User talk:NeilN/Archive 24

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

hi

hi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.15.60.102 (talk) 14:51, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Hey 103. Were you looking for some help? --NeilN talk to me 14:53, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Thank you for your help with the Talen Energy logo and in recognition of all the good stuff you do here at Wikipedia. Truly outstanding! Grahamboat (talk) 16:25, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Grahamboat, appreciate that. --NeilN talk to me 19:47, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Please explain.

Please explain how my edit "vandalized" Wikipedia. I stated a fact which many people agree with and you called my editing disruptive. I see absolutely nothing wrong in what I did and I would appreciate it if you would explain your reasoning behind your threat. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xx.can't.think.of.a.good.username.xX (talk • contribs) 21:13, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

It's pretty obvious you are joining the mob in denigrating Drake Bell. If you must, you can do that elsewhere, not on Wikipedia where we have a strict biography policy that applies to all articles. --NeilN talk to me 21:19, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Drake Bell

I've seen you removing vandalism at the Drake Bell page. Does the whole thing with Caitlyn Jenner qualify for inclusion in his or her article? -- Deadpool100 (talk) 00:00, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Deadpool100. We cannot add anything unless we have good quality reliable sources covering it (not tabloids). With these types of things I like to apply the ten year test, only cut down a bit. In a couple years, do you think anyone will still be mentioning the incident? --NeilN talk to me 00:12, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Well, NY Daily News and Billboard as far as I've seen. But the Justin Bieber thing has been going on for three years. That, maybe? -- Deadpool100 (talk) 00:14, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
@Deadpool100: The Bieber thing is already mentioned in the article. If coverage is ongoing, and you think it warrants more space in the article, go for it, keeping in mind other editors might object to what they see as adding trivia. --NeilN talk to me 00:20, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Okay, thank you for your help. As you see, I'm pretty new. But I read up on policy and such before editing. And jeez, there has been a lot of vandalism on his page since this happened. -- Deadpool100 (talk) 00:25, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
@Deadpool100: Yes, when a celebrity does or says something controversial their article usually experiences a wave of disruptive edits. Thank you for helping out on this one. --NeilN talk to me 00:30, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Yup. I look forward to editing with you in the future. And looking on the history, a major editor to the article hasn't touched it in a while. Did something happen? -- Deadpool100 (talk) 00:34, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
@Deadpool100: They got blocked from editing for six months for persistent edit warring. --NeilN talk to me 01:07, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Ah, shame. I hope he does come back after the block. Granted, I wouldn't, but maybe he might. He looked like a positive contributor to quite a number of articles. If he does come back, maybe he'll learn from the block. And don't keep tagging me, I'll be watching your page. -- Deadpool100 (talk) 01:42, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Culture of Nepal

im from nepal and you I am trying to edit page systematically whats your problem and where are you from ??+ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rahul Giree (talk • contribs)

Hi Rahul Giree. As per the messages on your talk page (which you have deleted) you can't just add your own commentary to articles. Content must be written in an encyclopedic tone and be verifiable: "Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it." That means providing references to reliable sources. Also, please don't use inappropriate or misleading edit summaries. [1], [2] --NeilN talk to me 03:36, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks NeilN for proving my mistakes sorry for previous things that I have done editing Wikipedia's articles sorry I waana know where are you from ? From today I will only add things in Wikipedia's tone and add things that are proven right sorry for mi.... (copied from [3])
@Rahul Giree: We were all new here once and learning how to contribute to Wikipedia can sometimes be challenging (but rewarding!). Just read through the help links on your talk page and ask if you have any questions and you should be fine. As to where I'm from - some editors reveal details about themselves on their user pages but I don't. I prefer to keep my personal details private and I want other editors to judge my edits without having any preconceived notions about who I am. --NeilN talk to me 04:01, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

RE: Taoism Counter to Christianity

Dear Neil,

I am working off my tablet until I am to replace my computer and do more formal research to site credible sources. However, if you actually study the topic of Taoism, it is actually a pagan religion and needs to be correctly catagorized as such. Someone has been citing multiple books and its similiarities to christianity, and while there are some similiarities, Christians need to be FULLY aware that as a "folk" religion/philosophy, observations and reverence of nature, and most importantly many references to taoist magick (ie: sorcery, alchemy, and worship of local spirits) this creates a major conflict because as you know Christianity condemns magick of all religious forms as being "evil" and moreover, considers the worship of any spirit, diety, or god other than the Christian god as a sin.

Please read the main entry page for taoism as well. It also further emohasizes what I have said. I will contact those who submitted the similiarities to christianity and inform them of their inaccuracies. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Idx730 (talk • contribs) 08:55, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Idx730. This makes it seem you are writing about your own analysis and conclusions. Along with our sourcing guideline you should be aware of our no original research policy. Even statements of opinion must be attributed. --NeilN talk to me 13:14, 3 June 2015 (UTC)


Query

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bladesmulti

Seendgay's comment that he is administrator. How a sockpuppet became admnistrator?

Very much confused. Right now the account is blocked. Is it true that he was administrator?

This question has no relation to your administrator candidature!Cosmic  Emperor  17:40, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

@CosmicEmperor: Seendgay was mistaken. Bladesmulti was never an admin. --NeilN talk to me 17:44, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Generation Z

Neither of us can prove that the source actually says this about Generation Z as follows "ABC Family uses the term "becomers" for its future target audience (Gen Z)."

So why is your edit more valid than mine?

Do you have access to Broadcasting and Cable?

2606:6000:610A:9000:1D0F:636F:39A:867D (talk) 22:53, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Please see WP:PAYWALL: "Do not reject sources just because they are hard or costly to access." You cannot reject a source just because you don't have online access to it. --NeilN talk to me 22:58, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Of course that makes sense about a paywall source. But I doubt the source says it that way. Also, it's an inferior fact -- I mean who really cares if ABC Family uses the term "becomers" for its future target audience" -- what does that even mean? In addition, the person who added the statement should rewrite it in a way that tells the audience what they are talking about and provide some context. 2606:6000:610A:9000:1D0F:636F:39A:867D (talk) 23:47, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
It's fine to challenge material because you don't think the source backs it up and ask the person who added the source to provide a quote. Or if you think the material doesn't belong in the article at all. Both are valid reasons but "this reference is behind a pay wall" is not. --NeilN talk to me 00:01, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Mirza Ghulam Ahmad

hi, you reverted my edits just because the qadiani hackers hacked the website of www.irshad.org and because of the you couldn't access the page I referenced from Mirza's book. For reference see this archived copy of the same book page here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kamiri~enwiki (talk • contribs)

@Kamiri~enwiki: I don't consider this anywhere close to a reliable or scholarly source. --NeilN talk to me 01:44, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Necromancy

Thanks for catching that. Somehow I managed to miss the talk page discussion. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 02:01, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Resubmitted Santorum edit

I have resubmitted the Santorum edit, with an additional citation which I hope will meet your standards for verifiability. Johnd39 (talk) 03:08, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Johnd39. I've removed the synthesis. We need a source that explicitly makes that connection. --NeilN talk to me 03:57, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Citation needed revert

Hi NielN, I see you have taken out a citation which I put in, on a page that specifically requests "citation needed". You have marked it as "good faith", which it was, so I don't understand why you are taking it out again? It's to a peer-reviewed journal article specifically on this topic. Why the change? Sorry this is a repeat message, I didn't add subject/headline last time. apiano (talk) 16:01, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Already explained here. --NeilN talk to me 16:03, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello NeilN, I have changed the internet troll edit, is that better?

apiano, looks that way but you have another editor disputing your addition. Do you have any connection to Binns? --NeilN talk to me 16:16, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I know, I had half a day so have done several things at once, which I think is what he is annoyed about. I've left him messages asking him to suggest changes but he is hitting undo to everything. On the Ask.fm and Formspring pages in particular, I think the current entries have clearly been written by the new owners and I think the citations to peer-reviewed research (and there is very little on the subject) are valuable. I work in the same dept but she is in no way a client. Do you have a suggestion for conflict resolution?

Ohnoitsjamie What do you think about apiano placing proposed edits on the talk pages of articles for other editors to review? --NeilN talk to me 16:28, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm OK with her proposing edits on the talk pages for others to consider, providing that she discloses her COI (either she is Binns or she is doing this on behalf of Binns) on any such talk page proposal. OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:30, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
apiano, please read Wikipedia:Edit requests, specifically Wikipedia:Edit_requests#Making_requests on how to do this. If you have any questions, just ask. --NeilN talk to me 16:34, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello NeilN, I think I have added a request edit to the talk page of Ask.fm, can you please take a look and tell me if this is helpful?

Hi apiano. I've fixed your post. [4] Also, please remember to sign your posts. --NeilN talk to me 16:50, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

GreenEarth Cleaning

Hi,

On the GreenEarth Cleaning page,someone had put false information, some of which is just blatant lies, the rest is out dated, non conclusive research, which has since been proven wrong by the EPA, SEHSC, and Environment Canada. I made the appropriate edits to the page. Your editor Joesph2302 then reverted those edits, stating I did not give valid reason in my edit summary. I simply stated the information was not true. I then went back and made the edits again, and was more descriptive in my edit summary. He then accused me of creating an edit war. I then received a message from another editor saying my username was in violation. So I thought may that that may have been the issue all along. So I created a new account as ajnewport, I was using the the GreenEarth Cleaning username because I thought it would be good to be up front, apparently not. Regardless, can we get this resolved and get the false, irrelevant, & outdated information off of our page please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajnewport (talk • contribs) 18:09, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Ajnewport, you've triggered sockpuppetry, edit warring, and conflict of interest reports. The best advice I can give is to stop editing the article immediately and place a note on your talk page saying that you won't be making any more changes. Then use the article's talk page to discuss the changes you want to make. Note that simply claiming the info is false or outdated is not enough. You must provide reliable sources (not vague pointers to the EPA, SEHSC, and Environment Canada) to back up your assertions or say why the existing sources are flawed. I see one of our very experienced editors, Jytdog, has carefully gone through the article and has stubbed it, citing specific problems with sources. Hopefully this should allay your concerns. --NeilN talk to me 20:07, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

FYI: Rangeblocked

Have blocked 169.57.0.192/27 for 31 hours since they were primarily being used recently to troll your and User:Black Kite's page (and prior to that User:Liz's pages along with the False accusation of rape article), and the 32 IP block was held by a single company. Any admins watching your page are welcome to extend/modify the block as they see fit. Abecedare (talk) 05:32, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

@Abecedare: Thanks and FYI --NeilN talk to me 05:34, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

United Synagogue

Please can you clarify why the assertions I made on the US.org.uk wiki page are not allowed to stand with this source: http://www.presstv.com/detail/2014/10/12/381997/israel-lobby-to-block-uk-palestine-vote/

which clearly points out that

"The Zionist pressure group "United Synagogue" has called on all its members to press their constituency representatives to reject the motion or make amendments to it

and that

"Meanwhile, Davis Lewin, the Deputy Director and Head of Policy and Research at the Henry Jackson Society (HJS), has hit out at planners of the recognition proposal, describing them as people who openly want to destroy Israel."

Why is this not a quote that is allowed to stand? Internetwikier (talk) 15:26, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Replied at ANI --NeilN talk to me 15:35, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

neilN

I wasn't vandalizing wikipedia Neil . Woody Paige was born in 1941 and he is a Snooker hall of fame voter (his cousin is a good snooker player) And yes Paige is friends with bob Saget and Michael Gross

I hate adding sources,it's so hard to find them and when you do,they don't work. And Paige was born out in unincorporated territory in Tennessee (rural tennessee) so it is like parts unknown — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edhor3332902309 (talk • contribs) 05:03, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

If you don't add sources, then how can other editors trust what you've written? I mean, lots of people make the assertion "because I said so."--Mr Fink (talk) 05:05, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
No sources because it was vandalism. [5], [6] --NeilN talk to me 05:07, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, NeilN. You have new messages at User talk:NeilN/RFA.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

This is your 12th RfA question. 103.6.159.179 (talk) 15:33, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I obviously won't be answering that question and have asked that page to be deleted. --NeilN talk to me 15:36, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Allow me...

...to be one of the first to congrat.... Wait, where is everybody? Am I the first one here? Darn it, I showed up too early. Well, let me leave this T-shirt and crystal decanter of Clorox Cleanup over here in the corner, I'll be back a bit later when the party has started. Zad68 18:20, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

  • I should have voted for you. One of the Opposes makes me so nauseous, I get "flummoxed" if I'm anywhere near him. Good Luck. . Buster Seven Talk 19:04, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
    • @Buster7: RFA's not closed yet and I think handing me the bit may break Wikipedia. First edit after I see Zad68's post I get:
    • Wikimedia Foundation Error
    • Our servers are currently experiencing a technical problem. This is probably temporary and should be fixed soon. Please try again in a few minutes.
    • --NeilN talk to me 19:10, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
  • It seems as though you already have a fan. Welcome aboard. --kelapstick(bainuu) 20:33, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Here's one more fan [7] - NQ (talk) 20:44, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Your request for adminship

Hi NeilN, I have closed your request for adminship as successful. Congratulations for your clear pass and place on WP:RFX100. As always, the administrators' reading list is worth reading and the new admin school is most certainly available if you feel that you might require some practice with the tools in a safe environment prior to applying them elsewhere on the project. Have fun and good luck with your adminship! Acalamari 20:24, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Nicely done NeilN! Winner 42 Talk to me! 20:24, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Congrats! ^-^ I know you will do well! - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:26, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Congratulations. This is good news for the encyclopaedia. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 21:07, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Good on you mate, I supported you. Well done and keep up the great work - EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 00:43, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Congrats!

