making making all kinds of edits like 1, 2 and 3. He makes the same kind of edits like JovanAndreano and he removes or inserts information without explanation. The users are user:105.156.236.182, user:105.156.233.41. Just a few minutes the user user:196.206.65.201 reverted 30+ edits in less than 10 minutes. Thank you. Alhaqiha (talk) 19:21, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes the IPs certainly seem to be JovanAndreano. I'm not sure what else to do other than report them at the SPI or request pages be protected. I'm sorry this is happening. Sro23 (talk) 19:36, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Thanks especially for catching that vandalism on my page! Cheers! Pax Verbum 03:28, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Eshumaitreyus

I notice that you added a 3RR warning to User talk:Eshumaitreyus. Just in case you didn't see it, because he removed it, I had already warned Eshumaitreyus about edit-warring.[1] He is skating on very thin ice. --AussieLegend (✉) 20:59, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

And then they made a bad faith vandalism report against me, not to mention that long incoherent rant they made on the talk page in addition to their overall combative attitude. Sro23 (talk) 21:17, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

There is something very fishing gone on here, re: User:Asukadamooka and User:Eshumaitreyus – if this keeps up, I'd suggest an SPI or contacting Bbb23 directly. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:36, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

And already done by NeilN: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Eshumaitreyus. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:05, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

[2] _Muffled ^Pocketed 05:19, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

That hurt to read... Sro23 (talk) 11:15, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

My brain exploded before I got to the end. Well before. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:45, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

See NeilN's somewhat caustic response ;) 11:50, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Homeboy accounts

I just checked on Meta and all of the Homeboy accounts have been globally locked so they can't be used, so no block is probably needed anymore. here. :) Feinoha ^Talk 22:40, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

NYC Police vandal

Do you know if this IP editor has had an account that he's currently blocked under? See here. Thanks! ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 04:46, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Not that I know of. Sro23 (talk) 11:15, 24 July 2016 (UTC) Actually, this account does appear to be related, but it is not blocked and has never even been warned. Sro23 (talk) 02:26, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

AN (about the Sipilä article)

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Jeppiz (talk) 19:10, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Seth MacFarlane awards

Why do you keep reverting edits on Seth MacFarlane awards page. The lead section is fine and explains the overall summary of the awards page. Every awards is listed in alphabetical order. The page is in its proper format. You keep reverting it back to where the page has issues. 107.77.230.94 (talk) 20:53, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Because you're a blocked disruptive sockpuppet that's why Sro23 (talk) 02:26, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Quarterback

Punted this one to RPP. I'm hoping the admin will jsut block all the IPs as obvious socks to avoid a messy SPI. Meters (talk) 20:54, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Reply

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

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.Foleo (talk) 02:33, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

I've blocked Foleo for 72 hours. It's rather rich they're plastering warnings all over the place without taking part in the talk page discussion. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:40, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

BANREVERT

Regarding your comment/question here, I recommend letting the revert stand as an "object lesson". We need to be creative in trying to redirect this vandal. - Brianhe (talk) 04:32, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Why did you remove section from Plastic Welding Page?

Why did you remove section from Plastic Welding Page? What makes you an expert on this?

I will report both you and Mean as custard to wikapedia for trying to monopolize the page. There are links to websites on this page and we are manufacturers of Laser Welding machines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmitryp123 (talk • contribs) 16:53, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Italian

It is the closest language to Latin. Few months ago an IP changed it and nobody spoke.--93.36.3.110 (talk) 18:40, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

You mean this? Why is it unreliable? Sro23 (talk) 18:45, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Castle of Óbidos

Hi How was it a cut and paste move? Pyrusca (talk) 19:15, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Castle of Óbidos is a duplicate of the older article, Castelo de Óbidos. I'm not sure how this mix up happened, but for now I've redirected the newer article to the older one so that there are not two articles about the same subject. Sro23 (talk) 19:20, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't actually understand the intent of the page move to the Portuguese naming convention? Age of the article should not mean anything in this case. The older article should have been moved to "Castle of Óbidos", just like the recent move to "Castelo de Mértola" from "Castle of Mertola". The English convention should predominate in this case, as there are sources that refer to the English naming convention. Please revert Castle of Óbidos as the valid article, there is no justification for reverting the name to the Portuguese.^{ruben jc}ZEORYMER (talk) 20:19, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm just discovering this now, apparently a user created a bunch of duplicate Portuguese Castle articles instead of simply expanding on the existing articles and moving the pages to the English title (Castle of Mertola is a duplicate of Castelo de Mértola, Castle of Belmonte is duplicate of Castelo de Belmonte, there's more...I have undone my changes but right now I'm SO confused, it feels wrong. Sro23 (talk) 20:58, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Yup, I discovered that ages ago...and have been slowly expanding articles, then moving them to their acceptable English naming convention. A recent user, who may have perpetuated these errors was later determined to be a sockpuppeteer and suspended accordingly. Regardless, I appreciate you reverting the article redirects. I will try to cleanup the content accordingly, after my zip through "Lighthouses of Portugal". Cheers. ^{ruben jc}ZEORYMER (talk) 16:24, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Gumtala

