User talk:NeilN/Archive 41

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

Archive 35

←

Archive 39

→

Happy New Year 2018!

Happy New Year!

NeilN,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Amaury (talk | contribs) 08:29, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Xenia Ohio page

All Edits @Alexandria1749 makes are correct as the editor lives there. All reverse edits are incorrect and problematic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexandria1749 (talk • contribs) 20:17, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

@Alexandria1749: Obviously not as multiple editors have issues with the term you're using. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:31, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN: Not those edits, but other edits. ...and that sounds like a personal problem.

Dean Dunham

What is the problem with this please?

" In February 2009 Dunham and Jean-Christophe Novelli opened a restaurant in Northampton. The company went into liquidation in September of the following year. ^[1] " — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.130.243 (talk) 20:40, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

References

^ https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/05044033/filing-history

Use the article's talk page to engage with Eggishorn, please. Their edit summary referred to WP:BLPPRIMARY. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:47, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	For near-instantaneous reaction to BLP violations. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:31, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Ashley Judd

I have seen hundreds of Ashley Judd photos, and the one chosen for Ashley Judd's page is easily one of the worst. It is near libelous in how awful she looks. If my photo does not meet your standards, you need to find an attractive one that does. Why do non-political Hollywood stars have attractive photos, yet Ashley's has the ugliest anywhere? There aren't Wikipedia photogs running around everywhere snapping their pictures. The other celebrities listed get their photos from the same place I did. At some point, I'll have a picture of her taken with my own camera. Until then, why does Ashley have the ugliest photo in all of Wikipedia? OtherLetter (talk) 00:37, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello OtherLetter. First it is not "your photo". You copied it from the web and that's a copyright violation. Second, the existing photo is not that bad - you need to stop with the hyperbole. Third, we are limited to using photos that have free-use licenses. Perhaps you can crop this one to a headshot and get that accepted as a replacement. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:46, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Honestly, that one could be used without further cropping. And she looks quite good in the existing one, IMHO. To say that a photograph can be "libelous" -let alone that photograph- is one of the most hyperbolic things I've read in some time.

ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it.

00:49, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

@OtherLetter: I've done the work and uploaded a cropped, properly licensed photo to File:Ashley Judd ioc cropped headshot.jpg. Feel free to propose it as a replacement. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:10, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

That one is much better, I'll try to post it. The only problem there is that it was taken nine years ago. OtherLetter (talk) 01:49, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Page protection

Hi, could you rollback the protection for Munthirivallikal Thalirkkumbol back to autoconfirmed. You override the protection by Yaris678. The page is currently under persistent vandalism by an editor, PC will not be useful in restricting it. The vandal repeats and we need to keep reverting it. Please rethink. Let There Be Sunshine (talk) 10:45, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

@Let There Be Sunshine: I put in a short semi before the PC but Yaris was there first so I've reverted to his protection. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 10:49, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. Let There Be Sunshine (talk) 10:52, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Conversing on Wikipedia

Hi Neil,

I don't know how to do this. It isn't clear how to.

I really don't appreciate the aggression from Ritchie333. Please ask him to wind it in or I'll make an official complaint.

All best,

E. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tedster007 (talk • contribs) 16:20, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

@Tedster007: Okay, because I pinged you, you should see a little red box at the top of your screen with a number in it. Clicking on it will tell you who mentioned you and where. Clicking on those links will take you to that place. Now, each article has a talk page just like you have your own user talk page. In this case it's Talk:Liverpool Street station. If you scroll all the way down you'll see that Ritchie333 has posted a comment there. You need to post a reply there like you posted here. Please keep it polite and focused on content and sources. Hope this helps. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:33, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

NLT warning re User talk:Sarah.Englebert.Finalsite

I assume your warning refers to this edit summary, but I'm not sure this qualifies as a legal threat. WP:NLT says that "a discussion as to whether material is libelous is not a legal threat." I'm curious what your thoughts are on this. In particular, I don't want to bite this user too much; they've already been prematurely reported to WP:COIN. --Chris (talk) 18:56, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

@Crazycomputers: I agree with you and that's why I warned instead of outright blocked. Hopefully the editor gets the message and stays away from more problematic statements (e.g., "the school regards this as slander and will take appropriate action") because that would result in a block. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:03, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Right, gotcha. Makes sense. --Chris (talk) 19:09, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Explanation

Regarding your question on my talk page about my edit to KSHMR. I have explained why there. But idk how to pin people lol Amy wamey (talk) 21:39, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Sock puppet of Chernobog95

Hey, it seems that Chernobog95 maybe trying to avoid a 2 month block that you placed on them recently for edit-warring if you remember [1]. It seems that they are using the local IP 188.129.26.144 to make edits on various articles relating to North Korea while evading the block, this is evidenced by the fact that the IP is editing several of the pages Chernobog95 recently edited and is using non-native English on several of those edits and has responded with hostility to users that have undid his/her edits for legitimate reasons. Isn’t sock-puppetry against site policy? And if so could you do something about it? SamaranEmerald (talk) 22:06, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

@SamaranEmerald: I've looked but it would help me out if you provided diffs showing similarities between the two accounts. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:21, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN here you go:

The IP edited at least two pages that Chernobog95 had recently edited before being blocked: Kwangmyŏngsŏng-4, and Comparison of ICBMs.

On December 24, 2017, Chernobog95 added a statistic (72,000 kg.) to Comparison of ICBMs with the following source ^[1], little over a week later, the IP made a similar edit providing a statistic within the same column category and providing a source from the same site ^[2]. I checked both sources, and neither of them note the statistic that both Chernobog and the IP provided.

In addition, the IP has also shown hostility towards users that undo his/her edits, in their revision history, they do not use the said articles' talk pages and instead revert edits and use the edit summary box to attack users [2] [3] [4] [5]; this is something Chernobog95 had a tendency to do on the page they edit-warred on prior to being blocked [6], [7], [8], [9].

Chernobog95 has a tendency to use non-native english, as evidenced by several of his/her past edits [10], [11]. The said IP has also shared this trait of non-native english on several recent edits and edit summaries as well. [12], [13], [14], [15]. SamaranEmerald (talk) 23:51, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

@SamaranEmerald: All right, there's enough that I see here that convinces me socking is likely. Appropriate blocks done. I should note that Chernobog95 72,000 kg statistic looks sourced to me as this says the rocket has a takeoff weight of 72t. But maybe I'm reading the source wrong. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:04, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

References

Administrators' newsletter – January 2018

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

Administrator changes

Muboshgu

Anetode • Laser brain • Worm That Turned

None

Bureaucrat changes

Worm That Turned

Guideline and policy news

A request for comment is in progress to determine whether the administrator policy should be amended to require disclosure of paid editing activity at WP:RFA and to prohibit the use of administrative tools as part of paid editing activity, with certain exceptions.

Technical news

The 2017 Community Wishlist Survey results have been posted. The Community Tech team will investigate and address the top ten results.
The Anti-Harassment Tools team is inviting comments on new blocking tools and improvements to existing blocking tools for development in early 2018. Feedback can be left on the discussion page or by email.

Arbitration

Following the results of the 2017 election, the following editors have been (re)appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Alex Shih, BU Rob13, Callanecc, KrakatoaKatie, Opabinia regalis, Premeditated Chaos, RickinBaltimore, Worm That Turned.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:37, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Royal Rumble (2018)

Can you add to the royal rumble 2018 page , aj styles will defend his title against kevin ownes and sami zayn in a handicap match . Twan Milar (talk) 04:24, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

@Twan Milar: Protection will expire in six hours. You can add it then. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:46, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Transgender fact!

Who called you on this? As I asked an independent person if they wanted to fix the transgender article, is that how you became involved?

So whats the situation will the transgender article be updated to include the fact "transgender people do have higher rates of mental disorders/illness" ? As the page been locked down to stop this fact! Can you make the article better by including the fact? "Transgender people have higher rates of mental illness"

Or is it politically correct time and not fact time?

How about talking to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jim1138 Who finally admitted "Transgender people have higher rates of mental illness" is a fact, after many false accusations against me of what I said, which I dont believe where deliberate straw mans, but rather not reading what I said and just making wild jumps. --ArnoldHimmler (talk) 11:38, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

To create or not to create. Is that the question?