I'm sure you will be getting plenty of these in the next few days, but I wanted to congratulate you for getting the mop - a very successful RfA, I'd say! I know you'll be a real asset to the administrator's group. Cheers! -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:33, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Congratulations NeilN. Enjoy your new mop!- MrX 20:37, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Im waiting for the T-shirt to be awarded =p - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:38, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
See two sections above. - NQ (talk) 20:39, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Ah, always good to see =) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:41, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Congratulations My condolences. Mkdwtalk 20:46, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

So you going to go with {{administrator topicon|tan|cat=no}} (Wikipe-tan with mop) or {{Template:User wikipedia/Administrator}} (Wikiglobe)? Im talking about your admin userpage icon. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:01, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Haven't decided yet - still getting used to the new links/buttons. Let's look at the block log - whoops, there's now a "block" link where the "block log" link used to be... --NeilN talk to me 21:06, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
FWIW, I do like {{administrator|tan}} --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:30, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
All right, then. Let's try that out on the talk page. --NeilN talk to me 21:33, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Congratulations - the community showed a lot of faith in you, and you obviously deserve it. Welcome aboard. But wait - where's the T-shirt? I see a link above, but hey! You're supposed to get a crappy T-shirt, not a crappy LINK to a T-shirt! Here it is. Wear it with pride, you earned it. --MelanieN (talk) 21:19, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Congratulations, Neil! I think this is overdue. I hope you enjoy your new range of activities as much as you enjoy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 21:22, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Pile on congrats! - Cwobeel (talk) 21:28, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Well deserved. Congratulations. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:34, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

That was quite the RFA, congratulations. §FreeRangeFrogcroak
  • Ah, at last! Now I just have to figure out how to write a Edit-filter/IFTTT script so that any "can you look/protect/block?" request at my talk page is immediately duplicated onto Neil's. :) Abecedare (talk) 15:42, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Welcome to the club. Please ask me if you need any advice. I would have posted here earlier but I have been offline. Chillum 19:30, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Thanks Chillum. I have to admit, whenever I see an admin posting here I think, "oh heck, what did I do?". Haven't blocked Jimbo or deleted the Main Page so things seem to be going smoothly so far. --NeilN talk to me 19:39, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks everyone

Thanks to everyone who nudged me to run and thanks to everyone who participated in my RFA. I honestly wasn't expecting that level of support, given that I usually just keep my head down and try to fix what needs fixing or help where needed. I'll be starting off slowly and carefully with the admin tools so please don't expect any magical declines in the backlogs :-) Any advice from admins regarding their particular best practices or scripts/tools they use will be gratefully received. --NeilN talk to me 20:50, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Please make sure you don't accidentally block anyone.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:54, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
If anyone wants The Bbb23 Experience™ please let me know, and I'll block them for 60 seconds so they can feel the buuuuurn. never gonna live that one down §FreeRangeFrogcroak 21:34, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
especially for possible incompetence - NQ (talk) 20:55, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Bbb23, an admin would never make that mistake. Any "accidental" blocks are just put in place to give the blockee a new user interface experience. --NeilN talk to me 20:59, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Heh. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:18, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
I like that...so, we are giving vandals the opportunity to have a new user interface experience? Liz Read! Talk! 21:24, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Permanently, in some cases. --NeilN talk to me 21:30, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
As the recipient of one of Bbb23's accidental blocks, I can confirm that it never happened. Alakzi (talk) 23:03, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Best of luck! Should you want to get started, RMs are one of the safer areas, and it's hard to get in trouble at WP:RFPP. If you want to close AfDs, use a script. Never go to ANI unless you have to, and always tell people to use DRN. EdJohnston (talk) 22:07, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks Ed. Doing some work at RFPP now. Ironically, some of the reports resulted in users already being blocked hours ago so all I'm doing is updates - something I could have done without the tools. --NeilN talk to me 22:12, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
User:MusikAnimal/responseHelper and User:MusikAnimal/MoreMenu - NQ (talk) 22:19, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
@NQ: Oh those look helpful, thanks. I'll have to figure out if I want to switch to Vector or use User:Haza-w/Drop-down menus instead. --NeilN talk to me 22:30, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Vector offers more flexibility, but it's hard to say goodbye to monobook if you've been using it long enough. Tough choice. MusikAnimal has incorporated a lot of sysop specific tools into his version. - NQ (talk) 22:38, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
  • @EdJohnston: just to clarify – are you saying "new" Admins should avoid ANI? Or all Admins should avoid ANI?!... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:15, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
@IJBall: You can sometimes get feedback on a possible admin action just by asking other people, before you start a new ANI. Or you can take the problem to a more specialized noticeboard. EdJohnston (talk) 22:30, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Congratulations. Flyer22 (talk) 22:41, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Congrats, officially! And I'm glad to see somebody opened and presented you with the T-shirt. The importance of wearing the T=shirt while performing ALL admin actions cannot be overstated. Best of luck, and just keep doing what you've been doing. Zad68 22:52, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Best wishes and congratulations - I know my !vote aroused some interesting opining from some, but it was made in the best of faith that you will be careful in AfD matters, as I have full confidence in your vandalism reverts -- Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:10, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Collect. And yes, if I close AFD's I will be very careful. I haven't seen any constant complaints about AFD backlogs so it's likely I'll be focusing elsewhere. --NeilN talk to me 00:25, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Good luck mate! Simon Irondome (talk) 00:17, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Congrats for getting the mop! Just be sure you do not delete the main page or block Jimbo or ClueBot or do anything foolish enough to warrant yourself a lovely day in the stocks. Oh, and please please please please remember to lock your computer when you go AFK so nobody can come in and use your mop to deface Wikipedia. That would not be a pleasant experience. Anyway, congrats! --I am k6ka Talk to me! See what I have done 00:50, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Well done! Congrats and good luck! Jianhui67 T★C 01:19, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
An admin's new toolset
Congratulations! You will do a great job.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 02:01, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Well, that was a bit of a nail-biter, wasn't it? ;-) . Hey don't forget the little people now that you are one of the suits. Remember: We knew you when .... Softlavender (talk) 02:13, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Don't think janitors wear suits :) --NeilN talk to me 02:21, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Congrats! If I knew you were running I'd have baked a cakevoted for you. I keep missing out on who's applied 'cos I'm usually being oppressed for being a disciplinarian (ping, ping, ping!). More than happy to accept a rap on the knuckles from you! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:19, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Well done, NeilN. And I know that you will do well. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:48, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Well done! See you around.  Philg88 ♦talk 06:30, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Congratulations Neil :). –Davey2010Talk 19:43, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
  • You'll do fine, don't worry. Late to support and congratulate, but in both cases, it is very sincere. I'm sure you will find a niche and make a difference. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:25, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Many congratulations and thanks for your support. Best regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 09:05, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Congratulations not only passing your RfA but also for demonstrating that RfA is no longer the week of hell on wheels it used to be :) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:24, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks for running, congratulations, and thanks for your ongoing work to improve Wikipedia! North America1000 10:12, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Well I'm late to the party but already I can see you'll be a fine admin, and you've got the second best score this year so far. And yes, as Kudpung says and from my own personal experience last month, RfA is not like WP:Gorillas consuming gerbils anymore! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:12, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
    • @Ritchie333 and Kudpung: Thank you. I purposefully did not look at RFAs preceding 2012 before choosing to run. I think the community behavior at RFA has changed and constantly looking back on the Wild West days just unnecessarily discourages people. --NeilN talk to me 14:25, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Could admins please use their spidey-senses and judgment on this IP

Could admins please use their spidey-senses and judgment on this IP, who has posted nothing but vandalism and disruptive nonsense: Special:Contributions/205.215.254.132. -- Softlavender (talk) 05:06, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Softlavender, not enough disruption or warnings to block. I've given them a {{uw-test3}} and will check back periodically. --NeilN talk to me 05:12, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

The Continuing Excavations of Leigh Daniel Avidan

Greetings --NeilN talk to me

I wish to discuss with you about a recent edit I've made to the page Qumran Caves. I believe there was a little misunderstanding between the two of us, thus leading to a rather uncomfortable situation. Wishing that no offence is taken by you, I would like to inform you that there was a slight research error on your side, the error being that the above mentioned Qumran Caves were actually dug by Leigh Daniel "Seven and 3 Quarters" Avidan among others. I also wish to inform you that I've found the ban threatening message you've sent me quite offensive and a bit rude due to the fact that your research into this topic wasn't accurate at all. I hereby wish that you apologize for the ban threat you've sent me, but if you don't want to I will find it appropriate for you to simply leave the text I, and many other companions of Leigh Daniel Avidan, have left on the Qumran Caves Wikipedia page. For what are my personal feelings in comparison to the truth. I thank you in advance,

Sincerely, Proja — Preceding unsigned comment added by Proja (talk • contribs) 14:14, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

@Proja: Please do not perpetrate hoaxes. [8] --NeilN talk to me 14:25, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Why all the activity on this page?

What is going on? ;) -Roxy the black and white dog™ (resonate) 15:09, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

@Roxy the dog: I got a crappy T-shirt and a rather sad looking mop. Also, a new range of opportunities for people to tell me I'm wrong. --NeilN talk to me 17:01, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Oh, I see. Are they all currying favour? Do you need some dungarees? -Roxy the black and white dog™ (resonate) 17:30, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
@Roxy the dog: I've already hit Jimbo's page: User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#RfA_is_broken --NeilN talk to me 17:33, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Looks like you have some IP's on your case, all the same person I am sure. I wouldn't take anything they say to heart, it sounds like a grudge of some sort. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:19, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Political correctness

NeilN. i made edits to removes some examples that showed some bias and did not lend to the general understanding of "political correctness". the "right wing political correctness" section is pure BS, since the term seems to only be used by purveyors of liberal bias (as a google search shows the first page of results are mostly used in editorials and blogs). without any substantial confirmation by use, the term cannot be seen as relevant to the subject and should not be included. even the " Dixie Chicks political controversy" example does not in itself ever mention "political correctness" in any form. using a made up term as some sort of counterbalance, does not benefit to the readers and give them a better understanding of the subject. the entire section "right wing political correctness" uses an example (dixie chicks) that was about "patriotism" and not about political correctness and two sources (Krugman and Latham) who are both admitted leftists. overall, political correctness is not necessarily a liberal only concept and the entire article seems to have a "wing" bias to it, with unneeded uses of "left wing" and "right wing".

the other edit was eliminating the "false accusation" section that equates "christian" to conservative, and it is fact that most christians worldwide are not politically conservative, therefore, christian opposition to "violence (and sex, and depictions of homosexuality) on television" is not a "political correctness" issue and cannot be an example that validates the section. additionally, the "baa baa black sheep" example as "false accusations" refers to an article for support, yet that very article states "Just one problem: the reasons for the singing of words other than black is nothing to do with "political correctness".". even with the contradiction, the entire paragraph does not make any sense, eve after re reading it several time, i don't understand it. again, this section does nothing for the reader's understanding of the subject.

you just undid the edits, without even an attempt to understand why they were made...and i know this because you undid them within few minutes of my making them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthisfreedomandjustice (talk • contribs) 18:33, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

@Truthisfreedomandjustice: I did in fact look at your removals and saw your were removing sourced, attributed opinions. You then inserted your own point of view into the article. [9] Here you referred to European Christians but the example explicitly was about American Christians. You may have points, but these should be discussed on the article's talk page. --NeilN talk to me 18:46, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

as mentioned above, the "sourced" opinions were either not related to the subject or were poor sources...i'm sure i can find sources for alien invasions of earth. and nowhere did i add my opinion to the article. my point about the christians is that the statement equated christian with right wing, and that if false, no matter the nationality of the christians. again, opposition based on religious beliefs is not "POLITICAL correctness". as i mentioned above, political correctness is not an exclusively liberal concept, but morality is not a part of political correctness. in any case, these is no value to keeping these sections in the article, since you agree that i may have points...it makes more sense that questionable sections should be excluded until a discussion can support inclusion. inclusion of what is clearly biased material distracts from the purpose of the article Truthisfreedomandjustice (talk) 19:25, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

This is your definition. And I said you may have points, but these should be discussed on the article's talk page. This is so other interested editors can participate in the discussion if they so choose. --NeilN talk to me 19:31, 8 June 2015 (UTC) Truthisfreedomandjustice Forgot to ping. --NeilN talk to me 19:33, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Topicons

Congrats on becoming an admin. You might, however, want to remove the autopatrolled rollbacker and reviewer topicons from your userpage now, since they don't apply to you anymore. Everymorning talk 20:57, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

@Everymorning: You're right! Updated, thanks. --NeilN talk to me 21:05, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Tea house

That question has no answer. How long it remain answerless in tea house — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.176.4.215 (talk) 01:22, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

It will go unanswered until a volunteer who knows the answer, answers it. If no one answers it after a period of time, the question will be moved to an archive page. --NeilN talk to me 01:26, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Muhammad

Maybe you should remove the tags, I found the problem "Such edits are frequently a sign of corruption caused by the inappropriate use of WP:VisualEditor." from here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Tags.