Please do not continue editwarring at Gumtala. It would be best to familiarise yourself with the WP:3RR (three revert rule), because violation of this policy could lead to a block. What you are removing is not vandalism. Creektiming (talk) 18:33, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I know about the rule. The content I'm removing is an unsourced statement that is repeatedly being reinserted by a blocked user (User:Cebr1979), which exempts me from 3rr. Sro23 (talk) 18:38, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

@Sro23. If we are dealing with a banned user then that puts a different light on things. Your best bet is to open a SPI with links to the accounts being suspected. Without this, you, I, and all others are obliged to follow the general rules. Creektiming (talk) 18:42, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

My article of Faris Al-Rawi

Why did you undo my revision. If you had checked ALL my sources and not simply assume it was unreliable you would have realized that my information is actually RELIABLE! Pnmforlife (talk) 23:28, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

FYI

FYI, I reported Colinmiller13 to AIV a bit ago. User was blocked recently for the same behavior. EvergreenFir (talk) 01:58, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I think it's worrying how all the user's edits appear to be unexplained date changes. Sro23 (talk) 02:06, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello, there

Hi, Could you please stop editing my article? The article you are talking about is a stub, I have added more info to my article. If you want you can export the missing info to make and complete one single article. I would appreciate your respect to my research. Syntaktis (talk) 21:59, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

@Syntaktis: Please see WP:OWN. You do not own the article, and since the article already exists on Wikipedia, a new article doesn't belong. Instead, introduce your edits at Rodrigo Semprun. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 22:04, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: Hi, I KNOW I don't own the article, with the term "my article" I meant that I wrote the article that Sro23 was redericting to a "shorter one" (stub) and well it's ok, I will export the missing info. Thanks guys. Syntaktis (talk) 22:15, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Please Sro23

Sro23 please stop making a personal attack and accusation at me, yes my actions were Homechallenge were not the correct way to make a compromise and that's on me, but all I was doing was making changes on the Michelle Ruff page.--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 04:39, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank You for Editing the List of Columbia Pictures Page

Thank You for Editing the List of Columbia Pictures Page, can you also add the movies "The King's Crown", "Romeo and Juliet", and "The Culver City Story" on the List of TriStar Pictures Page. Arik069 (talk) 3:47 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Porn vandal

Please ping me when you find them again; I'm adding the images to the bad images list and blocking quickly. Investigating potential range blocks. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 03:06, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Okay. Sro23 (talk) 03:07, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

He's range blocked for a week and I think I revision deleted everything objectionable. If they pop up, let me know, but they should be gone for now. Thanks for your help in reverting them. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 03:34, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Battle of Sirte

I moved it per Wikipedia common name, since there was already a disambiguation page with the correct name, the standard move page procedure cannot be used.XavierGreen (talk) 15:56, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry but cut and paste moves are not allowed. You can however request a move at WP:RM. Sro23 (talk) 15:58, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Whisper2Me

Hi!

"Whisper2Me" is not me. (pun not intended) WhisperToMe (talk) 16:28, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Impersonator then? I guess it could be a coincidence, but I do think the name is too similar. Sro23 (talk) 16:42, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

See what the further edits are like. It may be a total coincidence. Only if say the person is trying to actually impersonate me would I take action. WhisperToMe (talk) 16:49, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Sock puppet

Good call identifying Electivo000 as a sockpuppet. He clearly fits the pattern. —C.Fred (talk) 03:33, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Actually, it was Fountains of Bryn Mawr who first made the connection. I simply saw the sockpuppet investigation page. Sro23 (talk) 11:55, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Untitled

Thank you for your work. How long will it take for Wikipedia to remove that page about me (Constantia Oomen)? I would prefer for it to be gone soon, as it has spread over the internet without ever being updated and it's so old. If I would write books about these subjects again, they would be different. Now this article about me appears on many other pages with photos of mine that are taken from my website without permission, like "america.pink". I have written them numerous times: no reply. Very rude. Hope by removal of this Wikipedia page, I will be "less interesting" to copy.