My intent is not to disrupt but quantify. You need to explain to me what the problem is since I assume that Wikipedia was editable for things such as incorrect information being listed on the articles. Creationism as far as I know as a myth or a pseudoscience is unproven in either direction. The passages I erased in the Creationism article make concrete statements that Creationism is pseudoscience or myth et al. Such statements should not be taken as absolute fact in the article and should not be in the article without factual support. So, is deleting something that is just someone else's opinion in the first place on any subject (and neither proven nor disproven) thus could be called "just a theory", wholly considered fact and defacto grounds for dismissal of a new member?? Neil, threatening me with cancellation of my account and referring me to the Wikipolicy is the easy way out. I have serious questions now that you seem to have interjected your ideals, for whatever reason, into what should have been a "cut and dried" issue. For example: What about the original person who put their "opinion" on a subject article (like I attempted to edit) and considers their opinion as fact on that subject in first place? IE: Who wrote it originally and was it truly factual? And do you personally agree with the erroneous statements I deleted and you reverted back to? Since you "reverted" it I assume you agree with them~I don't want to put words in anyone's mouth but I am curious: Are Administrators required to be impartial or keep the status quo? I believe I was told Admistrators are paid money by amount of "corrections" they make, so is that truly the case? I'm not into playing games if this is how Wikipedia really works. I have also been warned that articles on this site are not very reliable or factual. As an Administrator I would assume you would want members to correct such errors and help make the articles better! How is deleting incorrect descriptive passages "disruptive"? According to your profile you have been an Administrator for over 12 years; most people will not work for free for that long, so I assume you are being compensated for your time. Good for you, as a man's time is worth something. Most of the time anyway. So, again why and how is deleting incorrect information in an article "disruptive"? I should think I would be thanked for taking time to correct erroneous information in an article rather than be excoriated. Unless there is a wholy different reason for the "reversion". I'm being serious on this. I'm not joking or pulling your leg or trying to waste your time. I'm also not trying to take money out of anyone's pocket or put it in their pocket. I would like the answers to all these questions if you have the wherewithal (and failing that point me to a Supervisor above you who can answer). So, if you would be so kind as to actually explain and answer my questions I would be most appreciative. I don't see any rule in the policy that states unproven or incorrect/erroneous information with no proof or references get to stay on this site. In fact, it seems just the opposite is true by reading the Wikipedia policy. An answer to my questions would be appreciated. Thanks in advance. Scemantics (talk) 13:59, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

@Scemantics: "Creationism as far as I know as a myth or a pseudoscience is unproven in either direction." - Not among the relevant scientific disciplines where it is regarded as a purely religious belief with no basis in science, despite the claims of its proponents (look at the sources). Religious figures and "scientists" who get their degrees from Patriot Bible University are far outside the mainstream scientific view which leads us to WP:ASSERT: "When a statement is a fact (e.g. information that is accepted as true and about which there is no serious dispute), it should be asserted using Wikipedia's own voice without in-text attribution." To get the change you wanted, you'll have to show that creation science is taken seriously as a scientific theory among accredited scientists working in that field.

Now as to your edits: You falsely claimed you were fixing a typo here when you were actually removing content, sources, and the term you object to. Here you broke a template while again claiming you were fixing a typo. This is disruptive editing.

As to your other questions, I've been an editor here for twelve years, an admin for two and a half. No editor or admin is paid for their time and efforts by the foundation that runs Wikipedia. We're here because we believe providing an encyclopedia based on mainstream facts and science for free to the world is a very worthwhile thing to do. As for the reliability of Wikipedia, Reliability of Wikipedia is a worthwhile read. My own point of view is that people who warn about the reliability of Wikipedia and have familiarity with it mainly fall into two camps. 1) The ones who very properly say "trust but verify". That is, check what you're reading is accurate by also reading the sources. 2) The one who dismiss Wikipedia because it clashes with their worldview or are actively trying to promote/peddle/follow the multiple forms of pseudoscience out there as science. You're never going to get the Answers in Genesis people or the anti-vaxxers to say Wikipedia is a reliable source. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:55, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Since the article didn't say that Creationism is a pseudoscience anyway, why is User:Scemantics claiming that it did? The text he changed mentioned Creation science, not Creationism, and why they think it's a sociological movement is beyond me, its proponents clearly claim they are scientists. Of course you have Admins have no supervisors. And the only ones who can remove their powers are the Arbitration Committee - hm, does that make me some sort of supervisor over you? Nah. Doug Weller talk 15:45, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Meaning, NeilN, get back to your oar, galley slave! ;) >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 15:54, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: Yessir. Will do sir. I closed five WP:ANEW cases and blocked a few vandals, sir. Is that enough for a bit o' gruel, sir? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:30, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Startabrahao

Any objection to me tagging Startabrahao as a suspected sockpuppet of ArthurRebelnatico? To me, it's a rather clear WP:DUCK since Startabrahao did what ArthurRebelnatico always does: Creates an account, waits 10 days, performs a small edit on an article, reverts their edits until they get 10 edits, then immediately edits Sophia Abrahão. (See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ArthurRebelnatico.) Steel1943 (talk) 19:55, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

@Steel1943: No, go ahead. I came to the same conclusion after I blocked and then looked into the article history a bit more. Decided it wasn't worth it to change the block reason. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:59, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Exiled

As is the case with all but vandalism related reverts I might do on politics articles I stumble on during RC patrol, I make nearly zero edits to political articles so I will avoid defending others with an such zeal in the future. I already self imposed an exile at AE in my last comment there....and apologized for my outburst. I am not delusional and it would not be delusional to say that AE is being misused by some to silence their editing opponents. I almost never bring anyone to AE as I greatly prefer a strong argument with someone I disagree with than lose the chance to find out that the result of the argument was that my position was wrong and the article in question is made better from my admitted incorrectness. I comment here as I have self exiled from AE.--MONGO 21:28, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

@MONGO: So how about a six month topic ban on talking about American Politics? You could still do your RC patrol and make uncontentious edits that don't require discussion. I'm trying to come up with something other admins would accept. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:33, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

That nullifies what hoped would be an objective discussion opened at Jimbo's page...so I suppose if you close that so be it. It is a discussion we need to have as a website because we all have to figure out a way to make political articles as fine as let's say an article on a Park or Flower might be. I recognize that won't happen if I come in with guns blazing sometimes, but my fault is I was trying to defend my long time ally who was one of our best editors defending the website against conspiracy theorists and related areas in the years not long after 9/11. While I wouldn't expect you or others to know the details of that struggle, I surely do. I just don't like the noticeboards being used to shut people up.--MONGO 21:48, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

MONGO There's other suggestions so I won't close the AE request unilaterally. I will make the recommendation though as it's less harsh than what is on the table now and more appropriate to resolving the situation. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:53, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Topic banning me will guarantee I quit this website for good. I retract my rude comments I made in haste once again but I will not retract my belief that the noticeboards are being misused to silence people and there is a bias amongst admins and an unwillingness to admit their own frailties when questioned. I asked Sandstein to not cast aspersions about my block log but he has yet to do so, yet he accuses me of same.--MONGO 22:25, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

(tps comment) User:MONGO, I can imagine that the AE might be closed if people could have some confidence that your outburst in the Dheyward AE would not soon be repeated. Unfortunately your vivid choice of words and strong indignation could have made a memorable impression. Not all admins are happy with everything that happens at AE, but, if somebody like yourself loses their temper totally it's like waving a sign saying 'I'm the problem'. People have been saying that your edits in article space are OK, so what can we do that would satisfy what appears to be an obviously-justified complaint about your AE behavior? I can imagine a voluntary agreement on your part to refrain from X or Y. I don't know if you would agree. Some admins might vote to take no action if they were sure the problem would not repeat. EdJohnston (talk) 22:40, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Ed. MONGO, please see my latest proposal. I'm not sure a voluntary agreement would convince some admins given the prior admonishment. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:52, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

The diffs provided against me are all about my sentiments towards MrX and VolunteerMarek's interactions with DHeyward. I have no problem not participating in any article or discussion that MrX and or VolunteerMarek are participating for one year, nor any noticeboard discussion they are part of for one year. Since both or either can oftentimes be found at contentious political articles, this is in essence a topic ban from those places where I might be likely to be aroused to speak my mind freely. I am guilty of excessive zeal in defending a long term Wikipedian who has been vastly more benefit than harm.--MONGO 23:14, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Once upon a time I was an admin too. I don't miss it one bit I tell you. I do not remember participating in any AE enforcement. I am still awaiting Sandstein to withdraw his aspersion that I have a "long block log" which while it has some truth to it, only if one peers back nearly 10 years ago. So it is unjust of him to accuse me of aspersions while he himself is doing the same as a sitting admin in a decision making process on this very case. I do not think the long list of those suggesting I be topic banned will be marginalized should he be encouraged to abstain from further comment on this decision.--MONGO 23:37, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

User:SeraphWiki reverting good edits and removing content.

Can you take a look into Max Landis? User:SeraphWiki is blindly reverting the edits i just made. I posted to his talk page explaining that " I'm not sure you read all my edit summaries before you quickly reverted all the good edits I made, but the dispute has been over WP:NPOV wording, and WP:BLP addition of unreliably sourced current events. (also WP:RS) I have removed the unreliable and obviously opinionated content and added those sources (such as Newsweek, Vulture, and The Daily Beast.) I have also changed the wording the neutral as well. I understand if you don't find what is happening to be of your liking but, unfortunately these are notable and well-reported incidents which have constantly been censored from the article, and I fixed the issue at hand." Whereafter User:SeraphWiki accused me of libel even though what I added was all taken from reliable sources.

I feel it is blindly ridiculous for him to revert my good edits that fixed many of the issues and yet claim "no consensus," when he won't start an RfC or something of the like. -- Wilner (Speak to me) 05:05, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

The Daily Beast source and addition of sexual misconduct allegations have been explicitly rejected and reverted by 4 pending changes reviewers and a CheckUser/Sysop (who did not comment on the sourcing, but only said that multiple reviewers have raised BLP concerns). You did not source it to Newsweek - the Newsweek source does not discuss any sexual assault allegations. Your excuse is that you can't remove a BLP violation because you added subsequent content? Since you are saying that you don't know how to remove a paragraph from an article, I removed it for you, and I left the discussion about his Twitter posts in.SeraphWiki (talk) 05:11, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

(tps) @R9tgokunks: Hi! No particular view on the "Twitter comments" section, but the "Sexual assault allegations" section that you restored is sourced to blogs, including one which accurately states: ""it’s true that these are allegations on Twitter, many of them second-hand, and I haven’t seen any stories yet from a publication with fact-checkers and vetting."[16]

As a statement of the obvious, the BLP policy mandates the use of reliable sources "with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy,"[17] and notes that Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. The "Sexual assault allegations" section is not reliably sourced according to the en-WP definition, and is contentious according to WP:BLP. That's why it keeps getting removed from the article, and no doubt why your edit restoring it got reverted.