This is not a deliberate action of adding tags which I don't what it was before this. RussianDewey (talk) 19:58, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

RussianDewey, whatever you're doing isn't working. All you're adding are the tags (three times now). --NeilN talk to me 20:01, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

There was a miscommunication, I understand now, when I was on my watchlist, I clicked on diff to see what changed and it seemed like the whole of my edit work was deleted at least most of it, so after the third edit I was thinking of not using the virutal editor and do it manually and realized no text were being removed, so I understand my mistake now RussianDewey (talk) 20:05, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

109.149.202.215

Could you revdel his other contribs too please 109.149.202.215 (talk · contribs) Andy Dingley (talk) 20:47, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Andy Dingley, is that the right IP? --NeilN talk to me 20:49, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
It is now, thanks. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:50, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Andy Dingley, looks like it's already done. --NeilN talk to me 20:54, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

as involved admin, please do not freeze Meghan Trainor article to state achieved via Winkelvi's edit warring

Please allow an uninvolved admin to handle this. Thanks--BoboMeowCat (talk) 00:02, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I am not involved. How do you figure that? --NeilN talk to me 00:03, 10 June 2015 (UTC) BoboMeowCat Retry ping --NeilN talk to me 00:04, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
NeilN, I seem to recall you being involved in an edit war, along with Winkelvi, on another Meghan Trainor article. When I have a chance, I will post the diffs regarding this (or retract this if I am mistaken). It also seems I recall past support from you for user:Winkelvi who appears to be edit warring disruptively here against talk page consensus, so it really seems better to let an uninvolved admin handle it.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 00:10, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
BoboMeowCat, please post diffs for this article. Just because I might edit Alabama does not mean I'm involved at Arkansas. These are my edits. Two corrections total to factual inaccuracies. Six hours full protection saves you all a trip to WP:3RRNB. --NeilN talk to me 00:17, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Found it, It was on Meghan Trainor discography where Winkelvi was edit warring against multiple users to change the opening sentence of lead. Content which had been in the article for months. At one point in the discussion, I inquired why you didn't simply ask Winkelvi to please stop edit warring against consensus: talk page discussion here: [10]. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 03:26, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
BoboMeowCat, I remember that. I got thanked by MaranoFan, one the editors usually arguing against Winkelvi, for that one edit. [11] --NeilN talk to me 03:34, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
I think you are mistaken, because at that point, MaranoFan had put herself on self enforced block, which multiple users attributed to wikihounding from Winkelvi, which led to an AN request to interaction ban Winkelvi. I'll see if I can find link to that discussion to confirm dates. (add link to WP:AN disussion: [12]) --BoboMeowCat (talk) 03:39, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Did you look at the diff? --NeilN talk to me 03:40, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
It appears to be a link to a barnstar from MaranoFan not a diff. Perhaps we are both remembering correctly though. I think perhaps Winkelvi was edit warring so long on that article that it spanned beyond Marano's departure. I also remember right before Marano's departure, she was accepting edits that seemed disruptive from Winkelvi, apparently in hopes of getting article stable enough for FA. I've had all the Trainor articles on watchlist since flurry of RfC's and ANI's a few months back and have witnessed an unusual amount of disruption. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 03:48, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I was aware of that AN discussion. Given the history between you three, did you not think the way things were going today, all of you wouldn't end up at some noticeboard? --NeilN talk to me 04:14, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
I reverted once and opened talk page discussion via BRD. I also don't recall having much history with Lips, beyond the fact that I believe we both voted in support of that proposed interaction ban. I honestly don't think the problems on Meghan Trainor articles are going to improve if editors who perhaps admire Winkelvi's good work elsewhere, don't acknowledge some problems. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 04:28, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
If you're assuming protection was somehow an endorsement of Winkelvi, it was not. It was simply the WP:WRONGVERSION. Protection was lifted over three hours ago, constructive comments about content have been made, and you're free to heed them or not. --NeilN talk to me 04:46, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Latest gender identity matter at Chris Crocker article

If you and/or one or more of your talk page watchers don't mind keeping an eye on this matter (see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Gender identity matter at Chris Crocker article, with the WP:Permalink for it here), please do. Flyer22 (talk) 02:50, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh gosh. I had no idea Leave Britney Alone was anything more than a video of the day type thing. --NeilN talk to me 03:07, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
You forgot all about Crocker? Shame on you. Well, as you know, that video was huge. It sustained Crocker's fame for some time. And as the Wikipedia article shows, Crocker went on to do other things and presented in a way that a lot of society deems good-looking. But then again, a lot of people felt that Crocker was pretty at times when presenting as a woman. Anyway, for now, I am avoiding male pronouns for Crocker even though Crocker has yet to state that we should start using female pronouns and the name "Christine"; I keep MOS:Identity in mind, and would rather not having anyone telling me that I am misgendering and being otherwise transphobic. Flyer22 (talk) 03:17, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

belated congratulations

I'm late to offer my congratulations on your successful RFA, but here I am! Allow me to impart the words of wisdom I received from the puppy:
  1. Remember you will always protect the wrong version.
  2. Remember you must always follow the rules, except for when you ignore them. Without exception, you will pick the wrong one to do. (See #5.)
  3. Remember to assume good faith and not bite. Remember that when you are applying these principles most diligently, you are probably dealing with a troll.
  4. Use the block ability sparingly. Enjoy the insults you receive when you do block.
  5. Remember when you make these errors, someone will be more than happy to point them out to you in dazzling clarity and descriptive terminology. It will not be a personal attack because we are admins and, therefore, we are all rouge anyway.
  6. Finally, remember to contact me if you ever need assistance, and I will do what I am able.
KrakatoaKatie 07:44, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
DISCLAIMER: This humor does not reflect the official humor of Wikipedia, the Wikimedia Foundation, or Jimbo Wales, because if it did, it would be much, much better. All rights released under GFDL.
And belated congratulations from me. And I agree with the above, particularly point 6. Doug Weller (talk) 05:59, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

No Worries

I'm not overly concerned with this, Neil. The user was headed in the wrong direction and failing to listen to anyone. I regret it but I saw it coming. Tiderolls 17:10, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Greco-Turk Middle East Dispute

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Greco-Turk Middle East Dispute and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted in most arbitration pages please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Greco-Turk_Middle_East_Dispute

Responded --NeilN talk to me 22:31, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Confusion on Red Meat article

I am sure you are confused. Because this article is so lacking I attempted to alleviate some confusion with an excerpt from the Beef article. I am sorry that this other article does not meet your quality standards, and would suggest looking at it and correcting it, as you thought my edit was so egregious that you interrupted a discussion i was trying to start about off topic discussion that seem to be deliberately influencing the readers. Some commentary about the confusion (deliberate by the pork lobby and not deliberate due to the other definitions of the term is needed in the article. I hope since you are so keen on removing a the addition (which i admit is a work in progress) you will find a way to replace it that meets your standards.144.188.128.3 (talk) 23:14, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi 144. I believe Macrakis reworked some of the useful text while keeping out the restored unsourced text. [13] --NeilN talk to me 23:21, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
not realy, the good part was the stuff that was removed, indicating that there is confusion in because of the multiple definitions, now it is just accuses the meat lobby of deliberately confusing people. Which is an interesting side note that this confusion can lead to manipulation, but it still does not address the confusion. One would think that the cause would have some place in the page. 144.188.128.2 (talk) 16:23, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Replied here. --NeilN talk to me 16:30, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Ip socking

After you protected this page, faizan came back to edit with registered account. Can he be blamed for IP socking? Most SPI cases, check users say, no comments on IP. But this is not a good practice: If i log out and IP edit to pose as a different user and then log in. I disconnect my net connection and then reconnect, so that i get different IP address and then edit as a third user. --Cosmic  Emperor  04:18, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

@CosmicEmperor:, I assume you're talking about Kashmir conflict. When you have a registered account mixed in with IP accounts SPI will evaluate if there's sockpuppetry involved based on behavioral evidence that you have to provide. It's not enough to say that an editor showed up after an article was semi-protected. My advice is to not make any socking accusations unless you are ready to open a SPI with rock solid evidence. --NeilN talk to me 04:36, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

The same user is asking me to play video games.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kashmir_conflict&diff=666510733&oldid=666486732

Thiese IPs starting with 39.47...... --Cosmic  Emperor  17:32, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Claudio Bravo (footballer) page :

Hello, I know you said no yet to protect Claudio Bravo but it really becomes silly how many edits and reverts(all removes are happening by IPS none by registered users ) at this page daily, so will you please take a look at it ? already a discussion about this matter happened at :

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football#Thomas_Vermaelen (similar case to bravo) . 

and also at Talk:Claudio_Bravo_(footballer)

and here is the reference for this matter which is stated clearly by the UEFA regulations (this is official UEFA website!) who gives the medals : Forty gold medals are presented to the winning club, and forty silver medals to the runner-up. Additional medals may not be produced. nothing mentioned about playing minimum minutes or not , and they left it to the club to decide .nothing mentioned about playing minimum minutes or not (http://www.uefa.com/MultimediaFiles/Download/Regulations/uefaorg/Regulations/02/09/88/17/2098817_DOWNLOAD.pdf) and Barcelona official website says he has it {http://www.fcbarcelona.com/football/first-team/staff/players/c-bravo}

even this is the source is used for which honors he has, I mean If we are not going to stick for what they are saying how are we using this as a source? since when editors can pick what they want from the source and delete what they don't want ? hope you take a look at this and thank you for your time Adnan (talk) 15:58, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Adnan, what I see is a content dispute detailed on the talk page. I see the last revert by the IP was without explanation. I will talk to them and indicate they need to continue discussing. --NeilN talk to me 16:06, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, but wikiproject page already discussed this matter
once here : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football#Thomas_Vermaelen.27s_page_question_please_:
another time here : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football#Thomas_Vermaelen
and again did you see the links i have provided ?I provided two official sources one of them is the booklet regulation published by the organization and another one is the official club website and they says he won it.. people keep arguing by saying a report by media from ( voetbalkrant.com ) said otherwise. again only IPS disagree with this and remove it, but registered people are going with what has been said to the wikiproject . thank you for listening :) Adnan (talk) 16:13, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Adnan, see WP:INVOLVED. I cannot say your sources are good and then semi-protect the page. If you have consensus then other editors will revert back to the agreed-upon version and the IP will be forced to use the talk page to change consensus. You are, of course, free to seek the opinion of another admin regarding protection. --NeilN talk to me 16:19, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Oh no need for another admin , It would be silly to jump from admin to another just because another admin didn't agree with what I have said , you don't know me neither know the IPS so I believe you are trying to speak fairly and neutrally and you have been for 9 years so I am sure you know what you are doing :) therefore I 100% trust and will support your decision bud , I was trying to explain my points for you only for real :) I stopped trying to revert it if you noticed since sometimes I think other two users recently they have been trying to add them back. there are other articles to work at :) thank you for listening man :) Adnan (talk) 16:29, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Alen Halilović

Hello again today :) , there is page Alen Halilović an IP keeps changing the infobox. i tried and explained for him how we only put league appearance(s) at infobox and how he is facing 3RR but he didn't really listen and did it again , what is the next step I should do please ? thank you Adnan (talk) 18:51, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for taking care of this matter , the consensus about this is way before even I joined wikipedia : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Infobox_football_biography/Archive_4#Non-league_league_appearances.3F

I will post this at his talk page maybe he can see it is not like something i have decided , but can an ip really see messages we leave for them on talk pages ? thank you again Adnan (talk) 18:58, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Adnan, you discussed it with the IP which is good. What also be useful is if there was a set of community guidelines for football player infoboxes you could point to. I've reverted the IP and left an explicit 3rr message. --NeilN talk to me 19:00, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Adnan, yes that's excellent and yes, IP's can see messages left on their talk pages. --NeilN talk to me 19:01, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you again :) It is a learning process I am getting more and more used to it everyday. I posted the guidelines for footbal player infoboxes on his talk page thank you Adnan (talk) 19:03, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Concerning: Statements Reply

This message is concerning the statements made against User:AndyTheGrump. Andy and I have since updated our situation (see; 22:24, 10 June 2015 (UTC)) and I am in the process of clarifying issues with him. The statement that he had unauthorized accounts has been officially retracted. I have not mentioned this to Andy on the basis that your review process had restricted communications. Please forward a copy of this memo to Andy as an official apology that this issue may be resolved. Habatchii (talk) 23:40, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Your Opinion?

Is this canvassing? Asking a user to take a look at edit war is different but giving the details of editing is not.

first IP Edit

IP request

Use comes back--Cosmic  Emperor  05:25, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I give new editors some leeway as they are unaware of WP:CANVASS. It's not unusual for them to ask for help on an article (my own talk page history has lots of examples). --NeilN talk to me 11:18, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Ip users involved in Kashmir Conflict gives names for facebook then other Ip mentions the name on talk page.--Cosmic  Emperor  10:52, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Posted on the talk page. --NeilN talk to me 11:18, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Gen Z and Millennials page

Could you please take a look at the recent edits and warn or block the user on these pages today? Thank you.! 2606:6000:610A:9000:1D0F:636F:39A:867D (talk) 16:12, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I gave the other editor a 3RR warning before your note. Please be careful of WP:3RR yourself. --NeilN talk to me 16:14, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I meant warn and then bring to it to the admin edit warring notice board first. 2606:6000:610A:9000:1D0F:636F:39A:867D (talk) 16:51, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Ok I will, could you deal with the new changes and clear violation of WP:3RR on the Millennials page now. Thanks. 2606:6000:610A:9000:1D0F:636F:39A:867D (talk) 16:27, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Already reported: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Andre_bachel_li_reported_by_User:NeilN_.28Result:_.29 --NeilN talk to me 16:28, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Could you revert the editor's new changes on Millennials? I cant' or its WP:3RR. Thanks. 2606:6000:610A:9000:1D0F:636F:39A:867D (talk) 16:34, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your assistance.2606:6000:610A:9000:1D0F:636F:39A:867D (talk) 20:51, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Sockpuppet update

New IP 85.243.157.170 (talk · contribs). SLBedit (talk) 17:17, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

No rangeblock is possible so we'll have to block/protect as appropriate. --NeilN talk to me 17:22, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
The solution is to block IPs and pages. New IP is 81.193.2.157 (talk · contribs). SLBedit (talk) 17:57, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
SLBedit, I can't see any evidence the sockmaster edited that article. Do you have any evidence besides a similar IP address? That range has many edits. --NeilN talk to me 18:09, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Because I know the vandal very well. He edits articles related to Portuguese sports all the time (Benfica, football, other sports). I have also noticed that he comments regularly on Record.xl.pt. Same type of writing, same type of interests. SLBedit (talk) 18:13, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
@SLBedit: Ok, I can't block/protect on that basis (sorry). Perhaps you should expand on your ANI report. --NeilN talk to me 18:16, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
I understand. Thanks. SLBedit (talk) 18:17, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

thanks <gasp>

PP at Watts Up etc much appreciated NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:44, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Mann jess' request at RFPP made a lot of sense. Hopefully discussion comes to a conclusion before the protection expires. --NeilN talk to me 19:48, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Re part 1, absolutely! Re part 2....... AhhhhH HAHH AHahaha hahhahha.... oh man, I'm dying here..... NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:55, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Request Since you (wisely) implemented FULL page protection, would you mind posting

{{Move portions from|Watts Up With That?|discuss=Talk:Anthony Watts (blogger)#RFC - Should discussion of Watts' blog be moved to the article about Watts' blog "Watts Up With That?"|date=June 2015}}

to Watts Up With That? I already added Template:Move portions to Anthony Watts (blogger) and started the indicated talk page thread. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:25, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

NewsAndEventsGuy, are you sure that shouldn't be Template:Move portions instead? --NeilN talk to me 22:38, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Your request gives me "It has been suggested that portions of Watts Up With That? be moved or incorporated into this article. (Discuss)" --NeilN talk to me 22:42, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes! I screwed up! The text that needs posting (and this has been tested) is

{{Move portions from|Anthony Watts (blogger)|discuss=Talk:Anthony Watts (blogger)#RFC - Should discussion of Watts' blog be moved to the article about Watts' blog "Watts Up With That?"|date=June 2015}}

Thanks for paying attention NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:49, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

 Done --NeilN talk to me 22:54, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Mucho gracias! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:55, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Greco-Turk Middle East Dispute request for arbitration

The Arbitration Committee has declined the Greco-Turk Middle East Dispute arbitration case request, which you were listed as a party to. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 05:28, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

i am trying to delete it

What is even the point of this "deletion function" if I can come back at any time and restore. It's so stupid. Can you at least blank out all my "notifications" and cancel the ID again? I really see that "thanks" from Alessandro57 as an insult and injury after his blind reversal of legitimate updates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mt hg (talk • contribs)

@Mt hg: So don't come back and restore it. Just leave it alone. --NeilN talk to me 16:00, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

any possibility to cancel notifications?