Best regards, ThroughTheWindow (talk) 03:51, 2 August 2016 (UTC)Constantia Oomen

At this point the article will surely be deleted, but I honestly have no idea how long it will take for the discussion to close. Probably not too long. Sro23 (talk) 11:55, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Apparently not; Just closed as No consensus. _Muffled ^Pocketed 12:33, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Actually, there's a second nomination currently open. Sro23 (talk) 12:35, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

@Sro23: Cheers! -I must've been on drugs :o -saying had 'just' been closed when actually it was four years ago! D'OH. _Muffled ^Pocketed 11:41, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Sirte edit warring

First, this is Wikipedia policy on Common names (common name is Battle of Sirte). Second, the ORIGINAL article name was Battle of Sirte (2016) and THAT move to offensive was undiscused (contrary to Wiki policy) without a move request. So both me and Xavier are canceling an editor's unilateral move to offensive who did not make a move request (that you are talking about constantly). Third, you just made four reverts (more than 3) in less than 24 hours on a single article page violating Wikipedia's rule on WP:3RR which can get you blocked. If you do not cancel your last edit I will have to report you. EkoGraf (talk) 15:40, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Please read WP:CUTPASTE. You weren't cancelling any move, you were doing a cut-and-paste move. Under no circumstances are these moves allowed, because they split the page history, which is required for attribution and copyright reasons. Since more than one person has become upset by this, I have requested a move at WP:RMT. Sro23 (talk) 16:04, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

For the third time, the original article's name WAS Battle of Sirte which was changed without a move request a few weeks ago by another editor. XavierGreen's first edit was not a copy-paste but an appropriate redirect which you reverted. And again, you violated 3RR by making 4 reverts (1 more than is allowed per WP policy) and per Wikipedia's policy an administrator can very easily decide to block you because of this. You are obligated to discuss the issues at the talk pages instead of engage in edit warring. EkoGraf (talk) 16:26, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

The pages history here and here prove that it was a cut and paste move. I ask for your patience, as I have requested an uncontroversial move here:[3], so it shouldn't take too long for the article to be moved to the proper title. Sro23 (talk) 16:32, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Sro23 is right, the page needs to be moved properly. An admin can revert the undiscussed move, but copy-pasting the content is not sufficient. clpo13_(talk) 16:33, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Anyway, I said what I had. Battle of Sirte (2016) was the original article name and its move to offensive (a few weeks ago) was undiscussed. Xavier's first edit was a proper redirect (not a copy-paste) and you canceled it. And again, 3RR is something that shouldn't be taken lightly. EkoGraf (talk) 16:47, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Do you mean this? No, that's still a cut and paste move.

I truly believed that undoing cut and paste moves exempted me from 3rr (#5), but if this is false, my sincerest apologies for the disruption. I promise it won't happen again. I will try not to edit war, but please, I also encourage you to respect policy on cut and paste moves: instead you need to request moves when undiscussed complicated page moves are made that can't be undone by regular users. Sro23 (talk) 17:09, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

IPS

Hi!I went to the IPS investigation of JovanAndreano, but I saw that the investigation was closed.Alhaqiha (talk) 18:07, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

If you want to open a sockpuppet investigation, you can use Wikipedia:Twinkle, or go to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations, where it says "How to open an investigation", enter JovanAndreano's name, hit submit and then follow the instructions from there. Sro23 (talk) 18:10, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Syntaktis

*Sigh*... They're still removing the protection & deletion templates from the page. Also just a heads up, they reported you at WP:AIV... :-/ ElysianTail (talk) 18:14, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that. I've been reported there in bad faith before and nothing happened, I'm not too worried. Sro23 (talk) 18:16, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm sure, just didn't know if you saw it or not... Cheers! ElysianTail (talk) 18:17, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

The AIV reports (both) were removed and the page was deleted by two admins. Tony Tan · talk 18:19, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Typo fix on a talk page

Hello, i want to understand there were typo on blocked message added by other user. I know i should not edit other's talk message. But in the message, it says "indefinete" rather than "Indefinite, so i corrected the typo. Does the policy against editing others talk message also apply to this reason? Stylez995 (talk) 14:34, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

WP:TPO states "It is not necessary to bring talk pages to publishing standards, so there is no need to correct typing/spelling errors, grammar, etc. It may irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. The basic rule—with some specific exceptions outlined below—is that you should not edit or delete the comments of other editors without their permission." Sro23 (talk) 14:36, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

OK, thank you. I should remember that. :) Stylez995 (talk) 14:38, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Sro23

So you are a Germany hating person ? But all that edits are still correct and true, which i do. Ma34rsta (talk) 18:40, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

GAB^gab 21:39, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

A good laugh

I can't get enough of this guy! GAB^gab 20:19, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

I didn't even get to this one in time, but he still remembered me. Bless. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:13, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

About SPI edit

Thanks for telling me. I won't tag the trolls as you told me. This should keep those clowns away. ThunderFan109 ^{(Thunder Up!)} 21:36, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Whack-a-Mole Winner

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For sharp-eyed vandal reversion in music articles, especially the very annoying hoaxer known as the Kenny Loggins vandal. Many thanks! Binksternet (talk) 23:09, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Maile Flanagan