If you do think this material should be in the article, the best way forward is to find coverage in fact-checked media, and then discuss inclusion on the article talkpage to get a consensus around the wording. Otherwise the current edit-war will likely lead to page protection and possibly 3RR blocks, which are a nuisance for everyone.

Happy to discuss further if required, and apologies to NeilN for borrowing their talkpage. -- Euryalus (talk) 05:32, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

The amount of reverts and inappropriate edit summaries by autoconfirmed but inexperienced editors is not good. I've applied ECP to the article which should stop some of it and placed a discretionary sanctions note on the talk page. As Euryalus said, using the talk page to work out consensus is the way forward here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:45, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Euryalus, User:NeinN, thanks for your inputs. I've started an RfC based on this at Talk:Max Landis and taken your words into account. Much thanks. -- Wilner (Speak to me) 06:40, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Bule Cloud

Hi! They removed your comment on their talk page, thanks! Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 07:54, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

See my response at WP:ANEW. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:04, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Why did you ignore the clear violation of 3rr?

I wonder why the edit warrior was untouched after his edit war and violation of 3rr. Would you mind see the following links once again?

All in all, Peter Dunkan had 4 reverts in effect, because he neutralized all of his self reverts. Now, why was not he blocked for this clear violation of 3rr? If there's an exception which I'm not aware of, please let me know. He did not receive even a soft warning for the reverts he made these days! --Mhhossein ^talk 08:23, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: The same reason why you weren't blocked for your edit warring on the same article. No admin saw fit to process the reports against both of you for over a day and by that time things looked to have calmed down. Then more editors started edit warring and the article was fully protected by another admin. We generally don't fully protect articles and block editors. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:03, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

That comparison was not fair. To be frank, it was really annoying. Please review Only's comment, too. Given my active participation on TP, I did not participate edit warring and you ignored a clear violation of 3rr without asking that user to avoid such behaviors. I think he'll repeat same behavior in future since he's confident. Anyway, thanks for the response! Regards, --Mhhossein ^talk 15:24, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: If he repeats the same behavior after protection expires, let me know. I'll add a note to their talk page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:29, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

MONGO

I just wanted to say that I followed this case, and while I agree that a TBan seems excessive, I also sympathize with Sandstein's position that there really didn't seem to be anything else to be done. I don't think Sandstein made a bad call, per se.

But I don't agree with Sandstein's position that there was nothing else to do. The Rambling Man has a customized editing restriction imposed upon him; the admins there might have used something very similar. I know TRM's sanction was an Arbcom case, but I'm not aware of any compelling reason why AE couldn't impose a similar editing restriction, considering that it's at least deliberated using customized editing restrictions in that very discussion. So possibly changing the sanction from a regular topic ban to a prohibition on casting aspersions or making borderline or clear personal attacks (I would emphasize that to establish a clear boundary: if there's doubt, it's a PA and MONGO should not have said it) against any individual editor or group of editors.

What do you think? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:53, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

@MPants at work: This is similar to what I proposed. This was also what was ignored and misrepresented by Sandstein in their close. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:57, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

I know, but I agree with some of the others that even your modified proposal would needlessly complicate MONGO's editing in that area. I think the result would be like a regular TBan, but with way more litigation on AE and AN over it. I think shifting the focus from the topic area to the actual problem behavior could correct that. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:01, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Do you think we could continue this at Sandstein's page? It's easier to keep track of, that way. (Also, I was glad to see you actually putting some original thought into how to handle this; too often AE seems to boil down to admins bickering about the minutiae of the rules instead of really working to address the problem). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:03, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

@MPants at work: Yes, good idea. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:04, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Kulala wikipedia

I request you to please check on what has been written on that page. Try to collect true information on this regard. Justmangalore (talk) 17:00, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

In response to barring

Whatever Wikipedia's policies deem apropos. I am not asking for favors but am questioning to motives of the person or people who have recently felt the need to shine a not-so-gentle light of awareness on a past with which many of the current constituents of the school are no longer affiliated. I am trying to understand what the writer is attempting to achieve? It feels wrong, and in the world of instinct and hunch that makes people like Malcolm Gladwell known for things that cannot be annotated or verifiable, that means something significant also. Maybe not on this one platform of many (Wikipedia) but in the living, breathing, functioning and page-turning world where students of many races and backgrounds attend a school that they love and which loves them back with every ounce of its being. I think we will just stick to building our solid future as opposed to getting into editorial skirmishes about a very small part of the past which is just that- the distant past. KE (talk) 17:34, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi KE. I'll take this to mean that you won't edit the article for a week. I strongly encourage you to use Talk:Harding Academy (Nashville) to make your points. One piece of general advice: Wikipedia is not Facebook but an encyclopedia. Encyclopedic articles cover the notable history of a subject, from the distant past to the current. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:41, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

That works. Working on my NPOV. Thanks. KE (talk) 17:54, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

FYI

Saw your post to Sro23, who was helpful in keeping an eye on my talkpage. You may want to compare [18] to [19]. I see a familiar pattern. If so, there will be more. May want to consider rangeblock. Montanabw^(talk) 18:18, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Montanabw. Regular admins can't apply rangeblocks to registered editors as we can't see the IPs they're editing from - only checkusers can do that. I see a bunch of socks were scooped up a couple days ago so I'm not sure enough time has passed for another check. Sro23? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:29, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes. It's only been about a day since CU was last run. Sro23 (talk) 20:18, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, great citations for the in-betweeners of Gen X and Millennials

Hello, thank you for your input. I wanted to source as much regarding the generation between Generation X and Millennials (which were inconveniently lumped together). Your cited sources provide credibility to this distinction. As there is no true regulator or authority in distinguishing Millennials from others, my intention on adding the entry was to make sure that a segment of the Millennials we refer to today can be extricated from the categorization defined by Strauss and Howe.

I wanted to integrate your citations, but it was my first time. The essay was intended to establish an academic approach to the revision. May I know, how to do this properly? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CommandereON (talk • contribs) 17:29, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi CommandereON. We don't allow personal essays in Wikipedia - see our no original research policy. The only thing that was properly sourced here was the quote. We can't even extrapolate what the quote means without a secondary source's interpretation. If you want to add material then think of Millennials as an academic review article. That is, no new opinions or observations are added. Instead, the material summarizes what is published in other reliable sources and provides cites to the source material being summarized. Hope this helps. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:42, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Apologies

I made a mistake when I thought it was you who removed a notice regarding Clinton on my User:Talk page.Phmoreno (talk) 02:01, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Very confused

You left a vague message about blanking on my page, but i havent't been blanking the content as User:SeraphWiki has? He even removed the template reuired to be posted when someones account is under an incident post. (here)-- Wilner (Speak to me) 03:03, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

@R9tgokunks: You need to seriously stop running before you can walk. Did you go to the link? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:05, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes! But i am not blanking anything in this situation! If anything I am RE-adding the content being deleted. -- Wilner (Speak to me) 03:07, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

User:NeilN are you seriously going to let User:SeraphWiki just abuse Wikipedia policy without doing anything? He has deleted warning template after warning template and posts to his talk page. I feel that is a strong breach of Wikipedia rules. -- Wilner (Speak to me) 03:09, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

@R9tgokunks: What is unclear about "Policy does not prohibit users, whether registered or unregistered, from removing comments from their own talk pages..." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:11, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN: Then why is there a whole string of warning templates for just that? Shouldn't they be deleted? -- Wilner (Speak to me) 03:12, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

@R9tgokunks: Think. We have article talk pages, template talk pages, project talk pages... --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:14, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN: Ah. I see. Understood. I misunderstood that it was against policy to remove posts or warnings from one's own talk page. Sorry about that. -- Wilner (Speak to me) 03:19, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

(EC) There are no warning templates for warning people about removing content from their talk page which they're allowed to do. The templates you've used do not say anything about user talk page comments and link to to the Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines which specifically mention the exceptions including user talk page comments. As with all templates, they apply when used appropriately, but do not apply when misused. They do not list all possible exceptions since if they did, that defeats the purpose of having a short template, we might as well just transclude the entire guideline. It's intended editors read the actual guidelines if they have any doubts. It's especially intended they read them when they've been specifically linked to the editor to clarify their confusion, as WP:BLANKING was linked to you multiple times. Nil Einne (talk) 03:21, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: I read through it but did not seem to catch that part. I'm very sorry. I often have trouble understanding things. -- Wilner (Speak to me) 03:33, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

@R9tgokunks: And it's really not a good idea to duplicate a thread at WP:ANI an admin has closed without making fully sure you understand what's going on. Editors are going to start digging into your history and start questioning your competence. I know you have over 10,000 edits but several of your actions over the last couple days have been really questionable. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:30, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN: Thanks for letting me know. My apologies as I have mental trouble sometimes deducing others intentions or understanding ideas fully. -- Wilner (Speak to me) 03:33, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Pending Changes Question