@Mt hg:, No, there's no way to delete those. --NeilN talk to me 15:09, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

BLW

Hello Sir! At Bangladesh Liberation War, it needs at least semi-protecting. The edit-warring IPs are not discussing it on article's talk. We need temporary protection. Please reconsider your decision. Faizan (talk) 16:00, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Fully protected for two days. --NeilN talk to me 16:17, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, it will allow force the editors to concentrate on the talk page. Another request, can you have a look here? I mean can you add "Page Protected" there? Faizan (talk) 16:31, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Done. --NeilN talk to me 16:44, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! Faizan (talk) 16:46, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for protecting the page. Another request; you protected the last revision which still carries the edits done by the IPs. Please if you can protect this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bangladesh_Liberation_War&oldid=666764786 version i instead. This was the version edited by Faizan and myself beyond which the edit war began. Thanks PakSol talk 18:54, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
@PakSol: Please see WP:WRONGVERSION. Unless the version has a BLP violation or vandalism, I'm not touching the content of the version I happen to protect. --NeilN talk to me 18:59, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
The reason behind the edit war which was initiated by the IPs was that it was adding 'sources' which did not support the text they were added to. I added a citation needed tag and reluctantly the IP came up with certain sources which infact were not accurate. Ref # 13, 14 and 15 added by the IP became the cause of the problem. I have gone through each source and can tell you that they do not support the text they are attached to. May be if you can, I would request you to see it for yourself.

The sentence which was edited by me was: "The junta formed radical religious (bold part was removed) militias- the Razakars, Al-Badr and Al-Shams- to assist the Pakistan Army during raids on the local populace"(citation needed was added here).

As a response, the IP add sources 13, 14 and 15. I am placing the snapshots of these sources below, I would request you to go through them and decided if they support the unsourced text above:

File:Ref13.JPG
Does this proof they were 'radical religious'?
File:Ref14.JPG
Does this prove they assisted Pak Army during raids on civilians? It only mentioned Al-Badar, what about the Razakars & Al-Shams?

PakSol talk 19:55, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Please don't. As the admin who protected the page, I don't get to judge content per WP:INVOLVED. --NeilN talk to me 19:51, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Ok, I understand your limitations. But I can conclude that in an edit war might is always right. Thanks for your time PakSol talk 19:55, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

RE: RPP

Even under the circumstances where user was clearly editing/blanking/reverting under extreme bad faith then I see. I'll just point out the rather rude things he was saying in his edit notes as he was reverting both of us. Melody Concertotalk 20:29, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

@Melody Concerto: WP:OWNTALK is worth a read. And I've removed those edit summaries. --NeilN talk to me 20:31, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Alright, thank you very much! Melody Concertotalk 20:35, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Parametric Chassis

Hello NeilN. You said that the article was for promo, it wasn't... Its a Greek patent and innovation with copyrights . The article talks for what is parametric chassis and suspension module, phrases that you haven't here, so we extend your library. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gkalogiantsidis (talk • contribs) 22:05, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Gkalogiantsidis, as I stated on the Help Desk, the article read like a press release. --NeilN talk to me 22:18, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

post

My post was rejected earlier on. I believe that's unfair, as the information which I posted was factual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Islamicsecrets (talk • contribs) 22:27, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Islamicsecrets, please see our policies on original research and neutral point of view. What you wrote was an essay, exalting a religious figure. --NeilN talk to me 22:35, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Parametric Chassis

I don't understand... where is the problem, because you read it like a press release you deleted it ??? I told you that the copyrights are ours and the article is writen by us, so NeilN where is the problem ??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gkalogiantsidis (talk • contribs) 22:45, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Gkalogiantsidis: If it reads like a press release, that is the problem. Wikipedia articles may not be blatant promotion. They need to be neutrally-written prose, which press releases are not. —C.Fred (talk) 23:11, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

-- C.Fred It is neutrally-written by us but NeilN read it like a press release... Maybe he found 1-2 phrases that he didn't like, NeilN open the article and i'll change them — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gkalogiantsidis (talk • contribs) 23:28, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Gkalogiantsidis, actually three people considered it advertising. The person who nominated it for deletion, the admin who deleted it, and myself. If you want it restored, you can ask an admin in this category. I think DESiegel is usually sympathetic to such requests. --NeilN talk to me 02:46, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
    That would be four people, including me, Gkalogiantsidis. While I am generally sympathetic to such requests, in this case extensive rewriting would be needed, not just a few phrases. If I restore it, it will be as a Draft: page, subject to Articles for Creation review. If you want that, post to my talk page or ping me from yours. Or you can ask at WP:REFUND. DES (talk) 03:26, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Hillary Clinton

Shall semi-protection be restored? The size makes the article vulnerable to vandalism. --George Ho (talk) 02:55, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

George Ho, I'm looking at the protection logs (which are a bit of a mess) and can find no evidence the article was semi-protected? --NeilN talk to me 03:01, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
How about Hilary Rodham Clinton? --George Ho (talk) 03:10, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Nothing there either. [14] Philg88 (or any other watcher admins), can you shed a light? --NeilN talk to me 03:15, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
It's in the prot log for Hillary Rodham Clinton, 20:06, 13 March 2008, semi'd by EncMstr (talk · contribs). It's shown as "edit=autoconfirmed:move=sysop" - at that time, the prot log didn't record the durations, so we don't know if it was indef. If it was for (say) 7 years, it will have expired 13 March 2015. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:43, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Umm... currently, I see "pp-semi-blp" in the edit page at the top. --George Ho (talk) 03:19, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
I've semied for three months. Any admin can change this. --NeilN talk to me 03:27, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Continued protection of the article seems eminently sensible given the history of move warring. Hopefully, that's the end of it ...  Philg88 ♦talk 17:22, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
@Philg88: Semi-protection implies edit protection, not move protection - users who are not autoconfirmed cannot move pages, even if the page has no prot. In this case, the last move vandalism was over seven years ago, and the last move "warring" was just under two years ago. It's had indefinite move protection since 23:37, 23 February 2008, so any moves since then (of which there have been five - four being in June 2013, with one being three days ago: moves from Hillary Clinton; moves from Hillary Rodham Clinton) must have been done by an admin, and should have been preceded by a WP:RM consensus. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:28, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
@Redrose64: It was. The last move was as a result of this consensus.  Philg88 ♦talk 19:38, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
I just wanted to know what was the prior state of edit protection before I temporarily fully protected it for one day. I could not discern that from the logs. --NeilN talk to me 19:42, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
I checked the logs and one of prior revisions. The article had been protected since 2008 until full protection. --George Ho (talk) 20:39, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Okay, I see that now. Thanks George. --NeilN talk to me 20:41, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Stratford station request for semi-protection

Hi there! I heard that you have declined my request. It's ok but I just want to know why is it a dispute resolution? Is it because I should request for a temporary page protection or completely not? Vincent60030 (talk) 03:12, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

@NeilN: just in case you didn't notice this. Vincent60030 (talk) 03:23, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Vincent60030. No need to ping people on their own talk page. Looking at the history, I see a fairly static IP who might need to be reblocked (Redrose64 can you weigh in?) and one good faith editor who might need things explained to them on the talk page (i.e., dispute resolution). If the IP should be blocked, then the disruption is gone. --NeilN talk to me 03:35, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
@NeilN: Is it the 151.224 something IP? Vincent60030 (talk) 03:47, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Vincent60030, yes. Blocking one disruptive editor is usually preferable to protecting an article. --NeilN talk to me 03:49, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
@NeilN: Hmm, I guess so. Just to wait for Redrose64 to block the IP editor. :) Vincent60030 (talk) 03:54, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
I only just got up (I live by UK time, currently UTC+1). It's 21 hours since the last edit of 151.224.250.165 (talk), blocking now, when they've not been warned since expiry of last block, would go against WP:IPB. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:47, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
@Redrose64: Looking at their edits since April, it's obvious it's the same user so all previous warnings would apply. Despite being reverted numerous times, I don't see a single talk page post from them. Are they deliberately adding incorrect info or do you think this is a competence issue? --NeilN talk to me 15:56, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
It's a bit of both. For instance, they claim that there are direct services between Fenchurch Street and Stratford, despite the absence of such trains from the National Rail tables 1 & 5. They also insist on packing every possible service variation into the routeboxes, including the short-running services that only run once or twice a day. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:20, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Template:History of Iran

Restore semi-protection? --George Ho (talk) 04:02, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

George Ho, that semi was applied in 2007. Let's see what happens with it off. --NeilN talk to me 04:09, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Congrats

On becoming an admin. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:18, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Doc James. And congrats to you on your election to the Board! --NeilN talk to me 15:58, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
+1. I'm sorry to see that I missed the RfA. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:10, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Editor adding fake illegitimate children to biography articles

Jccoelho99 has mystifyingly added unsourced and apparently non-existent illegitimate children to four different biography articles so far: here, here, here, and here. By the way he also often edits logged out as Special:Contributions/46.189.203.221. I have warned him on his talk page just now. However since this seems to be his main purpose here, could people please keep an eye on him? Thank you, Softlavender (talk) 12:52, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Range block

Not sure what your knowledge of applying rangeblocks is but 5.150.92.16/29 might get rid of that ANI nuisance for a while. Amortias (T)(C) 18:00, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

@Amortias: If they pop back up then I'll see if a /27 or a /29 will be effective. --NeilN talk to me 18:04, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Juanmi (footballer, born 1993)

Hello Neil, could you please semi-protect Juanmi (footballer, born 1993). A lot of IP vandalism that needs reverting. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 19:42, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Protected a minute ago by Ymblanter. --NeilN talk to me 19:44, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Kamala Nehru

Your latest message seems reasonable. At least you have taken the trouble to read what I wrote. Since you have done that, why not correct any problems instead of erasing everything in one shot? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.182.176.230 (talk) 11:09, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi 59. The entire addition is problematic and I don't have access to the source to see what it actually says. If you look at Mahatma Gandhi, you'll see an example of a proper encyclopedic tone. Reading WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV might also help. --NeilN talk to me 11:15, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Wow. Since you do not have a copy of the book, the whole thing must go. Does that seem right? I DO have a copy of the book, why does that count for nothing? Also, what is the abuse or slander I have included which needs to be verified for "what the book actually says?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.182.176.230 (talk) 11:24, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Since I don't have a copy of the book, I can't correct the many issues with your addition. I don't know what you're basing sentences like, "Indeed, the idea of a vacation in the hills was a novel one in Indian society at that time, and had been borrowed by Motilal from the colonial British custom of escaping the heat of the plains in the summer and spending those months in the hills", "The diffident and very Indian Kamala was thrown into this ultra-modern and highly westernized environment at the age of sixteen, to shift for herself and adjust as she could", and "Unfortunately, Kamala's husband (our future Prime Minister) was not sympathetic or understanding of her murmured complaints; he was as culturally distant from her as his sisters were." on. --NeilN talk to me 11:31, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
I followed the link you pointed me to and read the page about "attributing biased statements." I think the "bias" which you find in my writings can be stated like this: "Kamala grew up in an old-fashioned home. She had major problems adjusting to her husband's extremely westernized home. Even to the end, she remained something of a misfit." Is this the general bias which you detect? The thing is that this is a matter of fact, and a fairly large portion of the book fleshes out the many ways in which this fact played out throughout Kamala's life and Indira Gandhi's childhood, how it affected Indira's personality, family relationships and even her marriage to Feroze Gandhi. I have not written all this, because these matters are more suitable for the Indira Gandhi page.
Therefore, when it comes to "attributing biased statements," I have this very scholarly and non-controversial book by Katherine Frank as my definite citation and attribution. The basic issue which I described above are well known and confirmed by every many sources and even by Jawaharlal's own autobiography. They are actually non-controversial. Further, I do not know how to prove this to you, since you do not have the book, but all three of the sentences pointed out by you are summarizations of long paragraphs in the book, even the sentence about how the idea of a vacation in the hills was a sort of affirmation by Motilal of how modern and westernized he was.
I want to make one final point: that Kamala Nehru is notable only for being the wife of Jawaharlal and mother of Indira Gandhi. If details regarding her relationship with these people is not described, then what is the use of having this page on Wikipedia? Is the page here only for letting people know her date of birth?

I will copy-paste this discussion to the Kamala Nehru talk page. It will be easier for me to keep track of your reply.