Excuse me, but why would you revert and remove my edit 11 days later if both Astro Boy and Naruto are Anime hence the reason as to why English version was put in?--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 01:58, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Because it is already implied every role is in English, as with other articles. Sro23 (talk) 02:04, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Yeah but some actors (mainly celebrities) and certain voice actors (mainly the ones that do Pre-lay animation like Tara Strong, Jim Cummings, etc..) don't often appear in anime voice over work, and Maile is one of them.--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 16:38, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Incorrigible Troll's SPI

You really need to see the new sock's username. Ayub407^talk 06:32, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Begusarai Edits

Hi Sro23,

The page that has been put up is up to date with all the latest facts. It is not an old page. A lot of the stuff used in the page is pure hard facts which have come from the old page. There are many differences. If you have any problems with the facts please let us know. Just reverting arbitrarily does not make sense. I assert again that the page you see is an updated version and not an old page. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yeasayer (talk • contribs) 14:13, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

No, with this edit (I assume it was you) you reverted back to a May 2016 version of the article. You need to clearly explain what exactly is incorrect about the newer version so we can fix it instead of reverting to an older version. Please stop edit warring, you don't WP:OWN the article, others are free to edit it. Sro23 (talk) 14:24, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Sro23, I have not reverted to that page. Please notice that everything now reads 'was' instead of is. The ending date of the show has been put in and so has the Ending sequence of the show. The page looks similar because I have picked up passages from the old page. Please also notice that the name of the company Saregama productions which was the original contract holder from &TV for this production has been added. Trust me brother, I am just trying to present the facts without any Ego. The only difference between us is that I was actually involved with the show and know everything about. NOT trying to be smart or offensive please, in case it comes off as that I am deeply apologetic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yeasayer (talk • contribs) 14:45, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

This page is about trusted web. It is not a spam or promotion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by E.Macro (talk • contribs) 16:28, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Concerning the Latest Vandal on "The Good Dinosaur"

Given the vandal's insistence on mentioning me, it sounds like a sockpuppet of Dinosaurpainting (talk · contribs), a sockpuppeteer who makes a habit of giving me grief when it remembers to do so.--Mr Fink (talk) 04:12, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

I see. Vandals who stalk, harass and keep coming back are the least fun to deal with. Sro23 (talk) 13:09, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Especially the ones who make half-assed attempts to impersonate while doing so.--Mr Fink (talk) 13:32, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

why are you reporting me as a :Sockpuppet whan I am not?

why?

--Iniced (talk) 13:02, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

If you truly haven't socked then you should have nothing to worry about. I just have my suspicions as mentioned on the report. As I said before, If I'm wrong then I apologize and hope we can forget this. Sro23 (talk) 13:09, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

My userpage

Dear Sro23,

Thankyou for reverting the vandal who edited my userpage on the 8th of August. However, the vandal's username and edit summary have both been suppressed as offensive material in the page history. Do you remember what the username of this vandal was? I would like to know as I am very hard to offend and it might help me determine which sockpuppeteers are still active.

Thanks, Passengerpigeon (talk) 05:03, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

See here Sro23 (talk) 11:27, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	I know you defended my userpage aganist vandalism, So thank you for it! * Sro23 and KGirlTrucker81 gives a hug.* KGirlTrucker81^{talk what I'm been doing} 21:48, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

SPI

Hi Sro23! Thank you for the message! I have taken a look at the new investigation, but sadly enough it is closed again.Alhaqiha (talk) 09:49, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Polish Clans

Hello! :) Please communicate before You undo what I did. Reason for that is consensus reached in matter of the art. Heraldic family - see talk page. We need to clean up and sort out. Redirecting to "Heraldic family" that will be renamed to "Heraldic clan" is necessary and all agree. Art. "Polish clans" will be separate art. Before its done, we will redirect it to "Polish heraldry" since there will be info on that issue there - and we just started work to imporve the art, adding citation, changing errors and so on. Thank You for reading and understanding! camdan (talk) 20:30, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I'm having trouble understanding what you mean. The requested move (which you proposed) hasn't been closed yet. Is just leaving the page blank the standard thing were supposed to do even while these debates are still in progress? I guess I don't see the harm in leaving the redirect on Polish clans for the moment. Just seems odd to me. Sro23 (talk) 19:08, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, I think consensus is reached, facts presented and therefore i removed it. I will redirect to "Polish heraldry". Polish clans have little to do with "Heraldic clan" - its completely different topics.camdan (talk) 21:14, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Leuchter Report

I've taken this to RPP. The two IPs are clearly the same editor, both geolocate to Scotland, and the new account seems to be making the same complaint. I'm not bothering to remove the PROD, someone else will. Doug Weller talk 20:32, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

And it's protected and the PROD reverted. That was fast. Doug Weller talk 20:33, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: I did, seems like too harsh of a reason. On a quick check all of the references are fine. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 20:34, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Untitled