Hello, and thank you for granting me this privilege. I am a little confused about reverting multiple edits. On Daisy Ridley, there is an editor who is repeatedly vandalizing her page. I tried to follow Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes but I believe I might have made a mistake. I reverted one of their edits but it was not automatically accepted to the page. Can you take a look and help me? Thanks, HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 05:05, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi HickoryOughtShirt?4. You undid one edit instead of reverting the series of edits. Revert will remove all the sequential edits, undo won't. So there were still "pending edits" to check. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:13, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Forgot to add, if you use Twinkle, forget about Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes if you want to revert vandalism. Just use the interface you're used to. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:16, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Okay. I am still working out how to use Twinkle at its fullest but I will keep working on it. Thanks for the quick help! HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 05:17, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Some IP tracks me

When I was blocked I noticed that there were some IPs that tracked my edits and went to wikis in other languages, such as Malay and Japanese, and now these IPs seem like they want to keep track of and make edit war.--O1lI0 (talk) 09:25, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Udayar (caste)

Hi, I'm unsure what to do at Udayar (caste), where the pp-dispute expired a few hours ago. A new contributor has just done pretty much the same as the previous bunch were doing, ie: mass removal of sources and statements. I've reverted them but I'm sure it won't stick. The dispute discussion petered out due to abuse of multiple accounts (allegedly unintentional) and, well, no-one actually supporting their claims with valid sources. - Sitush (talk) 11:22, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

BTW, the new contributor - Num-ik (talk · contribs) - quite obviously racked up 10 minor edits prior to going to the article. - Sitush (talk) 11:28, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

@Sitush: Article ECP'd and editor notified of general sanctions. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:05, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I really was stumped regarding what could be done. - Sitush (talk) 15:21, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

209 again

As you claim to be uninvolved on 209, perhaps you could be so kind as to hat all of the off-topic discussions on Talk:209 (number)? That is, the ones not directly about what should be included on the article, including many of my own. They make it hard to follow the parts of the discussion that are more relevant. I don't particularly care who has the last word in any of the threads that would be affected, and if you do this I will try to refrain from making more of the same mess. Or, if you're uncomfortable doing it yourself, perhaps you could recommend another venue where this same request could be made. Thanks! —David Eppstein (talk) 21:55, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm disappointed that you allowed this admin the opportunity to abuse me publicly with his gratuitous personal attack, then hat the discussion. Still, I'm not surprised by any of these kinds of decisions now. Rest assured Eppstein will be subject to serious scrutiny. His complete failure to respond per WP:ADMINACCT is starkly reminiscent of Rubin. My money's on the same end result. But your foreclosure on a discussion still relating to the disappointed new editor who has frankly been treated like dirt by an admin and a former admin (not me), is very sad. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:09, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: As I said, take the discussion to user talk if you must. It's completely inappropriate for an article talk page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:13, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

No it wasn't. The new user started a thread, and it got de-railed by Eppstein giving us his CV. I asked Eppstein to respond per his responsibility as an admin, he refused and instead changed the topic to his own qualifications etc. It was relevant until Eppstein (an admin!) refused to be responsible for his approach to the new user. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:16, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks again. And, by the way, I'd like to offer my belated apologies for calling you involved earlier; it was premature, you have remained admirably above the fray since, and your actions at that time were entirely appropriate. —David Eppstein (talk) 5:15 pm, Today (UTC−5)

We'll have to see if this kind of behaviour repeats itself, the abject failure to serve our editors is apparent and we'll need to do something about that. WP:ADMINACCT applies, you, Eppstein, failed to answer any question relating to your failure as an admin. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:20, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: Please remember your editing restrictions. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:26, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

I do remember them. To say that people have failed to help the new editor is not an infringement of those restrictions. To say that Eppstein failed to respond to any of the questions I posed him per ADMINACCT is not an infringement of those restrictions. This new editor is basically cut adrift, so to say there's been an "abject failure to serve" him is not an infringement of those restrictions. Can you clarify what you restriction you think I've infringed? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:29, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: "...prohibited from posting speculation about the motivations of editors or reflections on their general competence." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:32, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, it wasn't a "reflection", it was a direct note that Eppstein had failed to meet his responsibility per WP:ADMINACCT. That's got nothing to with "general competence" (in fact, he played it the other way with his personal attack and claim of my association with "lad culture", but that's clearly nothing you're bothered about). Admins need to answer questions about their behaviour and edits, and he didn't. To somehow claim that the restriction stops me from being able to get an admin to be accountable is odd. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:35, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: Third-party editors looking over your posts on that talk page would have a good case that you went way above and beyond a "note". --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:56, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

"Third-party editors"? That's not actually the point. People have to understand the meaning and the context. Eppstein failed to respond to everything I asked him, instead he provided me with a detailed explanation on how I should address him because of his qualifications. And we're all wondering why admins are given no respect these days? Happy 2018. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:59, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Pending Changes Reviewr

Could you please review my pending changes reviewr request ? It’s been more than 24 hours. Iampython (talk) 06:23, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @Iampython: Yes, and it's over twenty-four hours since another admin declined your request, an hour after you made it. Remember to check back on the page itself when you apply for permissions, as that's where your response will be. >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 07:58, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: That was actually their rollback request. It's moot anyways as I've blocked the OP as a sock and deleted the articles they created. And denied their PC-reviewer request... --NeilN ^{talk to me} 10:00, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Classic :) not a bad start to the day! >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 10:02, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I wonder if these accounts are related to NepalMyMotherland. Alex Shih (talk) 10:03, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

@Alex Shih: There's a couple more in this history. Might need to open a SPI to keep track. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 10:07, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

@Alex Shih and NeilN: Yeah, I also had that feeling. I've opened up an SPI here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AdamSmith12. Mz7 (talk) 19:42, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Raymond's tban

Thanks for taking care of it: but you meant ARBIPA, not ARBPIA. Cheers, Vanamonde (talk) 16:02, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

There's a 50-50 chance I'll make the same stupid mistake in either area. Fixed. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:05, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Seeing I have your and Raymond's talk page on watchlist, I am aware of this incident already. I would say that it was too quick to topic ban him and it looks too unwarranted given the good work he does. He has said he would be more cautious with G5, but you can trust him with that since he is a good editor. D4iNa4 (talk) 16:12, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

@D4iNa4: No, his complete failure to acknowledge blatant sourcing issues is the problem. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:19, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Notification

Notification of [20] my arbitration enforcement action appeal. Just read I am required to notify. Raymond3023 (talk) 16:58, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

User talk:Jablonskyman's continued disruptive edits

Hi, Since you previously blocked him, I thought I'd alert you that User:Jablonskyman is still making disruptive edits. I placed a message with two example diffs at the bottom of his talk page. I decided not to call it a "warning", since I figured you'd rightly block him again upon verifying the edits. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 03:25, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

@Nightscream: Blocked indef. Lady Starkey?? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:34, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Ah, her husband. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:37, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Oliver Taylor (actor)

Hi, can you take a look at the IP(s) on that page as predictably the block evading troll is back reverting my edits and refusing to discuss. Best regards. Cassianto^Talk 06:18, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Article semied, latest IP blocked. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:37, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks very much. Cassianto^Talk 09:17, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

still occurring.... Cassianto^Talk 12:36, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

@Cassianto: I put in a short rangeblock. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:30, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

FYI -- reverting what I consider to be a PA. Many thanks in advance ! Cassianto^Talk 20:31, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

[21]. Cassianto^Talk 14:30, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Your recent edit to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

Thanks, I have spotted the item on the Twinkle gadget on the 3rr item. Iggy (Swan) 23:14, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Double check me, please

@NeilN: Please double check my actions here and alter if I erred. Not sure about an indef on this kind of address, but the offending edit was disturbing. — Maile (talk) 23:25, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Maile66. We don't indefinitely block IP addresses (as they could be reassigned to different people), we consider the person currently using the IP indef blocked. In this case I would have blocked the IP for 72 hours, noting in the log it was for WP:NLT. That way if the person pops up again using the same or different IP they can be immediately reblocked. I've also revdeleted the disturbing edit. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:33, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN: OK, thanks. I changed the block to 72 hours. Always good to check ourselves once in a while. — Maile (talk) 23:37, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Murder of Michelle Garvey

I'd like to add this to the article, but i feel someone else could do a better job. This report from KHOU indicates that there were signs of sexual assault (i assume that means she was raped) and although Michelle was clothed, she was missing things like her bra and her shoes.

www.khou.com/news/investigations/investigations-who-killed-michelle/408484935

Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 07:50, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	I appreciate your contributions regarding my topic ban as well as your thoughts on Arbitration Enforcement. --MONGO 13:08, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

periodontitis

Hi NeilN Are you the one removing microscopy of biofilm in periodontitis. Think of this medical microscopic reality. It is not because Periodontist do not use microscope they know everything. This is medical biology reality wether you like it or not. So: Historic 1849 Entamoeba gingivalis first symbiotic amoeba described in human mouth (Gros) 1914 Presence of Entamoeba gingivalis in all case of periodontal disease (Barrett) 1929 Definitive correlation between Parasites and active Periodontal disease (Kofoid) 1973 Periodontal protozoa are considered pathogen (Lapierre, Rousset, Pasteur) 1989 Elimination of protozoa is followed by arrest of the periodontal disease and its resolution (Lyons) 2009 E.gingivalis is highly motile, has phagocytic abilities and exhibits pathogen characteristics (Bonner, Trop M) 2011 E.gingivalis is found only in periodontal pocket, none is found in healthy teeth of perio patient (Trim) 2013 Antiparasitic treatment of periodontal disease: 95% patients complete cured (Bonner, AOS) 2014 Highlights the importance of controlling neglected parasites for public health (Parasite Journal) 2014 It is possible to cure and prevent agressive periodontal disease (Bonner, Dentoscope) Haave a text on microscopy is essential. You want to work on it? Cordially Tdebouche — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tdebouches (talk • contribs) 15:49, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

@Tdebouches: No, I'm the administrator who handled the edit warring report against you. Other editors have explained why they object to your edits. Please listen to them. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:58, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

George Tiller Page

Hello. I am having numerous issues editing the George Tiller page. I was recently unblocked for edit warring, and I know people who edit that page are rather fanatical about George Tiller, but they are deleting my posts even when I cite sources. I believe that what they are doing is violating Wikipedia policy, and that they are guilty of edit warring themselves. If you could look into it I would appreciate it. Thank you very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thegoodmanisamazing (talk • contribs) 22:25, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

And you're blocked again. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:36, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Tin Foil Hat pic

Hey NeilN-

I'm new to editing, but when looking at the tin foil hat page, I noticed that the example tin foil hat isn't pointy. The preponderance of tin foil hat examples in popular culture ARE pointy.