Chris Pratt

Thanks for your work on the Chris Pratt page. People like you make Wikipedia better for the rest of us! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.25.122.152 (talk) 13:21, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Awaiting interest on talk pages

Hello NeilN Some weeks ago I requested some edits on the talk pages of Ask.fm, Formspring and internet troll following conversations with yourself but there doesn't seem to have been any interest from other editors. Can I make these edits, or can you? I don't think they are unreasonable. apiano (talk) 14:17, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

apiano, I will get back to you within 24 hours. --NeilN talk to me 14:19, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
I think I'll be making those changes today. --NeilN talk to me 14:19, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Thankyou NeilN apiano (talk) 09:56, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Merge Tag

NeilN, a tentative proposal was made to merge Political positions of Jeb Bush into Jeb Bush at Talk:Jeb Bush. It appears that the proposal has been withdrawn, but there is some disagreement regarding whether the Merge tag should be removed from Jeb Bush. My read of WP:Merging seems to indicate that there needs to be a designated section with a specific proposal in Talk to support the use of the Merge tag. When you have a moment, can you please take a look and let us know what you think? Thank you.CFredkin (talk) 15:56, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

@CFredkin: Replied and the Political positions of Jeb Bush article should not have that hatnote at the top. --NeilN talk to me 16:06, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks very much.CFredkin (talk) 16:50, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

IP with a specific agenda

Thank you, NeilN, for tending to a WP:RFPP request I submitted regarding what I assumed was a new editor unfamiliar with the general rules of editing at Wikipedia. However, after looking more closely at the editing history of the most recent IPs, I see this disruption has been almost continuous since the middle of last year. I note that the editor has had its IPs blocked for disruption at least a few times here by User:Drmies, here by Wifione and here by Bbb23. The editor has also demonstrated a willingness to use dynamic public wireless to continue edit wars after having its regular IPs blocked. See:

The editor has caused an article to be temporarily (by HJ Mitchell here and again by Drmies here) semi-protected because of disruption. The IP has been cautioned and instructed by numerous editors and admins, including Bbb23 (here), DrFleischman and James Cage (here). Just a very brief search shows this same editor also using these IPs to cross-paste information about Obamacare-related court cases in a slew of articles, whether relevant to those article subjects or not:

I'm not really sure how to proceed with this matter. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 19:30, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Xenophrenic, it's hard to deal with IP hoppers like this and perhaps the experienced admins you pinged will have some ideas. We may have to put long term semi-protection on his targets. Alternatively, if the same text is re-used over and over, perhaps an edit filter would help. Thanks for your research and if you spot more socks disrupting articles, let me know or report to RFPP. --NeilN talk to me 19:45, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Xenophrenic for pinging me. I wasn't aware this individual has recently been adding similar material at David Yerushalmi, Burwell, Thomas More Law Center, Patrick Morrisey, Ron Johnson (U.S. politician), and United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. I've been dealing with him since last September when he first edited Constitutional challenges to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, and it's been like a game of whack-a-mole since. I started with direct blocks, then he started IP hopping so I switched to a semi-protection strategy while batting down a POV fork. This editor is a true believer in the cause - doesn't listen, likely has a COI, and will disrupt if necessary to force his desired content (mostly OR) into the encyclopedia. Evidently he is now spreading his gospel beyond the PPACA articles themselves. Luckily he has a unique, easily recognizable editing style. Perhaps a rangeblock is called for? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:06, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Rangeblocking is impractical. Just from the IPs above, you're looking at three relatively large subranges plus several isolated IPs—the guy obviously has a dynamic IP or access to multiple connections (he might also be using proxies). My guess is that the collateral damage would be enormous. An edit filter might be worth a try if anyone has the technical nouse to put one together; failing that, medium- to long-term semi protection is probably the only way to go. It's a bazuka to kill a fly, but the fly seems to be immune to everything else we've tried. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:11, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Bbb23 blocked the most recently used IP here for 2 weeks. The editor reappeared under this IP yesterday, and made a few edits. Whether that is intentional block evasion or simply a dynamic IP reassigning, I'll leave to others to decide. I had hoped the conclusion of the related Supreme Court case two days ago might have resulted in reduced interest by this editor, but apparently not. I'll keep an eye on the several articles frequented by this editor, as listed above by DrFleischman, and I'll clean up any small messes I find. If edit wars involving this editor do resume, I'll probably just visit WP:RFPP as needed. Thanks for the responses, Xenophrenic (talk) 19:34, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
For being an awesome new admin who continues to do admin-y things beyond the first day of gaining the tools. I keep heading to the noticeboards to find you've already cleaned them out! I commend your great judgement, and I look forward to working with you more :) — MusikAnimal talk 00:02, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks MusikAnimal. And I'm very aware of whose scripts and tools I'm using to do these admin-y things. Thanks for those. --NeilN talk to me 00:22, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

M Lamar

hi nein, i provided a link to his official site what more can I do than that in terms of official info!?!?!?!??!? Why is his official site not seen as reliable??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reginaldlamar (talk • contribs) 01:47, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

@Reginaldlamar: Please see Talk:M Lamar. There's a good chance the subject is an unreliable source in this case. --NeilN talk to me 01:51, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Nerdcubed

I missed deleting the talk page, thanks for the tag. I normally wouldn't bother to salt a talk page, but seeing how active that one has been I decided to. The size and speed of that sock farm is amazing. Check this out. Too many of them to watch. --MelanieN (talk) 02:55, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

MelanieN, I know! I blocked most of them I think. --NeilN talk to me 02:57, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
They seem to reproduce faster than we can swat them. Good job, keep at it. --MelanieN (talk) 03:02, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Looks like User:DerpoTheClown is still unblocked. --MelanieN (talk) 03:04, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
And User:Haveawankm8. --MelanieN (talk) 03:05, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
And User:Haveagiantwank. Man, they are everywhere! Went ahead and blocked that one myself. (I sometimes forget I have a block button. 0;-D ) --MelanieN (talk) 03:09, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
MelanieN, I was wondering! Also, girlfriend: "What are you doing?" Me: "Blocking having a giant wa- uh, nothing." --NeilN talk to me 03:17, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Whack!

Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

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

You do realize that applying an autoblock to a bot on the WMF labs results in the autoblock propagating among all the other bots that share IPs on the labs? That's most of Wikipedia's maintenance bots, with the exception of a couple like Cluebot NG. I've cleared the autoblock issue. (As an aside, misbehaving bots are normally blocked indefinitely until the problem is resolved.) Anyway, enjoy your trout! :P Reaper Eternal (talk) 04:46, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeeesh, I do now. --NeilN talk to me 04:58, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
I suggest grilling that trout and serving it sprinkled with slivered almonds, alongside wild rice and steamed asparagus. A nice Sauvignon blanc would be delightful. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:03, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia_talk:Blocking_policy#Proposed_addition_to_Wikipedia:Blocking_policy.23Blocking_bots --NeilN talk to me 05:19, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Is this why the tools labs crashed so spectacularly yesterday (on the 17th)? "Labs (including tool labs) is down, and it's not clear when it will be back up again. Yesterday, the file system used by many Labs tools suffered a catastrophic failure, causing most tools to break. " Or is this just a coincidence? Capitalismojo (talk) 22:35, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Capitalismojo, it's file system corruption which occurred today, not yesterday. Nothing to do with bots. You can read this thread for more info. --NeilN talk to me 22:50, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
In other words, this earned Neil a WP:TROUT, but not a place in the WP:STOCKS. --MelanieN (talk) 00:08, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
MelanieN, when I blocked "Lila" the other day, [15] I knew it was the correct thing to do but there was still a little tiny voice saying if I was wrong, I would never, ever, ever live it down. --NeilN talk to me 00:23, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
I propose we blame NeilN for everything going forward. Much easier than our current system of figuring out stuff and stuff. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 00:26, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
  1. REDIRECTUser talk:FreeRangeFrog. I bet 75% of the people posting wouldn't notice... --NeilN talk to me 00:36, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Not that is funny! Scr★pIronIV 00:58, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Korina Sanchez wikipage

Thank you Neil. I am trying to improved Korna's page base on Korina's official webpage. But some are trying to vandalized the page. Hope you understand my side. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaye2Santos (talk • contribs) 08:35, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Kaye2Santos, the Wikipedia article is not an extension of the subject's webpage. It looks like you are trying to remove negative but sourced information from the article with no appropriate explanation. Reversing this is not vandalism. --NeilN talk to me 10:45, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Don Cossacks

Hi, as you had told me on the RPP page, I waited for another edit to the Don Cossacks page. A new IP has come and undone my edit, stating that they were repairing a vandalised page in the edit summary. I have left a warning. What should be done now? --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 18:04, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Jim Butterworth

This page contains a tremendous amount of opinion and false information. The page is definitely libelous and was created, without question, by one or more disgruntled former employees of the Georgia National Guard. One former employee lives in Washington, DC and the libelous edits show the anonymous IP address to be from that area. It is unfair, and probably constitutes libel, for this page to be displayed on Wikipedia. It is therefore against the Wikipedia Terms of Use and should be reverted to content displayed prior to the unscrupulous edits which have been made by this individual. I have not spoken with the individual to whom this page is directed, but I'm positive he would agree with these assertions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.192.219.6 (talk) 18:09, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @167.192.219.6: Please have a look at our verifiability and Biographies of living people policies. Just because it doesn't suit your POV, it does not mean, it is incorrect. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 18:13, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
You are also removing sources and his picture. Please be very careful about throwing terms like libel around per our no legal threats policy. If there are factual errors in the article, please specifically point them out using the article's talk page. --NeilN talk to me 18:47, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

If I really knew how to use wikipedia then I would engage to do the things you metnion. unfortunately I don't. It does seem, however that you all have tried to create a community free from attacks and free from editorialized opinion from unscrupulous individuals who engage with malice. That doesn't seem to be the intent with this site. I hope you can enforce it and foster the community you desire. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.192.219.6 (talk) 20:04, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

There is nothing malicious in the article. Just because it mentions something negative, it is not malicious. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 03:20, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Bots


You are receiving this message because a technical change may affect a bot, gadget, or user script you have been using. The breaking change involves API calls. This change has been planned for two years. The WMF will start making this change on 30 June 2015. A partial list of affected bots can be seen here: https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2015-June/081931.html This includes all bots that are using pywikibot compat. Some of these bots have already been fixed. However, if you write user scripts or operate a bot that uses the API, then you should check your code, to make sure that it will not break.

What, exactly, is breaking? The "default continuation mode" for action=query requests to api.php will be changing to be easier for new coders to use correctly. To find out whether your script or bot may be affected, then search the source code (including any frameworks or libraries) for the string "query-continue". If that is not present, then the script or bot is not affected. In a few cases, the code will be present but not used. In that case, the script or bot will continue working.

This change will be part of 1.26wmf12. It will be deployed to test wikis (including mediawiki.org) on 30 June, to non-Wikipedias (such as Wiktionary) on 1 July, and to all Wikipedias on 2 July 2015.

If your bot or script is receiving the warning about this upcoming change (as seen at https://www.mediawiki.org/w/api.php?action=query&list=allpages ), it's time to fix your code!

Either of the above solutions may be tested immediately, you'll know it works because you stop seeing the warning.

Do you need help with your own bot or script? Ask questions in e-mail on the mediawiki-api or wikitech-l mailing lists. Volunteers at m:Tech or w:en:WP:Village pump (technical) or w:en:Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard may also be able to help you.

Are you using someone else's gadgets or user scripts? Most scripts are not affected. To find out if a script you use needs to be updated, then post a note at the discussion page for the gadget or the talk page of the user who originally made the script. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 19:03, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Chris Evans

Chris Evans and Jessica Biel dated from 2001 to 2006 and not 2004 to 2006 like most websites are reporting. People.com which is the most reliable celebrity source is the only one to be correct. http://www.people.com/people/jessica_biel/biography/ A little research and you can find pictures of them from 2001. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saraz89 (talk • contribs) 20:53, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Saraz89. The proper place to bring this up is at Talk:Chris Evans (actor). --NeilN talk to me 20:58, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I just sent you an email

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

I just sent you an email about setting up a time to discuss Flow for community processes, inspired in part by our recent Teahouse discussion. Let me know if you're interested in speaking with me! Cheers, Jmorgan (WMF) (talk) 22:28, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

List of unaccredited institutions of higher education

I'll remind you shortly before protection expires. Previously, the semi-protection was indefinite. --George Ho (talk) 01:02, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks George, I actually have that in my calendar. --NeilN talk to me 02:47, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Requesting protection for multiple articles at once?