According to the Disney Wiki, This is her actual birthday: November 22, 2001, not c. 2000/2001! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnsc1277 (talk • contribs) 18:27, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

@Johnsc1277: You CANNOT use the Disney wikia as a source. See WP:CIRCULAR. Please understand, when it comes to biographies of living persons (WP:BLP), wikipedia takes this very seriously. Adding poorly sourced information about living people is essentially the same as adding unsourced information about living people. That is why your recent edits have been violations of policy. Find a reliable secondary source instead. Sro23 (talk) 18:43, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

August 2016

Please do not remove information from articles, as you did to Auli'i Cravalho. Wikipedia is not censored, and content is not removed on the sole grounds of perceived offensiveness. Please discuss this issue on the article's talk page to reach consensus rather than continuing to remove the disputed material. If the content in question involves images, you also have the option to configure Wikipedia to hide the images that you may find offensive. Stop reverting my edits! Johnsc1277 (talk) 19:04, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

It's not censorship. Please see WP:OWN, editors are free to revert your edits when they violate policy. Sro23 (talk) 19:07, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

CHANGE

Hey man why editing over me — Preceding unsigned comment added by GoldApple10 (talk • contribs) 17:22, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

User:GoldApple10

Thanks, blocked! Giant Snowman 17:36, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Sanity check

Is this who I think it is? ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 19:14, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

No, this is just a coincidence. C is "an IP forever more", he doesn't have sock accounts. Sro23 (talk) 19:18, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

I would take Sro23's observation over mine as they have more experience with C. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:24, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: I looked at that editor when they started re-reverting my sock reverts and came reeeeaaalll close to blocking. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:21, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but I've been using semi more regularly lately. That often pushes sockmasters to make accounts. @NeilN: I'm inclined to say WP:DUCK. It's either sockpuppetry, meatpuppetry, or a vandalism-only disruptive account. I don't see any harm in tying it to Cebr and assuming he's gone back to using accounts. If we're wrong, we're just also blocking a purely disruptive account, which should be blocked anyway. Thoughts? ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 19:24, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

With the re-reverts, Soccerlife2 was essentially reverting a disruptive editor (currently blocked) that C had reverted. Coincidence? I know I posted to another user's talk page asking them to look at my reverts. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:29, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Hmm. So it could be someone other than C (the original disruptive editor). Maybe just block for vandalism-only/disruption and if they pop up again block as a sock of Soccerlife2? Sound good? The important thing is that we block disruptive editors, not that we tie them together appropriately. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 19:31, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Block for disruption if they've earned it, sure. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:34, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Soccerlife2 was created long before C was blocked, though I do think it's strange the user didn't become very active until around the time C was blocked. Some of C's edits were undoing a disruptive editor (User:Alanpopo123), which were then reverted, but Soccerlife2 restored. I don't think Soccerlife2 is a vandalism/disruption only account, other editors have restored C's edits in good faith before. Sro23 (talk) 19:35, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Reuben1995's little tiny edits

"12 August 2016 (User rights log); 19:56 . . Reuben1995 (talk | contribs) was automatically updated from (none) to extended confirmed user"

Now I think we know what all of those one letter edits were about. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 20:06, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

I figured so. We will just have to wait and see why. Sro23 (talk) 20:07, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Oh, they needed 500 edits to accept their own article for creation. Lol. Sro23 (talk) 21:35, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

@Uncle Milty and Sro23: I've gone ahead and AfDed it. Maybe CSD would have been more appropriate (and if so, please feel free to!), but either way I doubt the article is long for this world. /wiae /tlk 21:52, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Okay now I think I'm pushing the admins' buttons...

I'm worried that if I keep bringing back my things of text back on my talk page that eventually an angry admin would decide to block me again... either this is a talk page edit war between proprieter and admins or just plain drama... --174.53.34.144 (talk) 00:49, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Innichen

Hi Sro23!, i see your message in my talk, but i don't speck a very good english,..Can you move Innichen to San Candido? Innichen is the german name, now only in Austria call "Innichen" this city; the courrent name is "San Candido". Thank you :) --Atbc (talk) 12:44, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

No, that won't be necessary: WP:NBZ. Cheers, --Mai-Sachme (talk) 20:21, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Alhaqiha

You probably know more about Alhaqiha (talk · contribs) then I do but he's adding cu checked templates tio IPs. I'll undo them and warn, maybe you can counsel Doug Weller talk 06:06, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Sure I can talk to Alhaqiha, can you give me an example of this? Sro23 (talk) 15:17, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't really understand what you mean Doug, can you give me an example. Or do you mean the sockpuppet templates that I add to the talkpages of Ip adresses? I didn't know that was not allowed, but in that case I will not add them anymore ;). Alhaqiha (talk) 16:37, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean either. As far as I know tags like this are allowed, I don't see any CU template. Anyway, this is just what I think: it's unclear what is and isn't appropriate when it comes to the average non-admin user tagging sockpuppets and suspected socks. There's WP:SOCKTAG, but that is instructions for administrators. Maybe a page designed for regular users would be helpful? Sro23 (talk) 03:54, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Void (band), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cassette. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:45, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Caroll Spinney