I submit to you: Weird Al Yankovich's Lorde parody "Foil": (I cannot paste the link, as it's banned, but simply search for the video)

I submit to you: A picture of the main characters in M. Night Shyamalan's "Signs": https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/.HpXAY1jzilDO35e3q_U.w--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9ODAw/http://l.yimg.com/cd/resizer/2.0/original/qTzag3ZpDR339ScCdLbkjyi1__U

Finally, I submit to you: David Grohl wearing a tin foil hat: https://cdn.theatlantic.com/assets/media/mt/food/tinfoilthumb330.jpg

All of these hats are pointy. The image you reverted to is NOT the most accurate depiction of the majority of tin foil hat wearers.

I thought the goal of editing wikipedia was to increase factual accuracy. I am unsure why your editing is contrary to this mission, but perhaps you were not aware of the mainly used tin foil hat shape and your re-editing was unintentional in this regard.

Thank you for all your other hard work and due diligence.

Rory112233 (talk) 22:34, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

@Rory112233: We don't need editors adding pictures of themselves to Wikipedia articles. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:45, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Neil- it was the only picture I had authority to is at the time, but I will get another pic - I was concerned about using imagery that wasn't completely free to use (like from the internet), so I used my personal tin foil hat. I will get someone else to take a picture of themselves in the more accurate pointed variation of the hat and resubmit. Assuming this will be ok.

Alternately, if you feel strongly about the lesser-used "scalp-hat" version, with apparently some tape or other foreign material on the forehead portion (non-conductive looking material I may add!) perhaps we should add a category in the page called "Styles of hat" - in this we can have a subcategory style, call it "Aberrant Variations" and put the current picture in it. Maybe you can help by explaining the forehead material alteration and what it potentially helps wearers against.

This subcategory could actually be a good idea- the second-most commonly used variant is the "antennas-style" whereby the hat points up on two (2) locations, reminiscent of many a bug's antennae arrangement. Lastly there is a "tandem-style" variant, meant for two (2) people to share a common protection. In this variant the points of two hat wearers are joined, creating an arc-shaped contiguity between hats and, ostensibly, adding a synergistic protection for the two users, greater than the sum of two individual pointy-hat wearers' protective powers. Rory112233 (talk) 13:39, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Ygm

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.

EvergreenFir (talk) 02:01, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Thanks for your work on clearing up the Cristina Vee conflict! House1090 (talk) 03:52, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, House1090. Not vandalism but a content dispute that got out of hand. Hopefully cooled down now. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:17, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Ah yes, could have become Vandalism though! Thanks for your help! :) House1090 (talk) 04:24, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Are you a racist?

Why are you removing my edit of Moonlight by Orville Lloyd Douglas. If you BOTHERED to read Orville Lloyd Douglas article in Film International, you would realize he is a black gay male film critic. Seems kind of racist to me that Wikipedia is removing a film review by someone who has a better understanding of black gay issues than the white film critics praising Moonlight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewmorrisseyx (talk • contribs) 06:19, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

@Andrewmorrisseyx: See the article's talk page. And tone down the attacks. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:22, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Andrew - You are talking to a long serving editor on a site with 1.5 million biographies. We DO have systemic bias based on gender, race and geography and we are trying to fix it. We know this because we have done months of research to look at millions of articles. We do not have racist editors. It is not possible for anyone to decide an editor's motives based on one edit. Can I suggest that you apologise for over stating your case. I'm guessing that Orville Lloyd Douglas would not thank you for offending people based on supposition and no evidence. Thanks. Victuallers (talk) 09:37, 11 January 2018 (UTC) P.S. Thank you Neil for helping the project (despite some unappreciative feedback).

Thanks Victuallers. Andrewmorrisseyx, if you look at the article's talk page you'll see I've made some suggestions about what would help get the review into the article. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:15, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Can you watch?

Hi Neil, can you keep a watch on this thread at WP:RSN? It seems to be going a bit out of control. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:27, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

We are having a results oriented discussion. What makes you think its going out of control? Or is this WP:CANVASSING? JosephusOfJerusalem (talk) 14:29, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: I will, but it looks relatively tame to me so far. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:32, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Why ask to keep an eye when the discussion is going fine? What are you trying to do Kautilya3? DarSahab (talk) 14:45, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Possible R/D

Hello N. I hope that you are well and that your 2018 has gotten off to a good start. I just noticed this edit and I am wondering if it is a candidate for rev/del. While it seems innocuous I'm wondering if there could be info about real people that shouldn't be in the edit history. If I am off base about this no worries. Thanks for your time. MarnetteD|Talk 02:59, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi MarnetteD, good to hear from you. I don't think there's anything in there you could use to identify a particular person. There's a full name but it's mentioned in passing. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:28, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look N. Much appreciated. MarnetteD|Talk 04:28, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Petra

Can you permenately delete my article and photos of the african grey page we tried to make? Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by PetraGrey (talk • contribs) 18:56, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Replied here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:23, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

User talk:SkyWarrior

I applied protection to SkyWarrior's talk page at the same time you did and I accidentally overwrote your protection with mine. Sorry :-( ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:34, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

@Oshwah: Absolutely no reason to apologize. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:39, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Nichiren / Nikko shonin

Hello Sir. I really need your help. That user SA 13 BRO is the one trolling the Nichiren article and Nikko Article. He has made many trolling edits on the article that other readers have consistently complained about. He also insist on using his own artistic rendition of Nichiren rather than using the Nichiren 13th century portrait for the article. Today he renamed that photo of Nichiren as Nikko Shonin. It is NOT Nikko Shonin, that is Nichiren! He is a major troll and has made many jokes on the article. You must do something about this because he pretends to make fixes on the article but I have been the one making sure it’s neutral without bias since the article was written many years ago. He renamed the Nichiren photo as Nikko Shonin! That is lunacy! 2600:387:8:11:0:0:0:78 (talk) 05:44, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

CAPTAIN RAJU, you renamed the file. The image uploader and the file name requester are on opposing sides of an issue so you may want to revisit that action, especially as the uploader's description stated it was Nichiren. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:15, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

I've already restored the previous title on this file.See here.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:57, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

@CAPTAIN RAJU: Thank you. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:00, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Authority Nutrition

I understand that different administrators may have different views on the CSD criteria, but at the point where one admin has decided to decline one, it ceases to be uncontroversial, and does not fall within the CSD criteria. I was in the process of sending that article to AfD, and had already explained my reasoning for declining to Jytdog. I was aware of the history, but it had been stable in that state since 2016, and was not G11. The default deletion process is AfD. If there was a time for G3 it was in 2016, and the article did not fall under G11 at the time. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:35, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: Simply put, you are facilitating vandalism. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:37, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

No: I am working to delete it through the process and policy the community has established. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:39, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: The process to remove vandalism is to remove it, not waste the community's time discussing it. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:41, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

An article that has been stable for almost two years has long since passed the point where deletion would be uncontroversial on those grounds, and there is no harm in letting it go to AfD. What is harmful to the community is an overuse of the CSD policy beyond what is authorized, and it makes it more difficult to deal with articles like these that should be deleted at AfD. Waiting a week to see this deleted is fine. Dealing with spammers and promotion is the topic I deal with most actively on Wikipedia, and I certainly get the frustration. I also think that those of us who are working on dealing with these issues should be careful to use the established community processes when dealing with deletion and not to construe policy to fit what we think it should be. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:49, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: "long since passed the point where deletion would be uncontroversial". You're wrong. Have you not seen the ANI and Village Pump threads on this? I have, because unlike you, I was deleting these articles uncontroversially. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:54, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I have, and I think that depending on the circumstances of a particular article, speedy deletion might be justified. An article that was relatively neutrally written and had been stable for two years, however, doesn't meet G11: it wouldn't be required to be fundamentally rewritten. AfD is better in these cases, as it allows for community review. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:01, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: In other words, you want to waste the community's time accommodating spammers and probable UPEs who commit vandalism against the project. Okay. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:06, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

No: I simply don't want to let my personal views on spammers and UPE cause me to violate the deletion policy. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:08, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