Hello NeilN, I hope you are doing well. I'll get to the point to avoid taking up too much of your time.
Is there a policy/guideline page I can read about nominating more than one page for semi-protection from unregistered users at a time? I recently fell into a few disputes where several editors in the same topic area (not socks, just happened to be around the same time) either got blocked, banned or simply chased away for unconstructive, bad faith edits. Since then, somebody - and I'm sure it's one of the aforementioned miscreants, but I'm not sure which one - has followed be around undoing edits of mine from various articles, more than half a dozen at least. And some of the edits are from last year, too, and simply included punctuation marks and things like that. It's plain and simple harassment and every single time, it's from a different IP address.
So is there a quick and easy way to just request semi-protection for all of those articles at once? MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:09, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi MezzoMezzo. If all the articles need protecting for the same reason then format your request like Never Mind the Breeze Blocks on Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection/Rolling_archive#17_June_2015. Be sure to include enough info so the processing admin can see protection will prevent future disruption. --NeilN talk to me 04:24, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Cool, thanks a bunch! MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:02, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Repeated content removal

Can 68.174.156.137 (talk · contribs) be banned from editing the Emeraude Toubia page please? 12.180.133.18 (talk) 07:51, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I gave 68 a final warning. --NeilN talk to me 08:50, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you for protecting the page for Acid Rap! I'd thought that the drama for that page was done back in 2013, only to find otherwise. (sighs) In any case thank you so much for indeffing the page! Hopefully that'll keep the moves from happening, although I'd probably recommend that you keep the page on your watch list for a while since it's possible that they may try to accomplish this via other methods like cut/pasting it to a new title and then changing the page to a redirect. I'm re-adding it to mine. As I said on the protect page I don't think that this is a case of the same editor returning to do this, but I'd say that it's likely that it's someone who might be familiar with that person. The arguments and actions are just a little too similar for comfort. Anywho, drama's over for the day. Hopefully. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:40, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome. The fact that Reaper Eternal undid the same move less than a week ago and the editor who moved the page yet again is indef blocked made it an easy call. --NeilN talk to me 08:45, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks again! I didn't know if I should request the page protection via you or go through the page request process- since the IP was throwing around accusations of impropriety I wanted to make sure that all of the Ts were crossed and all that stuff. Thanks again! Hopefully the protection will dissuade this person. I'm actually beginning to think that this is a case of socking or meating from a pretty small group, beginning with the whole Ben0kto stuff. I opened up an SPI that feels a little tin hat-ish, but it's starting to get a little bit ridiculous. (sighs) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:16, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Institute of Financial Accountants Wiki entry

Hi there, firstly please excuse my naivete in using this site. My intention is just to send you a personal message, not start a discussion (or war !) of any sort with others ! Thanks for your advice offered concerning the use of Wiki. I just wanted to say a couple of things regarding this. Though I am a Fellow of the Institute of Financial Accountants(IFA), my only intention was to make neutral and honest contributions. I would not want it any other way. My thoughts regarding the entry regarding the plagiarising the of the ACCA syllabus, was that the effect of this was defamatory and brought the IFA into disrepute. The CIMA refused to allow exemptions as the IFA was said to have plagiarised the ACCA syllabus, but they did reverse this decision and allow exemption for the IFA later. I am merely repeating here what has already been stated. Stating this after the decision has been reversed seems to me to be intentionally defamatory, and has the effect of discrediting the IFA. I did make a factual entry stating that members of the IFA are able to do most of the work that Chartered Accountants do, but did not back this up with evidence by way of producing a source. The truth is that the majority of the work in Chartered Accounting Practices (and with other accountants) is done by people that are not qualified accountants. Everybody who knows anything about the subject knows this to be the case. Again not backed up by a source, but this is not to be entered on the IFA page anyway.There will be a vested interest in keeping this fact out of sight as far as possible of course. There is also the possibility of bias from members of other accounting bodies of course, as they are in competition. Many thanks for taking the time to read this message. All the best, Justgivethetruth (talk) 13:28, 20 June 2015 (UTC) Justgivethetruth (Ray Harwood) Justgivethetruth (talk) 13:34, 20 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justgivethetruth (talk • contribs) 14:02, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

talk, please stop posting to umpteen user talk pages about the Institute of Financial Accountants Wiki entry. The place to discuss it is the article's talk page. Glad to see you're getting the hang of signing your messages, but if SineBot has been by, no need to add more signatures. I think your questions here are already answered there; if not, please re-ask there. --Elvey(t•c) 21:11, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Would you reconsider...

A User is now making moves without any discussion on the talk-page [16]. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:10, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Would you reconsider not involving yourself in anything other than actually creating article content? You are far too interested in what others do, and not in creating article content. The article that you are referencing should not even be on WP per WP:NOTNEWS. Contribute to something other than drama. Scr★pIronIV 04:15, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
You're joking right? Send the article to AfD then if you feel it is WP:NOTNEWS. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:17, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Grow up. My goodness, at your age you should stop being such a child. This is an encyclopedia, not a blog site. Scr★pIronIV 04:20, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Again send it to AfD if you feel that way, I don't know what your problem is you haven't contributed to the article in question so why are you even here telling me to mind my own business? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:24, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
And again, I would recommend you worry more about the encyclopedia than about others. Why does this bother you>? Be an ADULT, and worry about YOURSELF, and not about what others do or say. If you can't do that, then.... well, you would not listen to my recommendations. Scr★pIronIV 04:30, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
You know someone once told me that when you look at a user always assume that they are here to improve the encyclopedia. You aren't wrong when you say "worry about the encyclopedia" but since you haven't indicated that you know why I came here it leaves me confused. Anyways, its getting late here, this is my final comment here as I did rush to come here after I saw the move, things are okay now so have a good night/day (Where-ever you may be). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:37, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
FWIW, Knowledgekid87's request was justified and we definitely do have articles on widely covered events such as this one. --NeilN talk to me 12:13, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Just wanted to say as well that I wish the whole adult maturity BS would stop, I already requested that my real age not be brought into play here on Wikipedia. Content not contributor. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:11, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Indeed, I should not have poked my nose in. I offer my apologies, and will let it go. I get frustrated with the "news" stories, and was taking it all personally. So, I was the one being childish. I wish you well - 13:30, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your apology, I accept it and wish you the same. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:43, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Don Cossacks, again

The edit warring continues, this time with a second IP. @ScrapIronIV: and I have been undoing it. Users calls our edits vandalism, and claims their edits are repairs. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 04:54, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Materialscientist has taken care of it. --NeilN talk to me 12:03, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Z07x10

I see that you have blocked User:Z07x10 for disruptive editing which is appreciated, he has also engaged in vandalism to insult me and another user who oppose his views, see: See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Enumclaw_horse_sex_case&type=revision&diff=667607533&oldid=666540696 regards Mztourist (talk) 13:27, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Mztourist, that's what I blocked him for. I also warned him that any future edits like that would result in an indefinite block. --NeilN talk to me 13:29, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
I appreciate the block, but this was a deliberate action against me coming on top of edit warring and sock puppetry accusations since the 4th of June, he has been a disruptive editor for some time in relation to the Eurofighter Typhoon page and I really think a longer/permanent block is warranted at this point. Mztourist (talk) 13:33, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Mztourist, for that you will have to bring up the matter at WP:ANI and see if there's consensus for an indefinite block. --NeilN talk to me 13:36, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, I will do that. Mztourist (talk) 13:37, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Kieran Trippier

Hello Neil, could you please semi-protect Kieran Trippier. A lot of unsourced additions being made, which need reverting. JMHamo (talk) 16:10, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

JMHamo, I've processed your RFPP request. What's with all the disruption on footballer articles this week? --NeilN talk to me 16:15, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
It's transfer time.. loads more disruption to come over the next month :) JMHamo (talk) 16:16, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I am not experienced with using this software. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.181.52.54 (talk) 02:59, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Philadelphia Church of God - deleted my additions

You deleted my additions to a page for Philadelphia Church of God. You said there is not valid source. I AM the valid source currently living the hell that is PCG and their teachings. My mother is still in that cult and being controlled by Mr. Flurry Sr and Jr. If you want church doctrine references themselves then let me know.... I can send you a boat load of crap from them that confirms every word I said. You are worried about them being alive and me talking smack about them... how about telling the truth so seekers can know what they are being brainwashed into. Here are some sources for you these excerpts come DIRECTLY from PCG newsletters and sermons: http://silenced.co/2015/06/pcg-justifies-no-contact-policy/ Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). http://armstrongismlibrary.blogspot.com/2015/05/gerald-flurry-prefers-to-see-pcg.htmlCite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).

BlanketTrainingBastards (talk) 03:19, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

BlanketTrainingBastards, please see our verifiability policy and reliable sources guideline. Content in articles is not sourced by editors' experiences or blogs but by good quality independent sources like newspapers or academic papers. --NeilN talk to me 03:42, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) With the greatest respect, BlanketTrainingBastards, you might also want to have a look at WP:GREATWRONGS which talks about the issue of coming here determined that all shall hear the Truth. Sorry for all your hurt and what you and your family are going through, but this is almost certainly the wrong place and the wrong way to address it. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 14:07, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Institute of Financial Accountants Wiki COI

Hi there, just messaging to confirm that the prior message concerning the above was from me. I should have signed this apparently, so apologies for my ignorance on the matter. All the best, Sincerely, Justgivethetruth (talk) 13:25, 20 June 2015 (UTC) Justgivethetruth (Ray Harwood)

Korina Sanchez

user:Kaye2Santos continues to edit with out explanation. check history of Korina Sanchez. I again request for page protection. Raabbustamante (talk) 05:23, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Raabbustamante, I just posted on your talk page. The page will not be protected because you and them are edit warring. Please use the talk page to work it out. Also, the other user is autoconfirmed so semi-protection would be useless. --NeilN talk to me 05:27, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

as per your suggestion, it has been discussed ad nauseam, if you read the talk history. the article is fully referenced. the burden off proof is not on me. but on someone deleteing with out explanation. Raabbustamante (talk) 06:21, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Raabbustamante, I did look at the talk page and at least one other editor is ambivalent: "A new editor/anon continues to remove content. No discussion, simply deletion. Would like to see discussion. I don't agree with the content, but it is somewhat sourced." Regardless, semi-protection would be ineffective. --NeilN talk to me 06:25, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

[[User talk:NeilN| but the actions of user:Kaye2Santos constitutes as an edit war. 3 edit rule applies. temporary protection should be applied.as the user is only editing this item alone, and probably proves a bias or is employed by the subject matter!.Raabbustamante (talk) 06:35, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

For the third time, semi-protection will not do anything. Kaye2Santos will still be able to edit the article, the same as you. Please read Wikipedia:Protection policy if you still don't understand how semi-protect works. --NeilN talk to me 06:53, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

user:Kaye2Santos pattern of edits clearly shows Tendentious editing, what are the options for this if the editor fails to explain or discuss action? Raabbustamante (talk) 07:17, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Raabbustamante, they have not edited in a couple days and I've already warned them they could be blocked if they continue. --NeilN talk to me 07:20, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank youRaabbustamante (talk) 07:37, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

user:Kaye2Santos continues her disruptive edit. what are the options? Raabbustamante (talk) 19:33, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Raabbustamante, I made a suggestion before. [17] --NeilN talk to me 19:40, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Raabbustamante And no, repeatedly copying the comments of another editor isn't what I suggested. --NeilN talk to me 19:46, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I did not copy any editors commens? what do you mean? Raabbustamante (talk)

Raabbustamante, what the other editor wrote: [18] And what I now see you copied to an unrelated page here. And copied the text again here. Why did you do this? It's very misleading --NeilN talk to me 20:01, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

look at history if it is misleading, it applies to the situation. if you believe disruptive editing is ok, I would no longer ask for assistance. instead of dealing with disruptive edits, you are questioning my intentions?Raabbustamante (talk) 20:21, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Raabbustamante, unfortunately you are contributing to the disruption by making it seem other people commented on the discussion when they didn't and by pasting user warnings on article talk pages. The user you are in dispute with is communicating [19] so there's no "easy" block here. You will have to use the talk page to articulate why the content should be there. --NeilN talk to me 20:29, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Sockpuppet notice removal on talk page

Hello. I'm wondering why a notification about a sockpuppet investigation was posted on my page by User:Aceticrpose mard aurat and then removed. Do you have more information on the nature of this notice? Thanks, Vaughn88 (talk) 06:48, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Vaughn88, the editor was trolling and only here to disrupt Wikipedia. [20] --NeilN talk to me 06:50, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks User:NeilN, that's disheartening but thanks for your help. Vaughn88 (talk) 06:51, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, my talk page too. Thanks for noticing and cleaning up, NeilN. You are among the best janitors around. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:58, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Cullen328. At least the incident motivated me to find the mass rollback script afterwards. --NeilN talk to me 07:00, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Always learning. That's exemplary. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:02, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Request for Assistance

User:NeilN, there is a discussion about merging two articles in the Talk Pages of Az-Zakariyya and Zekharia, under the section: "Merge," and I would be deeply grateful if you could give your impartial opinion.

Initially, I tried making revisions in the article, Az-Zakariyya, by adding the current Israeli data about the village (now a Jewish Moshav, but formerly an Arab village). The author of that article (an Arab) disagreed that I add any current status about the village (such as current population stats, photographs, etc.) and so I desisted from doing so. See history of page. Since there was a second article written about the same Moshav (namely, Zekharia, this time written by a Jew but much shorter in scope), I decided to work on his article and to bring it up to par by enhancing it and carrying over some of the information found in the other article, although improving upon it and deleting derogatory statements about Israel. Now, the same (Arab) editor wishes to delete my edits on Zekharia, alleging that after a request for merger has been submitted no changes should be made in either article. Again, to better understand what has so far transpired between me and the other editor, you may wish to see the Talk pages on Az-Zakariyya and Zekharia, under the section: "Merge." I would hope that you can help solve our dispute, but more importantly, that the editor in question does not continue to disrupt my editing, just as I would not disrupt another person's editing.Davidbena (talk) 09:48, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Please update pasi(caste) page

Please update pasi(caste) page

Pasi (caste)

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/20668/20668-h/20668-h.htm he Tribes and Castes of the Central Provinces of India

By R.V. Russell Of the Indian Civil Service Superintendent of Ethnography, Central Provinces Assisted by Rai Bahadur Hira Lāl Extra Assistant Commissioner

Published Under the Orders of the Central Provinces Administration In Four Volumes Vol. IV. Macmillan and Co., Limited St. Martin’s Street, London. 1916 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sachin8p (talk • contribs) 15:22, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Request

As you went through this report, at that time there was no violation. The same user has been reported again by me. Please have a look if it's a violation or not? Faizan (talk) 17:46, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

It has been closed by another administrator. Thanks anyway. Faizan (talk) 18:39, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Your Reversion of Systems Theory

NeilN - If you check my cited source, you will see that my change is in fact correct. This is an area of my expertise. I quoted the actual reference within Bertalanffy, well-regarded as the founder of GST, and indeed the person who first published the theory of open systems. The distinction of feedback and primary regulations is a correct one that should be made and typically is not. It differentiates the closed systems theories from open systems theories. This distinction is further developed in the work of Fred and Merrelyn Emery. I should be happy to cite your further sources, if you wish. But, you should put correct descriptions in the Wikipedia articles. Omnist (talk) 20:59, 21 June 2015 (UTC)Omnist