FYI, went to RPP with Caroll Spinney. TimothyJosephWood 20:01, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! Sro23 (talk) 20:02, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Why are you continually reverting the text at the Spinney article w/o even citing a reason? Just curious, Quis separabit? 20:03, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I have in some of my edits...the article is a target of a blocked user (User:Bigshowandkane64), continuously IP-hopping. Sro23 (talk) 20:05, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Ohhh. Yours, Quis separabit? 20:10, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Honestly, I just took Sro23's (edit summary) word on the fact that it was a sock. It's never let me down before. TimothyJosephWood 20:11, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

@Timothyjosephwood: Never gonna give you up, never gonna let you down. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 20:17, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

Did you know that you're a sockpuppet of Widr? I have this very trusted IP and he said that you are Widr's sockpuppet! Please refrain from socking from now on ;). Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 20:25, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Stop the socking? You didn't know? The 23 in my name signifies this is my 23rd account.

Sro23 (talk) 20:45, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Sevilla FC season 2016-17 article

Hey, I'm just wondering whether you are an administrator? I'm having a bit of an issue with an editor at the 2016-17 Sevilla FC season article called Bittrix.Wiki. I noticed that you have warned him on his talk page before, so I thought I'd ask if you could block him? Specifically, it's his insistence of adding "Possible in/out" lists, which aren't encyclopedic. I mean, Silly Season is filled with rumours and speculations that end up nowhere. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2016%E2%80%9317_Sevilla_FC_season&diff=734979419&oldid=734977271 Thanks in advance. OscarL 00:08, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm not an adminstrator, but oh my God does that user have some serious ownership issues. The next time they are intentionally disruptive, I think it would be a good idea to take it to WP:ANI or something like that. Sro23 (talk) 02:34, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Re:Sro23Bot

Hi. I've asked an admin to strike the username Aloha27Bot from the face of the earth and took the liberty of asking that Sro23Bot be sent to the planet Nern as well. Could possibly look like they are in some way our responsibility. Regards, Aloha27 talk 14:11, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

AAAAAAAAAAAND, it's gone. Regards, Aloha27 talk 14:46, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Someone just re-created those userpages. WTF. Sro23 (talk) 02:26, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

August 2016

Why are you removing the edits on the AN/Edit warring talk page? Hawkeye75 (talk) 21:08, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

The edit I removed was purposefully disruptive content coming from a block evading sockpuppet (see Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Best known for IP). Sro23 (talk) 21:12, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Be honest with me, are you Bbb23? Because that was a relatively quick revert. Hawkeye75 (talk) 21:17, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

No. Sro23 (talk) 21:18, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Sockmaster question

Who was the sockmaster associated with Ken Sansom? ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 21:08, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Bigshowandkane64 Sro23 (talk) 21:11, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Auli'i Cravalho

Auli'i Cravalho (the article) needs a picture. Johnsc1277 (talk) 00:13, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Take a look here. Sro23 (talk) 00:17, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

what happened to the picture? Johnsc1277 (talk) 00:43, 21 August 2016 (UTC) Stop removing the picture of Auli'i Cravalho! Johnsc1277 (talk) 12:24, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

August 2016

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Auli'i Cravalho, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Stop removing my picture of Auli'i Cravalho! Johnsc1277 (talk) 12:37, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Note I've re-blocked the editor (this time for two weeks) for persistent disruptive editing. If lack of clue persists, the next block will probably be an indefinite one. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:50, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

And they have been indef blocked. Sadly, not a surprise. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Attract and Repel ‖ 18:13, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

SPI issue raised at ANI

FYI: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#SPI - Triumph of bureaucracy over effectiveness? Andy Dingley (talk) 18:34, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

IP blocked

With an additional note, User talk:73.176.243.174#The comment "exclusively generated by your kin" - clearly meaning Jews, was the last straw. I'd already told them I was going to block them if they continues. Doug Weller talk 16:17, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Objections to the Deletion of the Article: "Relationship Between Tyranny and Arms Control"

Why did you delete my objections to the deletion? The archive should show that the deletion is controversial because I object to it. You cannot create an archive of the discussion that only shows one side of the discussion while removing all of the objections. --User:polythesis

@Polythesis: Your comments were deleted because you added after closing. Any related comments, replies and questions are removed as it's closed. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 20:25, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