There's a reason why WP:COMMONSENSE redirects where it does. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:12, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

The community recently had a chance to accept a speedy deletion policy for UPE. It rejected it. I spend well over 50% of my time on Wikipedia dealing with the UPE problem and trying to work towards better ways of dealing with it, which I think should include a CSD criteria for it. At the same time, I think those of us who are active in this area need to recognize that there is a part of the community that does not see this issue as big of a threat as we do, and that part of the community should be respected. In cases like these, I think AfD is the best way forward: it deals with the problem of the spam and UPE while allowing for community review of our actions. I get that people have different views on the CSD criteria, and I don't mind it, but I would also appreciate it if I wasn't called a vandal facilitator or had my good faith views on the subject treated as if they were going to be the death of the project: I work very hard in the paid and promotional editing area, and I don't think it is fair to me or the work that I do in this area to paint my more conservative approach to deletion (via AfD) in this one case in that light. People of good will can disagree in good faith, and I think that is what this is. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:21, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: I know you're editing in good faith. But I do think it's fair to state that your decisions along this vein are unnecessarily facilitating vandalism. UPE+vandalism is different from only UPE. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:30, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I'd agree with you on the last point if it was more recent than 2016. At some point it just becomes an article, though. I also don't really think it fair to say I'm facilitating vandalism since I am trying to get the article deleted: just through AfD, which is our default deletion process. I watchlist every new disambiguation page that I see that comes up in the new pages feed because of how aware I am of the hijacking issue, and I'm looking forward to the day when page moves show up in the feed as well for this reason. I have very strong views on this issue as well, but I also prefer to check myself rather than unilaterally make a call where I can see the argument from the other side.

I think my largest concern here is that I was in the process of making the deletion nomination after I had declined it, and you came in saying that you were going to delete it anyway. I don't mind people disagreeing with me: but I would have preferred it if you had approached me on my talk page with your concerns rather than pinging me on the page of another editor saying you were going to do what I had just declined to do on that page. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:44, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: I responded to where the conversation was happening (what's the point of splitting the discussion?) to give you a heads up and wait, as none of your posts addressed the issue of the page move vandalism. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:52, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying: I can see what you were doing now. On the comment, I read it as you saying that you were going to speedy delete it anyway, despite my disagreement with that action. My apologies if I misinterpreted that, but I've always been under the impression that once a CSD has been declined, it typically shouldn't be speedy deleted because someone thinks it doesn't unambiguously fit the criteria. Anyway, despite the disagreement on this, I hope we still leave on good terms: your above statement clears things up for me, and hopefully, I've made some sense here even if we disagree. All the best, TonyBallioni (talk) 02:06, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Sorry to jump in on this, but the editor who created the article is one of the ones I watch out for. It was created by an indef-blocked paid editor, who uses that technique (creating a new article in an existing redirect) to avoid being spotted in the new page patrol process. On those grounds I typically delete the articles via G3. Without knowing that, though, it was clearly a stretch to use G11.

With that said, I sometimes (as TonyBallioni did here) send a clearly paid article which perhaps could be deleted under G11 or G5 to AfD, because it gives us a decision on the topic instead of the editor. This won't survive AfD, and when it doesn't we also know that G4 applies, no matter who creates it in the future. That way if we don't recognize the paid editor next time they hire someone, we still know that the topic has been accessed by the community and we can handle it. I think this puts us in a better position overall, so I don't view it as harmful. - Bilby (talk) 02:45, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Bilby. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:50, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

@Bilby: I see what you're saying but I'm not sure it'd be useful in this case as many of the refs were quasi-advertorials. It wouldn't be a big deal to put out more of this stuff, add new refs to the newly created article, and claim G4 doesn't apply. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:54, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

It's another reason for my approach that way, yes. There aren't that many other sources out there (I checked before sending it to AfD), so it would be unlikely to survive that G4 gaming. UPE cleanup is complex, and I certainly don't mind using the blunt instrument of G3, G5, or G11 when needed, but sometimes I do think AfD is better (it also raises the issue with the community, which helps develop a clearer consensus on how we deal with these articles.)

If I had known it was a specific banned editor, I would have had no problem G5ing, but I didn't see it at the time. Bilby knows that I have no problem going after UPE articles, and I often disagree with him and would prefer what I would consider a stronger approach, but I also try to assess each scenario individually, and work out which deletion process is best suited, even if multiple could apply. I thought AfD would be better this time, which is why I sent it there. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:03, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Golf-ben10

This user is back to disruptive on the 'Face Thailand' articles which got them blocked back in November. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 14:59, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

@Sportsfan 1234: This time it's an indefinite block. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:23, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

3Aum3 evasion?

I suspect this may be evasion by 3Aum3 (talk · contribs), whom you blocked a couple of weeks ago. I know they were active a couple of days prior to that edit because of this at Commons. - Sitush (talk) 16:38, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

@Sitush: Yes, pretty obvious. They even posted an unblock autoblock request on their talk page a couple days ago. Blocked the IP for a week. If they resume using the same IP I'll block longer. If they switch to a different IP I'll semi the article. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:03, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 17:07, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Why did you ignore my request for help?

Hi!

Why did you ignore my request on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, but met others'? Did I forget to fill in the correct form? Look his dishonest edits and talk page lies Wikipedia:Don't lie about other users. He is disrupting the improvements, see for yourself.--Immunmotbluescreen (talk) 21:33, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)I can't speak for Neil, but both the length of that post and the fact that you seem to be shopping around trying to get Snoo blocked are indicators that your complaint doesn't have much merit. The fact that you made it (and this) with such incendiary language doesn't help, either. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:48, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

@Immunmotbluescreen: All editors, including admins, are free to choose what discussions they wish to participate in. There are plenty of other editors watching that page and I have nothing to add at this time. The fact that no one else has remarked is a clear indication that the situation isn't as clear-cut as you believe. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:51, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

@Immunmotbluescreen: Plus your initial post has zero diffs to back up your accusations. If you want others to look at your report then I recommend this format:

[diff] - short description of how it violates policy/guideline
[diff] - short description of how it violates policy/guideline
[diff] - short description of how it violates policy/guideline

--NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:57, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Please explain

I personally would not make the comments that HistoryofIran did. That is simply because I don't believe colorful language is the most constructive way to behave on talk pages, nor would I call Khamenei those things, personally. I saw them before they were suppressed, and I won't be quoting because I don't understand which part of them got him blocked, and I don't want to be sanctioned myself lest a quote be misunderstood as something other than that. But I don't see what part of it got him blocked. There were no libelous claims -- only a controversial label, one which many users have applied to Khamenei and one which many would apply to him offline (indeed, it is also applied to Trump and even Cuomo as part of expressive speech). The one that referred to this animal was also crude but it did not contain any libelous claims unless someone took that statement as literal which would be... uh, surprising. Could you please explain to me clearly why you blocked him? --Calthinus (talk) 22:03, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

@Calthinus: Statements do not have to be libelous to violate WP:BLP. If an editor said, "[well known President] is a racist pig" that is not libelous and is said often enough offline. But we don't tolerate that crudeness here. The crudity (posted after being repeatedly warned) and the AIDS comment resulted in the block. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:12, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for your explanation.--Calthinus (talk) 22:13, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Frank Zappa discography

Hi NeilN, having noticed the recent talk page section Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Jazz/Archives/2017 1#Edits reverted by NeilN, I thought you might be interested in a continued sort-of conflict at and around Talk:Frank Zappa discography#Jazz. Perhaps you'd like to chime in there. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 22:41, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

@DVdm: Thank you. If this keeps up I think we need to start looking at some form of topic ban for the editor. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:48, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, this feels somewhat OWNish. - DVdm (talk) 22:54, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

@DVdm: [22], [23] They need to use their "extensive knowledge" to add sourced content to articles, not define what is jazz for Wikipedia. But I have been practicing saying “Top o’ the mornin’ to ya” in Irish brogue. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:04, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Dhadhor

Any chance of short-term semi-protection at Dhadhor? An anon keeps changing the names of towns to ones which are not mentioned in the source. - Sitush (talk) 02:20, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Done. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:48, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. - Sitush (talk) 04:53, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Jessica Jacobs block evasion

User:Anonomys7 is our obsessed/crazed fan evading your block. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 08:45, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

@Paul Benjamin Austin: I see one edit to that article. What's your evidence? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:46, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

They put in a link to Bubblegum Casting, Jacobs' old agent as our friend did. They also only edited Jacobs' article after the other IP was blocked. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 14:11, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Template

Hi NeilN (or any admin TPS). Would you mind moving Template:Editnotices/Page/Donald Trump racial views to Template:Editnotices/Page/Racial views of Donald Trump as the article has moved to a new title. Thank you.- Mr X 🖋 15:27, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Done, but El C, did you mean to override my note? Talk:Racial_views_of_Donald_Trump#AE_note? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:36, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, when I originally added the editnotice, I did intend on having Consensus required, like the Donald Trump page. But I haven't seen your AE note at the time. El_C 01:23, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

@El C: Mmmm. You're allowed to do that of course. You should add a talk page notice and you need to log the restriction. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:32, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

No, if you don't think it's needed yet, I'll hold off. El_C 01:41, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

@El C: Thank you. Basically my thinking was not to have editors feel they were stepping across a minefield during the normal development phase of a new article. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:46, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

It would be preferable if articles were not preemptively restricted. 1RR, and especially consensus required, can cause a lot of unnecessary drama, and it does tend to discourage article development. - Mr X 🖋 02:21, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Cannot publish page

I am just curious as to why I am unable to publish my page when I have documentation and evidence to back up all information stated on my page.