Hi Omnist. You're changing:
  • "A central topic of systems theory is self-regulating systems, i.e. systems self-correcting through feedback."
to
  • "A central, and generally misunderstood, topic of systems theory, often stated as self-regulating systems, i.e. systems self-correcting through feedback, is discussed in Ludwig von Bertalanffy, General System Theory, pages 160-163."
in the lead which is supposed to be a summary of the body. "...and generally misunderstood..." is not explained anywhere in the body and needs several sources for verification. --NeilN talk to me 21:07, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Protected Page

Hi NeilN - you recently protected Zulu_(musician) at the request of an established user. It is worth noting this page was protected in favor of the person disregarding Wikipedia policies and sockpuppeting to remove WP:COI of WP:NMUSIC notices at the top of his article. Would it be possible to add these tags back to the article so that it can be discussed while protected for the next week? 217IP (talk) 21:24, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi 217IP. I am prohibited from taking both admin action and weighing in on the article per WP:INVOLVED. Perhaps one of my talk page watchers would like to examine the issue? --NeilN talk to me 21:29, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks NeilN - if anyone reading this wants to add these tags back, I would appreciate it. The user reverting edits on an article about himself has been very uncooperative. 217IP (talk) 21:35, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
When an administrator protects a page, they are often told that they protected it in the wrong version. That is what happened here, and NeilN knows that he can act either as an editor or an administrator. I restored the COI tag. I didn't restore the notability tag, because that can be better discussed and decided at Articles for Deletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:59, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Block duration

FYI, I turned this into indef again. I don't think you meant that block to expire after 24 hours. Huon (talk) 22:06, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! --NeilN talk to me 23:53, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Peru national football team :

I was looking at Peru national football team and I noticed there is another article just for Most capped and top goalscorers which usually in other articles such information is included at the original article not separated like this. So should we move it to the Peru national football team's article ?also another article for the result since 2005 only.. any suggestions about this one also? thanks Adnan (talk) 23:10, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Adnan. Since Peru national football team is a featured article I would probably get the opinion of those editors who helped get the article to that status. You can look through a list here to get an idea of who they are. --NeilN talk to me 00:00, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you ! it is a good idea ! Adnan (talk) 01:14, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Chris Jericho

For some reason, your protection on Chris Jericho doesn't appear to have taken hold. IP users are still actively editing it. Could you take another look? ~ RobTalk 04:31, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Rob, protection expired and the vandalism started up again. I've re-protected for a month. --NeilN talk to me 04:50, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Oops! I didn't even notice that the edit was 5 days old, my bad. Thanks for re-protecting. ~ RobTalk 04:52, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Millennials and Generation Z pages

Could you take a look at the recent edits on these pages? The editor was warned and is back changing the dates again see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Andre_bachel_li reported by User:NeilN (Result: ). Thank you.2606:6000:610A:9000:1D0F:636F:39A:867D (talk) 14:41, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Reinforced your warning. --NeilN talk to me 14:49, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

question please .

I was reading about autoconfirmed status , I think I have these rights am I correct ? and It says it is required to move pages or semi-protect pages..but aren't those features require editor to be Admin to do them ? thank you Adnan (talk) 23:59, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Adnan. You are indeed autoconfirmed. You can move pages which aren't move protected and edit semi-protected pages. Only an admin can move-protect or semi-protect pages. --NeilN talk to me 00:06, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Oh ok thank you for explaining it :) Adnan (talk) 00:39, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Apologies

I didn't expect that to happen but nice save on fixing it. thanks-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 19:57, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Citation bot block

(from Citation_bot talk) Please specify misbehavior of the blocked citation_bot; are there any page features that make the bot misbehave? I have used the Citation_bot for years without problems (except that citations often take a while to be inserted). It's the only bot that I use regularly and probably one of the most useful bots in Wikipedia. Thanks! Peteruetz (talk) 20:04, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Replied here. --NeilN talk to me 21:26, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Kathy Ireland

Do not engage in editing wars. Move productive discussion to the talk page and allow others to chime in.

Borntodeal (talk) 01:10, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Feel free to contribute and make productive contributions, but never engage in vandalism of content. Move this to the discussion page.

Borntodeal (talk) 01:07, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Borntodeal, actually I'm in the process of reporting you for suspected undisclosed conflict of interest editing. --NeilN talk to me 01:13, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Kathy_Ireland --NeilN talk to me 01:28, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

This may be of help to you: "Follow the normal protocol: When you find a passage in an article that is biased or inaccurate, improve it if you can; don't delete salvageable text. For example, if an article appears biased, add balancing material or make the wording more neutral. Include citations for any material you add. If you do not know how to fix a problem, ask for help on the talk page. To help other editors understand the reasoning behind your edits, always explain your changes in the edit summary. If an edit is too complex to explain in an edit summary, or the change is contentious, add a section to the talk page that explains your rationale. Be prepared to justify your changes to other editors on the talk page. If you are reverted, continue to explain yourself; do not start an edit war." Borntodeal (talk) 02:04, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

We can now seek dispute resolution. See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_requests

Borntodeal (talk) 02:06, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

This may be of help to you: "Follow the normal protocol: When you find a passage in an article that is biased or inaccurate, improve it if you can; don't delete salvageable text. For example, if an article appears biased, add balancing material or make the wording more neutral. Include citations for any material you add. If you do not know how to fix a problem, ask for help on the talk page. To help other editors understand the reasoning behind your edits, always explain your changes in the edit summary. If an edit is too complex to explain in an edit summary, or the change is contentious, add a section to the talk page that explains your rationale. Be prepared to justify your changes to other editors on the talk page. If you are reverted, continue to explain yourself; do not start an edit war." Borntodeal (talk) 02:04, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

So near as I can tell you have not stopped edit warring. MarnetteD|Talk 02:41, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Borntodeal, bluntly, I'm not interested in engaging with anyone who looks like they're being paid to aggressively shill here. --NeilN talk to me 03:00, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Neil, I have to give you serious props for respecting WP:INVOLVED in this case, I knew I made the right decision supporting you at RfA. Winner 42 Talk to me! 03:10, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Winner 42 thanks - this is pretty much a poster child for WP:INVOLVED and going through the regular channels without using admin tools can still effectively get the situation resolved. --NeilN talk to me 03:15, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Pink Floyd iii

Hi,

I'm wondering why, when User:Pink Floyd iii apparently made no edits between this warning and your block, you made that block? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:53, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

It's in the block log: Disruptive editing + https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/166.175.58.195 The link leads to his blocked IP address. --NeilN talk to me 10:29, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

I Am (Leona Lewis album)

Redirect needs restoring please. Thanks.  — Calvin999 11:17, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

@Calvin999: Thank you for minding WP:3RR. As I blocked the other editor, I won't be changing content per WP:INVOLVED. --NeilN talk to me 11:26, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

not to hound, but I would like a reassessment of the section

I disagreed with your assessment as I was in the process of adding the cites and ref to the section. You stated:The new Australia section [1]] added by BeeCeePhoto seems problematic. Sources include an open wiki and an anonymous presentation. The first paragraph is entirely unsourced. Other portions may be coatracks/synthesis in that the sources don't refer to institutional racism. I am fairly confident that the section addresses the topic, but will accept the critique provided you have reviewed the section. Thanks. Robco311 (talk) 14:16, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Also, I had a piece removed from the canada section by DivaNTrainin and just saw the advice above. (This may be of help to you: "Follow the normal protocol: When you find a passage in an article that is biased or inaccurate, improve it if you can; don't delete salvageable text.) She states that it was un-fixable, but didn't attempt to do so. Instead it was replaced by her version (copied from a wiki) and an edit war ensued. How do I reconcile such?? Robco311 (talk) 14:22, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Robco311, my comments still stand. The first paragraph is still unsourced and some sources are still not acceptable. This was further detailed by Mitch Ames. And text like "The institutional racism was government policy gone awry, one that allowed babies to be ripped from their mothers at birth and this continued for most of the 20th century. That it was policy and kept secret for over 60 years is a mystery that no agency has solved to date." is non-neutral. Also, I would be careful in reciting the advice above. Editors are under no obligation to fix text they think shouldn't be there in the first place. The editor who tried to use that was indefinitely blocked for undisclosed paid editing and was trying to prevent swathes of their promotional text from being deleted. That's not your situation but as you can see, that advice can be easily abused. --NeilN talk to me 15:02, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Ouch. I had missed that. In an attempt to avoid cut and paste from other wikis I chose the phrase 'indigenous peoples' over indigenous Australians which is where I got the facts in the lede from. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_Australians Wikipedia Aboriginal people today mostly speak English, with Aboriginal phrases and words .... that the pre-1788 population was 314,000, while recent archaeological finds .. I had other sources for the same info and used them in the body of the section, I will add new and different ones (I had one which claimed only 53,000 were left in 1901 but I felt this left out the half-castes -all versions quadroons, octaroons etc. to the total, and did not use it.) I am still working on the section and have other editors helping out with the sources and wording... As to non-neutral wording, I am using sources that point out exactly what is stated, how to balance it with what the purveyors of Eugenics theory believed in (discredited by modern science and covered in far greater tomes on that subject) is a Sisyphean task. All that I am asking for is time to roll all this into a valid article... Robco311 (talk) 15:14, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Paul Scholes

Hello Neil, could you please protect Paul Scholes for a while.. IP hopper at work doing BLP violations. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 14:10, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

JMHamo, page protected. IP range blocked for 72 hours. Think it's an open proxy but double checking. --NeilN talk to me 14:23, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Seems to be a school.. probably pupils all in the same classroom :) Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 14:30, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Protecting templates

Hi, regarding this edit: when you protect a template (or other transcluded page), please make sure that the {{pp-protected}} (or similar prot icon template) goes inside a <noinclude>...</noinclude>. There's usually one already, down at the bottom. If this is not done, all the pages that transclude the template are placed in Category:Wikipedia pages with incorrect protection templates. Often, a prot icon template is not necessary, because many templates have a {{documentation}} (as with this one), and most navbox templates have a {{collapsible option}}, and both of these will display a prot icon when appropriate. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:03, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Redrose64, to make sure I have this straight: When protecting a template look for {{documentation}} and {{collapsible option}} tags. If neither exist, add the icon somewhere where it is surrounded by <noinclude>...</noinclude>. --NeilN talk to me 20:31, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Pretty much, yeah. Another way is to check if a padlock icon is shown upper right - if there is one already, you don't need another. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:42, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
This explains the situation over at Template:Rolf Harris and my futile attempts to fix it. I was also wondering where the padlock came from even after I removed the icon template. Thanks for this, Redrose64 - NQ (talk) 21:04, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikilawyering

Telling someone to stop attacking me is not the same thing as making an attack. Please stop wikilawyering me.Scientus (talk) 06:45, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

@Scientus: "FUCK YOU for calling me racist you insensitive piece of shit. Go fuck yourself!" [21] is not an appropriate response to someone pointing out you are incorrectly pigeonholing Judaism. --NeilN talk to me 08:34, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
see the bottom [22]Scientus (talk) 01:57, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Scientus, fringe website run by a non-notable religious organization. So? --NeilN talk to me 04:42, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

William M. Connolley

Hi Neil, Your warning to refrain from edit warring to User:William M. Connolley was issued yesterday at 16:47. Within less than two hours, William M. Connolley renewed his edit warring at The Assayer. Since you closed my report of a 3R violation by William M. Connolley with this warning, would it be appropriate to take some action now? Tkuvho (talk) 07:21, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, you're both blocked for your continued reverts after the warnings. --NeilN talk to me 08:45, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Andrés Iniesta

Hello, Can you please take a look at Andrés Iniesta's page ? this 41.34.18.111 removing stuff from the article and replace it with stuff like hahaha or nomoreIniesta . he has done this 3 times today thank you Adnan (talk) 17:58, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Adnan. Basically it's standard vandalism so we warn and then block if it continues. The editor has stopped but please let me know if the vandalism resumes. --NeilN talk to me 18:18, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Ok thank you again :) Adnan (talk) 22:28, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

The Asdisis case

I've seen the edit on Asdisis's talk page and I have put back the edit without the giant ping. My opinion is that it can stay as there is nothing to hide there. No need to accuse everyone of block evasion. Thank you. 5.42.67.244 (talk) 18:54, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

A post by a "new" user that tried to ping hundreds of editors. Uh-huh. --NeilN talk to me 19:00, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Given this IP is clearly the same person as currently blocked 212.129.23.49 I have blocked this IP for block evasion. The writing style makes me think this is Asdisis himself. Chillum 20:55, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't think we can jump to conclusions. The edit itself is not an issue and shouldn't be removed because of suspicions. The ping was obviously too much but the edit that the Chillum had removed is not an issue and should not be removed. Asdisis was not blocked because of who he is but because of his behavior. NeilN you have been notified the edit was put back without the giant ping and you had accepted. What is interesting in this case is that whoever placed that edit (even if Asdisis himself) that speaks of preventing free speech is now proving by this case that some admins are really forbidding the free speech around here. I don't think that is appropriate. What is more interesting, Asdisis himself had posted (at least someone who claimed he is Asdisis), and no one had removed those comments or put a restriction to the Asdisis's talk page. Even now those posts remain on his talk page. How come a post that is speaking of forbidding free speech is getting deleted? Is someone trying to hide the The Asdisis case? 213.193.22.237 (talk) 21:46, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Whoever told you that Wikipedia was some sort of free speech zone was misinforming you. Freedom of speech has nothing to do with posting on a website that has blocked you. Chillum 22:08, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) See WP:NOFREESPEECHHERE. I'd advise you to stop posting before someone makes the effort to make a case for block evasion. --NeilN talk to me 22:10, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Protection

I didn't realise you had gained the mop. Congratulations. FWIW, Taoni is presently under a 24h block, the issue has been discussed on the talk page with umpteeen socks, and it is pretty likely that Taoni is not as new to Wikipedia as may appear, if you know what I mean. - Sitush (talk) 12:01, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