@Callmemirela, You know I submitted dozens of comments in oppositions to the deletion before the discussion was closed. You omitted my opposition from the archive of the debate. Go back and include all of my arguments that were made before the debate closed in this archive of the debate. As it is now, it is not an archive of a debate, but an archive of only your side of the debate. --User:polythesis —Preceding undated comment added 20:28, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

@Polythesis: I have not done any of the sort. Please see the message I left on your talk page before making any false accusations and judgments. Also, I suggest that you seriously WP:DROPIT. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 20:30, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Polythesis, I see that you've brought the issue up with Iridescent, the deleting administrator. They're the one with the authority to reopen discussion or restore the content to a draft, and you should wait for them to respond before anything else. clpo13_(talk) 20:33, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

@Polythesis: Please sign your name by typing four tildes (~~~~) Sro23 (talk) 20:35, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

"Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any). Arguments that contradict policy, are based on opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted... If an argument for deletion is that the page lacks sources, but an editor adds the missing references, said argument is no longer relevant." See: Wikipedia Deletion Guidelines for Administrator Your arguments were made in bad faith, as they were contrary to Wikipedia policies. New information has come to light in the form of references only if you willfully ignored those references when you made your arguments in favor of deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Polythesis (talk • contribs) 20:39, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

I am not required to sign comments if the bot signs them for me, but thanks for your attempt to distract from the argument and your refusals to acknowledge that the article is not original research (because it is supported by numerous reliable and published sources) and it is written from a neutral point of view (because it only states facts, not opinion) and that the deletion of this article is clearly controversial and therefore not permitted according to Wikipedia's policies on deletion of articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Polythesis (talk • contribs) 16:49, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Posse Cat

Can you ask user Steve Quinn that I didn't vandalize the page. Even last year, the material was there. Same for production of Tot Watchers. 2600:1010:B060:B9C5:9131:CB3:66F:37F1 (talk) 17:20, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Eternal sin

Hi I dont seem to see a reason why are you are undoing my edits... The bible doesnt say salvation is over just because one has commited the eternal sin. It should be a biblical fact before you write that in or keep on undoing my edits. You are scaring people for no reason. I have yet to see where in the bible it is said that salvation becomes obsolete because one has commited the eternal sin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.148.178.146 (talk) 20:14, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Hey

Hey Sro, I'm not sure what prompted this revert, but it's not automatically a good idea to simply revert just because another editor reverted. Was the edit bad? Was it wrong? Did it make the article worse? Drmies (talk) 00:45, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Per WP:BANREVERT and WP:DENY, the editor is a sock of banned User:Bigshowandkane64. Sro23 (talk) 00:48, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

No, that's not proper logic/grammar. Bigshow is a banned editor, so you can invoke those things, if you like, and if it makes sense. You just need to ask yourself what the value is of reverting. You may have noticed that this looks like a never-ending cycle. Which is useless. Drmies (talk) 00:59, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

WP:BANREVERT states:"...the presumption in ambiguous cases should be to revert". Honestly a lot of his edits didn't seem to be that much of an improvement imo. Sro23 (talk) 01:02, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

What about the one I linked? You can cite all the policy you want, but I have blocked more than one of this guy's socks, and I deal with the fallout of blind reverts on a very regular basis. Please tell me what the point is of [this, for instance. Drmies (talk) 01:06, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

You think it's better to let the abusive banned user's edits stick? Because that seems wrong to me, but okay. What is the best course of action to take when I see this guy pop up then? Just do nothing? Sro23 (talk) 02:00, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

That's up to you. But really, what is the point of simply reverting? Why can't you do nothing if an edit improves an article? And here's something else: how do you know it's him? I'm not saying you're wrong (in this case you're obviously not) but what is it about the edit that signals "QUICK BANNED EDITOR REVERT"? At some point it seems to become a game for some users--revert as soon as possible. The history of User talk:94.117.39.40 is evidence of that (NeilN, what do you make of that?), and that is nothing but disruption.

I don't know this particular banned editor very well though I just left him a note, but like I said, the few edits I looked at weren't so bad. (And NeilN, huh? I've been an editor and admin for long enough to know that, and it doesn't make a difference.) I didn't look at all of them. Here's what you can do: judge the edits on their merit. If one of them is bad, revert it and explain why. If an edit is good, you are really harming the article by reverting it. It doesn't satisfy some users' desire for vengeance, but if you let a good edit stand, then hey, you are looking at a better article, and the banned editor has no reason to come back to it. That they might get pleasure out of seeing their edit stand is immaterial; perhaps they get even more pleasure out of reverting the reverters. And when you get into an edit war with someone who can flick a switch and get a new IP address or account, who is going to have more pleasure? So yeah, while it may seem unsatisfying, I think there are occasions where it is better to let shit go. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:28, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Drmies, some new, and even some veteran editors don't know about WP:BLANKING. I see that and I make a point of dropping notes on talk pages pointing to the guideline so they don't do that in the future. As to the other point, okay you can ask editors to constantly go through masses of edits of banned/blocked editors to pick out which ones are bad and which ones are good. If they volunteer, that's great. But I'm not going to complain if they just revert, providing they're not reverting back in vandalism or BLP vios. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:39, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Sure, Neil, but if someone is reverting twenty, thirty times in a row, surely they should give it some thought at some time. Anyway, we all want the same things, and sometimes we place different emphasis in different places. I'm not asking anyone to go through all of someone's edits: I'm only asking, as I ask all the time, that someone think carefully before they make an individual revert, and that they ask themselves what good is served by it. Drmies (talk) 02:46, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Drmies Regarding an edit or two, you realize that some of our more prolific sockmasters rack up 20-30 edits a session before they're blocked? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:06, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