Bigvinkarma (talk) 00:54, 17 January 2018 (UTC)Vinnie

@Bigvinkarma: Wikipedia isn't Facebook. You need to stop publishing your résumé here please. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:01, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I am not using Wikipedia as Facebook as Facebook is a social media outlet and Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that states facts with sources. My page is for educational purposes and not for any type of promotion. I am creating the page so that other links in which I am affiliated with on Wiki, I may have a profile with facts, published article links, sources and documentation about who I am and what I have contributed to throughout my career; entirely different than posting any garbage on social media. I have not yet had the opportunity to publish my page with all necessary sources, links, etc., due to constant flags being thrown on my page every time I try to publish it.Bigvinkarma (talk) 01:13, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

@Bigvinkarma: If you think text like "A devoted drummer with nearly two full decades of experience, Vinnie E. Parma has made substantial effort in making a name for himself across the United States, as well as all over the globe" is not purely promotional fluff then you do not know how to write for an encyclopedia. Also, please see the advice I posted to your talk page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:18, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Page revamp

Could you check out the page now and tell me what additional changes need to be made? Thanks

Bigvinkarma (talk) 05:10, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

@Bigvinkarma: I've moved it to Draft:Vincent Parma and submitted it for review. Another editor will review it but I can tell you right now the "Early Life" section reads like a straight-up Facebook profile and more than half the content will be deleted as it has no sources. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:28, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

hello

You were pinged by Lacypaperclip with an allegation that I was engineering a "campaign of harassment". I replied here. As Lacypaperclip has, since, banned me from her Talk page I am unable to control any edits or deletions made to my post. That's fine but, since it is a very serious charge, I feel I need to draw your attention to the fact I did offer a response, in case you didn't have a chance to check the edit history. Do not hesitate to let me know if you have any questions. Thank you - Chetsford (talk) 04:13, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

@Chetsford: The edit warring report was closed and Lacypaperclip was correctly warned. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:35, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Appealing your recent topic ban

This is my official notice of appeal, regarding your recent topic ban. Greggens (talk) 04:18, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

@Greggens: See the instructions I added to your talk page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:32, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Could you ...

... take a look at Lalvia, who is a sock of Wittgenstein123? Been waiting about an hour for a block via WP:AIV. Thanks. General Ization ^Talk 05:09, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Sock put away. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:16, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks. General Ization ^Talk 05:18, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Anyone can

Hi! Can anyone delete vandalism notification for his discussion page? Thank you (in advance) Danfarid133 (talk) 10:02, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Danfarid133. What are you referring to? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:12, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Check this. Danfarid133 (talk) 17:06, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

@Danfarid133: Please see WP:OWNTALK: "Although archiving is preferred, users may freely remove comments from their own talk pages... The removal of a warning is taken as evidence that the warning has been read by the user." And the edit you warned them for was definitely not vandalism. Please be more careful with your warnings. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:12, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you.

Danfarid133 (talk) 17:17, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Unblock request

Would you please consider unblocking FkpCascais so that they might participate in Talk:Mount Athos#Disputed sentence, request for discussion? Thanks Paul August ☎ 11:16, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Neil, please see my comment at ANI regarding the above discussion. Thank you. Dr. K. 12:53, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Replied here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:33, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. Dr. K. 18:32, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, NeilN. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 14:02, 19 January 2018 (UTC). 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.

>SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 14:02, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Your protection of bus page

I have attempted multiple times to use talk page to resolve disputes on the article and on the users and unfortuntely have had no luck. I still keep being reverted by @SportsFan007. Is there a way to revert it back to the way i suggest. I have heard from no other editor that it is an issue. Olsen24 (talk) 21:59, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Olsen24. There are other options like opening a WP:RFC or using WP:DRN. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:01, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

How do i go about doing this? Olsen24 (talk) 14:59, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Olsen24. If the dispute can be distilled into a clear question (or a question with multiple options) then open a RFC. If the dispute is more complex and requires extensive discussion to work towards a consensus then use WP:DRN. Feel free to post here again if you have further questions. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:23, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Revision deletion

Can you hide the edits of [[24]]? I have not seen them directly (I am glad) but I can tell from the name on source that it is really disturbing. So please hide it before someone else sees it or I accidently see it. Also, there are "redacted" article names but the attcaka still appear in history. 2600:1:F157:CC86:4150:BA89:25B0:C9AE (talk) 23:50, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I tend to browse through Wikipedia's history looking at recent changes, socks, or good faith editors edits so I am familar with many vandals and their socks. Furthur, as the afore mentioned ediotor seems to be a sock of a notorious vandal, I suggest deleting talkpage and hiding all edits rather than simply reviaion deletion. 2600:1:F157:CC86:4150:BA89:25B0:C9AE (talk) 23:50, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

IP's personal attacks

Hi, not sure if it was you that concealed the IP's edit on my talk page. If so, can you conceal the IP's disgusting third and fifth edits as well? Sixth is likely in order as well. Same with this other IP's edit as well please. Also if you could email me with the content of the concealed edit on my talk page it would be appreciated since it was concealed before I noticed. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 02:22, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

@Hwy43: Yes, done, sorry I didn't notice the other edits before. Emailed you. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:28, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks for everything. Hwy43 (talk) 02:37, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Notification of appeal

This is to inform you that your recent topic ban against me has been filed for appeal. Greggens (talk) 04:28, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

WP:BLP

To answer your concerns that you posted on my talk page, I have always been a proponent of WP:BLP, adhering to its instructions as best as I possibly can. In fact, one of the things that I enjoy is, when I find something that is unsourced, I find a source to back it up and insert it into the appropriate article. As for my recent attempts at inserting a category or adding to a list, I misread the policy and thought I had all my ducks in a row each time. That's my bad. With respect to these edit attempts, even if there had been no sanctions imposed, I would not have restored the edit, anyway, since there was no consensus in favor of it. I believe that gaining consensus for restoring such reverted edits is one of the things that WP:BLP mentions in WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE.

To prevent future misunderstandings of WP:BLP, I'd be happy to talk with other admins about how to clarify the letter of the policy. Greggens (talk) 03:10, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

@Greggens: I don't think this is going to help you very much. The policy is pretty clear; what other admins commenting on the appeal are looking for is your understanding and commitment to adherence, not advice on how to change how the policy is written. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:37, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

I've modified my appeal statement. Greggens (talk) 04:07, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi NeilN, I hope you don't mind if I comment here – please revert if you want me to stay out of it. @Greggens: I've seen your modified statement and I thought it showed progress – certainly your emphasis on not restoring without consensus is a point in your favour, as is enjoying adding sources, and both of these could be supported with diffs. However, at the end of your modified statement, you requested that all sanctions be lifted. That request was and is unwise, in my opinion, in that it takes away from appearing to beginning to appreciate the seriousness of the situation and also reflects a misreading of the consensus developing. Showing that your editing in BLP areas has been good (except for the case that led to this sanction) and undertaking to continue to respect consensus, not restore anything removed without strong support, and seeking to rebuild your reputation is a wiser way forward. In my view, an "appeal declined, sanctions remain unchanged" result is the best option you could get, and an increase in sanctions is a real possibility, so seeking to present reasons why the extension to all BLPs is not warranted would be a more sensible strategy. In my view, that will depend in part on a statement that you made, which is why I'm posting here to ask you for clarification: You wrote here and on AE that "To prevent further misunderstandings of WP:BLP ... clarify the letter of policy" statement. Are you suggesting describing how you came to hold the misunderstandings that you have demonstrated, and so looking at changes to the text of WP:BLP so that others may not develop similar misunderstandings / confusions? Or, are you suggesting the policy text be modified so that WP:BLP is closer to what you had thought it was? EdChem (talk) 06:08, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Long lasting vandalism by 177.158.171.152. (Brazilian IP).

Middle power article was vandalized by User talk:177.158.171 .152.