@Sitush: Thanks. Hopefully the full protection will prevent immediate disruption when the block expires and stop other "new" editors from taking Taoni's place. --NeilN talk to me 12:06, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Oh, yeah. I've no problem with the protection. They'll just wait it out: it has been going on for years and relates to issues such as that described at Shri Rajput Karni Sena. It's basically a Hindutva thing. - Sitush (talk) 12:08, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Generation X

How can you think this is advertising? This site is not even monetized. Please stop deleting this external reference. This site provides the most current information about Generation X. It deserves to be listed in this article. The site is on the blog roll of The Oklahoman. The blogger is a commentator for KOSU Radio. It has high authority. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ACOGOK (talk • contribs)

ACOGOK, please show the writer is deemed an expert in the field by other noteworthy authorities in the field. A couple of incidental mentions in pop culture articles is not enough. --NeilN talk to me 18:00, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

So, you believe the only way one establishes authority on a subject is through validation form academicians? Why do you discount validation from pop culture and major media outlets? The blogger had enough authority to launch a hugely successful weekly commentary on an NPR station in Oklahoma about Generation X. The name of that commentary is JenX and now includes three other Gen-Xers covering Generation X topics. In addition, you seem to have no problem with the external reference to Christine Hensler's blog Generation Goes Global, but the site performs poorly and is rarely updated. In addition to hosting personal commentary, JenX67 aggregates content publishing the best content about Generation X from a myriad of experts and sources. Are You There, God? It's Me Generation X (jenx67.com) has 1800 backlinks compared to Generation X Goes Global which only has 22. Hensler may be an academic, but she does her site does not provide the depth of coverage as JenX67. Her site is 2.5 years old. It has a page authority of 22, a traffic rank of 21. The Facebook and Twitter links on the site do not belong to Hensler. They link to other sources (some unrelated to Generation X and not even associated with Hensler), underscoring the fact that no true Generation X community is attached to this site and Hensler or her academic underlings have haphazardly linked the site. The LinkedIn link is broken and there is not even a valid RSS feed, which is rare and odd. In addition, Hensler's site has used meta keywords that consist of the names of academicians. How self-promoting and aggrandizing is that? Here they are: Genertation X (she didn't even spell it correctly), Douglas Coupland, Christine Henseler, Routledge, Daniel Leidl, Shakuntala Banaji, Jan Schenk, Jeremy Seekings, Mwenda Ntarangwi, William garcia, Harry Kuoshu, Evi Sampanikou, Claire Bracken, Juan Manuell Espinosa, Media Studies, Cultural Studies while JenX67 has meta keywords: Generation X, Gen-Xers, Gen X, Generation Z, culture, faith, family, 70s, 80s, nostalgia, latchkey kids, etc. Nowhere in this list of keywords is the blogger's name. And, again, the site is not monetized in anyway through sponsored posts, links or display ads. The blogger has interacted on Twitter routinely with Saeculum Research and Lifecourse Associates, which are affiliated with Neil Howe (Generations). The blog has a Facebook community with more than 700 fans and the Twitter account has a following of nearly 8,000. The blogger is in the top 10 percent of LinkedIn profiles. JenX67 is the foremost blog for and about Generation X, and whether or not academics like it, the site is very successful. As an aside, the blogger has two graduate degrees. The site has linked to numerous academic experts, pop culture writers, etc. It is also a treasure trove of Generation X photography subjects, memoirs and nostalgia. After 7 years of covering Generation X, it has earned a link on this page. If the site is good enough for the National AP and public radio, it is good enough for Wikipedia. Please reconsider your decision based on the facts presented here. Thank you for listening. ACOGOK (talk) 18:57, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

ACOGOK, if you think other links shouldn't be there, then remove them. And please see Links normally to be avoided: "Blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority. (This exception for blogs, etc., controlled by recognized authorities is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities who are individuals always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for people.)" --NeilN talk to me 19:42, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Tampico1

Hi, Neil; thanks for blocking Aurora Prince's latest sock at the SPI. Just a thought, though: as this is their 7th or 8th sock, and going by their previous blocks, shouldn't this be another indef rather than just 31 hours? Cheers Keri (talk) 18:43, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Keri, weird. I thought I chose indef and the message says indef but you're right. Reblocked with indef. --NeilN talk to me 19:36, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
No worries, Neil; I guessed it might have been inadvertent which is why I thought I'd mention it. Keri (talk) 19:42, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Adminship

Awesome, thanks. I'll wear it when I get my administrator's hat sorted out. I'm thinking something with googly eyes on stalks, and maybe earflaps. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 20:40, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Ser Amantio di Nicolao A high-density polyethylene inner shell might come in handy. --NeilN talk to me 20:43, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Bah. I've worked for the government these past few years - that's enough to give anyone innards of iron. :-) --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 20:44, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Don't forget the protective tin-foil lining, for when you're dealing with WP:FRINGE content. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:24, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
BTW congrats to you, NeilN, for no longer being the youngest admin on the block. Feels good, doesn't it? 0;-D Watch out, Ser Amantio: starting now and until the next sucker candidate passes RfA, everything that goes wrong at Wikipedia will get blamed on YOU! --MelanieN alt (talk) 00:08, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
MelanieN alt isn't kidding. See User_talk:NeilN#Whack.21. As it turned out, my autoblock didn't even do anything. [23] --NeilN talk to me 00:15, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Mail

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

--Anthony Bradbury"talk" 20:44, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

WP:ORGAWARDS and BLPs

Would be interested in your input here. I have a disclosed COI. CorporateM (Talk) 03:50, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Replied here. --NeilN talk to me 16:34, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Hey I hope you don't mind that I keep pinging you from time to time. I find it frustrating that it is so easy to remove poorly-sourced awards on company pages, but so much harder to remove them from BLPs, so I was excited to see someone supportive of ORGAWARDS for BLPs too. I was just thinking it may actually be canvassing. CorporateM (Talk) 18:32, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
CorporateM, it's fine. Content sourced to press releases (which essentially this is) should be kept to a minimum in all articles. --NeilN talk to me 22:08, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Yah, but you would be surprised how much support there is for primary sources for awards on BLPs, though I have no problem removing them on company pages. In some cases I have been reverted even after removing awards that were completely unsourced. BTW - regarding the Heather Bresch page I pinged you about a while ago; I am not allowed to edit per WP:COI, so I have added a Request Edit here and I thought since you've looked at it already, you may care to take a look. CorporateM (Talk) 18:22, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Protection of Gianelli Imbula

Hi NeilN,

I RPP for Gianelli Imbula and you semi-protected it. Rather than semi-protecting it, could you change it to pending changes (indefinitely/at least longer than a few days)? Most other soccer player articles, such as this one, have PC protection, as it will allow ip's to constructively edit and any BLP/vandal issues will be resolved by reviewers/admins. Cheers, Luxure Σ 08:00, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

@Luxure: I semi-protect rather than pending protect when the rate of BLP issues is frequent. See for example this where I was asked to turn PC into a semi. However, if you really want to spend your time reviewing and reverting, I will turn the semi into a PC. Let me know. --NeilN talk to me 09:30, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
I'd rather have PC because IP's can make constructive edits and it shows up under the articles awaiting review page. However, there were still changes to the page even after I reverted and RPP, and it would do better under PC. But you're the admin, whatever you decide. Cheers, Luxure Σ 01:03, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
@Luxure: Always happy to listen to input from editors looking after articles. Changed to PC. --NeilN talk to me 01:08, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Royal Home Trends

I would respectfully suggest that you may need to remove talk page access of Royal Home Trends. 331dot (talk) 16:30, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

331dot, yes, revoked. --NeilN talk to me 16:33, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Edits to Anno Domini

I'm mystified why you say I'm engaging in an edit war here. You asked me to source my edit and I did. You then mention "original research". The figures are verifiable by simple arithmetic - WP:CALC applies. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 17:25, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

WP:CALC is not a source for "This last theory is almost certainly the correct one." " It is the norm for eras to be initialised to commence a calendar cycle. The Muslim era of the Hegira commences not from the date of the event but from the new year nearest. The Jewish calendar is arranged so that, starting from the first year of the cycle, a month is added whenever the discrepancy between the lunar and solar years reaches one month. Its origin, the Creation, is not tied to any calculation of when this might have occurred but to an equinox in the first year of the cycle. The Era of Diocletian and the Martyrs (AD 284) and the Armenian era (AD 552) both begin at the commencement of a cycle, allowing for the fact that 1 January intervenes between the Diocletian New Year and Easter. The arithmetic is as follows: 284 divided by 19 gives remainder 18, but since the Alexandrian year begins on 29 (or 30) August that's equivalent to remainder 19. Remainder 19 or 0 can be considered the first year of the 19 - year cycle. 552 gives remainder 1 - here year 1 is considered the first year of the cycle. Dionysius initialised his cycle in 1 BC (year 0), so here again 0 or 19 is considered the first year of the cycle." is not "Basic arithmetic, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age are some examples of routine calculations." --NeilN talk to me 17:28, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

121.220.88.52

Thanks for blocking that disruptive IP, but now they keep blanking their talk page. Should I continue reverting the blanking or just leave it? --A guy saved by Jesus (talk) 20:37, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi A guy saved by Jesus. Users are allowed to do that per WP:BLANKING. That guideline also lists things that can't be removed but none of them apply here. --NeilN talk to me 20:40, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Okay, thank you for answering. I will leave it as is and hopefully the IP won't go back to disruptive editing once their block is over, but we'll cross that bridge if we come to it. --A guy saved by Jesus (talk) 20:45, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Paraguay national football team

Hello again :) , can you please take a look at Paraguay national football team's article ? does it go under bad summery.. ? the article looks long since they not just inserted a paragraph about each participation paraguay had in their history in a major competition... what do you think about it ? thank you Adnan (talk) 00:08, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Adnan, I'm not sure what issue I'm supposed to be looking at? --NeilN talk to me 00:18, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
It looks too long and not summarized article for a soccer team ? and it is not an issue I just don't know if it sounds like this for you or just for me thats why i have asked :) Adnan (talk) 16:44, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Never mind..I just noticed it is a feature article.so it means other find you great . so no need to look at it thank you though :) Adnan (talk) 16:45, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Lahore, Mashriqi

Hello, I am not a vandal, I will just now add references - it's a well known fact that Allama Mashriqi was a psychopath and the Khaksars a Nazi-style organisation. Regards, 39.54.66.95 (talk) 05:40, 28 June 2015 (UTC)Prof Hilda Khan, Pakistan

Given that none of that is in the respective articles, you'll need to start there first. --NeilN talk to me 05:44, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Smail Prevljak

Sorry, I didn't know any time a person is transferred from their home country to a new country, they automatically become (Original nationality)-(New nationality) and that those edits are considered "good faith". So now every Bosnian that transfers from Bosnia to Germany now all of a sudden becomes Bosnian-German? This is ridiculous logic. I have now added appropriate sources, and you're telling me no action would be taken if he continues vandalizing? Bosniantennis (talk) 18:15, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Bosniantennis, good faith edits, even if they're misguided, are not vandalism. I looked at the editor's contribs and nothing in there indicates a vandal to me. WP:AIV is for obvious vandals and spammers. --NeilN talk to me 18:57, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

So then what am I supposed to do if a user is "misguided" and refuses to listen to my explanation and continue with their ways? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bosniantennis (talk • contribs) 19:15, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Bosniantennis, ask for a third opinion or use another dispute resolution mechanism. In this case, the other editor is providing reasons and sources in their edit summaries. --NeilN talk to me 19:25, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Justise Winslow

Renew PC or upgrade to semi? --George Ho (talk) 22:09, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Re: Jahlil Okafor

Thanks for protecting Jahlil Okafor. If I sent you a list of articles with similar issues (repeated addition of team information that is not sourced or accurate), would you be willing to go through and look at/protect all of them if you decide it's necessary? There's at least five I know about, but I'm sure that at least 20 have the issue. Let me know if you'd be willing and I'll compile a list. I don't really want to spam it into RPP. Thanks! ~ RobTalk 14:37, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Rob, I can't promise I'll do it right away, but yes, I'll do that. Or you can add it to RFPP and format it like 2015 NBA draftees was formatted here (mind the notes). Please make sure there's repeated disruption and either way, please use the pagelinks template for each article. --NeilN talk to me 14:45, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
I've taken another look through the articles and the disruption is less than I recall it being (probably because the same type of disruption has shown up in my watchlist on so many articles). I'll just use RPP as necessary. Thanks! ~ RobTalk 14:47, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Another question for today :)

What is the difference between roll back rights and (restore this version) when I compare two previous edits on any page.? thank you :) Adnan (talk) 01:30, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Adnan, for article content there's no difference. Rollback is just a quicker way (1 click) to revert one or more consecutive edits by the same editor. --NeilN talk to me 02:24, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
oh ok thank you , I think currently I don't need it maybe after sometimes I can try . Thank you again :) Adnan (talk) 02:57, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Adnan, if you have read and understood WP:ROLLBACK and want it, let me know. --NeilN talk to me 03:03, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you , I think I am fine with the restore option for now , once I think I want it , I will let you know :) thank you again Adnan (talk) 03:10, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you !

The Admin's Barnstar
Thanks for your help and answering my questions :) Adnan (talk) 02:58, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Hollyweber

Via OTRS information has been supplied which substantiates her identity and the ownership of her website. Do you want to consider unblock? Nthep (talk) 11:07, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Nthep, emailed you. --NeilN talk to me 12:09, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Block of Tampico1

Looks like talk page access should be revoked after this personal attack. Plus, both unblock requests have been declined. Conifer (talk) 16:19, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Full protection needed at 2 articles

Please full protect Târgu Mureș and University of Medicine and Pharmacy of Târgu Mureș for edit warring. An editor is trying to unilaterally add biased information without any prior discussion on the talk page. 213.229.69.46 (talk) 16:32, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

It looks like the two of you are edit warring. Both of you need to stop and use the talk pages. I've warned the other editor. Please consider this your WP:3RR warning. --NeilN talk to me 16:40, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:NeilN/Archive_24&oldid=1143192233"