MariaJaydHicky

I'd like to try and start a dialogue with MariaJaydHicky. Next time you see a sock still unblocked, would you please post at my talk? I can post at that sock's talk asking for her to join a discussion at Talk:MariaJaydHicky. Many thanks. And by the way, you are a really good editor here. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:01, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I can do that. Sro23 (talk) 20:07, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you kindly. Asking her to stop is a long shot, but we've nothing to lose. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:13, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

NINITMIMIN

Not sure what to do about this editor. Félix Osores de Sotomayor is a disaster, and it's hard to tell if there is copyvio since it could be all translation. Doug Weller talk 20:22, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

That hurt to read...but still not as bad as whatever this is supposed to be. Sro23 (talk) 20:28, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

See my post at User talk:Bearcat:Fernando N. Villarreal, something fishy going on here. Doug Weller talk 20:43, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Something went awry with your link Doug Weller so I'll leave this one in hopes that it makes things easier User talk:Bearcat#Fernando N. Villarreal. MarnetteD|Talk 20:48, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Oh yeah, looking through the history of some of these articles, I'm pretty certain User:Tuesttay, User:PENTAGONALIS777, User:BenTTT, User:TheCarzyFer, User:NINIT, and NINITMIMIN are all the same person who's been jumping to a new account every few days for whatever reason. Either that or this is some meatpuppetry occuring. It's all very bizarre. Sro23 (talk) 20:53, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PENTAGONALIS777/Archive. Thanks for your help. Doug Weller talk 12:25, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome, and it appears the editor has returned here. I have added it to the SPI. Sro23 (talk) 22:32, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Goats as pets

Editor goes onto then red link Rain Scald thus providing us with more corrective work -as I explained on his talk page and he compounding it. This type of editing does not help in any way but to increase our work load and next time discus before making the same mistakes as he -please. It is a new stub and still being proof-read. Anyway, thanks for retitling the stub – reads better – should have done it myself earlier, so that is appreciated.--Aspro (talk) 13:40, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Creation of 4 new articles from the main article Neyyattinkara

Dear Sro23, I'm User:Hosannagardens. Please understand my issue. The main article Neyyattinkara has been divided into four irrelevant articles viz. Transportation in Neyyattinkara, Education in Neyyattinkara, History and Culture of Neyyattinkara and Administration of Neyyattinkara. This was done by User:Prof tpms. He just copied my works from the main article Neyyattinkara and pasted the same in four different articles of his choice by giving them new titles. Whether a Wikipedian can create new pages by using the sub-titles and respective contents of the main article? Whether the acts of User:Prof tpms comes under the policy of Wikipedia? Neyyattinkara is not a big city. It is only a residential town. All the aforesaid four new pages created by User:Prof tpms forms part of the main article Neyyattinkara town. No independent existence, relevance or importance to the four new pages created. It is my humble request to retain the main article Neyyattinkara in its original form. As for as a town like Neyyattinkara is concerned separate articles for its transportation facilities, education system, history & culture and administrative systems, etc. is irrelevant as I know Neyyattinkaravery well. I am a resident of that town. Thanking you from the bottom of my heart for reading my words— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hosannagardens (talk • contribs) 14:00, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

This should be discussed at Neyyattinkara, not on a user talk: page. If you think particular users might have insights to this, then let them know too - but be aware of WP:CANVAS.

At first sight, the original article was a large article but somewhat verbose, rather than in depth. I can see reasons to prune (yes, to delete content) some of these item-list-like sections, rather than needing to split the article by topic. There was nothing raised at Talk:Neyyattinkara before this split, which is bad editing practice (if it creates situations like this, then that is a bad practice).

You may, per WP:BRD, simply revert this split and request discussion at the article talk: page before it is re-split. Redirect each new article to that section in the main article and revert the main article to how it was. The difficulty is that this approach will probably just trigger an edit-war, which is not helpful.

I see some need to edit the original article (I don't see those lists as usefully encyclopedic - we are not a directory), but not to split it. Please let me know if you do raise this, I'd chime in. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:28, 30 August 2016 (UTC)