3 times today he vandalized article.Last time 6 hours ago.IP is always from the same area. I suggest to block him and to lock atricle and related articles (Great power,Power and Regional power)for long time. I suppose he is (he vandalized Italy article too with brazilian nationalism ;the iP is brazilian)B777-300ER.He should be detected. Thank you.LittleOx (talk) 20:08, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Again, WP:AIV is the proper forum for reporting vandalism. Be sure to supply diffs that support your claims. Beeblebrox (talk) 09:03, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Email notice

Please check your inbox. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:16, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

That Mrbrklyn / Panix comics sock case

Hi, Neil. I thought I should bring up that sock 47.21.43.226 at User talk:47.21.43.226 has declared his intention to continue meat-puppetry: "Well, you are gonna see a lot of those because we have a big family." I'm wondering if maybe it becomes an ANI issue now? Do you have any advice? --Tenebrae (talk) 20:34, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

@Tenebrae: Both main targets of the sockmaster have been semi-protected. No IP rangeblock is possible right now because the IPs are all over the place. All we can do is block if more socks show up and perhaps protect the talk pages if they don't leave those alone. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:41, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I really wasn't looking forward to the time and trouble of an ANI. Much appreciated! --Tenebrae (talk) 20:42, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

@Tenebrae: You can drop a note here or at the SPI if more socks show up. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:44, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Neil. Just found another one, as his history makes abundantly clear: 47.21.43.226 Thank you again for standing up against block-evasion. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:02, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Actually, you previously blocked him for 31 hours, and I guess he's defiant. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:03, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

@Tenebrae: One month this time. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:00, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Republic of Macedonia

The Greek editors are feeling all warm and nationalistic after the anti-Macedonia protests this weekend. --Taivo (talk) 03:12, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

@TaivoLinguist: I was wondering what caused the sudden flareup. Usually I have to hand out a warning once every six months. This past week I've handed out about ten. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:16, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the Greek government sent negotiators to meet with their Macedonian counterparts to work out a compromise. Greek nationalists denounced any compromise that includes the word "Macedonia" in the new name. --Taivo (talk) 03:21, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Imagined copyright infringement is a beast. --Taivo (talk) 03:22, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello again, NeiN. I think the nationalistic surge relates to political developments between the two countries and not to mere protests (which too are a reaction to these developments): New important developments on the Macedonia Naming Dispute. -- ❤ SILENTRESIDENT ❤ 00:39, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

User talk:Abolianchem Fest

You may wish to revoke talk page access.--Cahk (talk) 10:06, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Done. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:46, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Clear-cut edit warring incident

Hi Neil, with re your verdict in here, it is pretty disturbing, should I say. I have wasted quite a lot of time in diffs, DRN and so on for a straightforward case, in which the editor keeps adding something that it is not in the source, just disruptive editing. I will tell you honestly, it looks to me like either an invitation to escalate and/or to get fed up with the WP. The editor in question is not engaging in dispute resolution, so what is the way you are beaconing really? Iñaki LL (talk) 17:26, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Iñaki LL. The revert today was Swazzo's first in five days and they were using the talk page until that revert. I directed them to use dispute resolution. If they simply continue to revert then a block will probably be forthcoming. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:33, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN: He is comfortable now, because it is his version remaining now in the article. So he feels he needs do nothing. That is why I say it is like an invitation to escalation. Iñaki LL (talk) 17:38, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

@Iñaki LL: There are others involved in the discussion so Swazzo's version won't last long if another editor objects. Then we'll see how they respond. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:44, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN: But as it happens, another editor had made a comment, and following my filing of incident to move on as a lack of results, the DRN is now close, and our input not showing. Iñaki LL (talk) 17:51, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

@Iñaki LL: The DRN case can be re-opened if circumstances warrant. Again, we need to see Swazzo has decided to stop talking and just revert before blocking. One revert isn't enough. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:56, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Problematic image

I noted your edit to Udayadityavarman II so seek your help re the problematic image which the other editor could not see - File:Backtowel.jpg. It is also somehow embedded in New Zealand general election, 1887 (and other articles) but I can't find it in the edit history to remove it. Moriori (talk) 22:09, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Moriori. Do a WP:PURGE on the affected articles. I've done one on New Zealand general election, 1887. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:12, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks NeilN. After I placed this message I noticed your advice at ANI. Aaaaargh. Moriori (talk) 22:17, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppet.

Hello Neil, Could I ask you to look at the activities of Maximajorian Viridio (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) ? This "contributor" appears to be following exactly the same pattern of Alex102072 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who your recently blocked and only started editing when editors started an enquiry into their disruption. Many thanks and regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 10:19, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi David J Johnson, Alex102072 doesn't exist? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 11:33, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Neil, My apologies, I was rushing to get my wife to the Doctors. I should have said Alexb102072 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 11:53, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

@David J Johnson: I will look into this and open a SPI case if necessary. Hope everything is okay with your wife. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:21, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN: Many thanks. The changes do look the same as Alexb102072 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Wife still smiling. Many thanks and regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 15:41, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

They are still overlinking and adding unnecessary alterations to random articles in exactly the same way as Alexb. Further they have not responded on their Talk page - again the same pattern. Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 11:33, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

@David J Johnson: Blocked 48 hours. I'll keep an eye on them. If they start up again without replying, then it's an indef block. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:36, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks for all your help. Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 20:47, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Climate Change DS

If you get the time to do so, would you please have a look at this editor's activities? I'm not sure if they are a new editor who doesn't understand, or if they're just a sock who wants to be disruptive. Thanks, AzureCitizen (talk) 14:38, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

@AzureCitizen: Topic banned six months. If it's a new editor, they can start by contributing in other areas. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:12, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Today they made 4 or 5 more edits, all to the same batch of articles. --JBL (talk) 03:31, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Moves

@NeilN: The reason why I changed Bariloche to San Carlos de Bariloche is because of Google Earth; Rand McNally; World Book Encyclopedia & Encyclopedia Britannica. Catfurball (talk) 17:36, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

@Catfurball: You need to respond here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#New_editor_Catfurball_and_article_move --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:45, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN: The reason why I changed Bariloche to San Carlos de Bariloche is because of Google Earth; Rand McNally; World Book Encyclopedia & World Book Encyclopedia. Catfurball (talk) 18:48, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

@Catfurball: Please read what I wrote directly above. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:08, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Jason Chaffetz Wiki entry

You cancelled my comment because it noted the obvious political slant of the ENTIRE article. Then you cite a 1932 "The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here. Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions."

I don't need to familiarize myself with the discretionary sanctions system. Wiki has already educated me on it with every article I read. If you want to talk face to face and have a real intellectual debate, then man up. Otherwise, don't hide behind a keyboard and hit the delete key just because my analysis hurt your feelings.

You selectively include whatever you want. I bet he kicked a puppy once as a kid. Maybe you should find out and get some evidence to that fact. Or maybe he has an unpaid parking ticket.

How about noting one or two positive things that he has done. You can't - because you don't see those things through your political filter goggles.

See ya. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dsewall (talk • contribs) 23:17, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

@Dsewall: You might want to read the first message I added to your talk page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:27, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN - I did read your response. It was unsatisfactory. That is why I wrote the above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dsewall (talk • contribs) 02:34, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

@Dsewall: I don't think you did. I'll repeat the important part: "I noticed that you recently added commentary to an article, Jason Chaffetz. While Wikipedia welcomes editors' opinions on an article and how it could be changed, these comments are more appropriate for the article's accompanying talk page." If you have issues with the article, post them at Talk:Jason Chaffetz. But if you simply post the same there, you'll likely be ignored or asked to propose specific changes. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:28, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Weird (and wrong) move

Num-ik (talk · contribs) has just done a weird and completely wrong move from userspace to mainspace regarding the troubled Udayar (caste) article, where you have had past admin involvement. - Sitush (talk) 13:03, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher)

Done.And, @Sitush: why don't you apply for pagemover flag?!Winged Blades^Godric 13:37, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Never thought about it. To be honest, when I can't move a page it is usually a situation where the user needs some admin advice anyway. - Sitush (talk) 13:42, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

@Sitush and Winged Blades of Godric: Editor blocked one week for continuing this disruption. Next time it will be an indef. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:13, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I note Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cnmk mentions them now. - Sitush (talk) 15:06, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Dealt with. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:13, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Incorrect Reverting

Hello! You recently removed Apollo from the real-life superheroes, I noticed this when I browsed the edits. I undid your removal because Apollo has no need to be removed, and you noted him as "nonsense". Apollo has been sighted (by me personally as well) and a source was linked in the original posting. I'd like to request that the edit be reinstated to the page, and what appears to be a strike for "disrupting Wikipedia" for bringing it back to the page be removed. Thank you, have a great day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stealthyracoon11 (talk • contribs) 17:25, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Please see Doug's post on your talk page and stop playing around here. Reddit might be more to your liking. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:58, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, and a query

Hi, Neil. I very much appreciate your keeping watch on my talk page, which the block-evading Mrbrklyn/Panix comics has disrupted, along with other pages, as 166.84.1.3. I'm truly sorry he's causing you to go to the trouble. I'm wondering if, given that the IP's talk page says, "166.84.1.3 is registered to Panix Public Access Internet," whether that IP might be worth blocking. This individual seems almost obsessively relentless. Whatever you think best, and thank you again for being a good guy. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:10, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Tenebrae. There's some good edits from that IP but they were a couple years ago. The sockmaster is just going to hop IPs anyway. I've blocked a narrow /31 range of IPs for one month. Let's see what that does. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:42, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

I know this is going to sound remarkable, given that you blocked 166.84.1.2/31, but he's begun block-evading again at 166.84.1.1! I used the word "obsessively" earlier, and I think this bears it out. Wow.--Tenebrae (talk) 20:49, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

@Tenebrae: Expanded to 166.84.1.0/24. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:55, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Again, I'm so sorry you're being put through this. I'd have to hope he'll get tired of it. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:57, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

@Tenebrae: You're doing most of the work! Thank you for that. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:59, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Now Gaming Boy II is back as Games boy II, edit-warring [25]. He doesn't seem to care anymore if he gets caught. Oy!--Tenebrae (talk) 22:49, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Blocked. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:11, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

So wikipedia is actually schauvinist shit

So wikipedia is actually schauvinist shit careless not only whether what's here is actually true but also what's actually in sources present even on wikipedia.--83.10.5.144 (talk) 02:33, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Read what I wrote on your talk page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:34, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

This is the answer. Wikipedia is really simply schauvinist shit.--83.10.5.144 (talk) 02:37, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

And you've been told that Wikipedia articles (including articles written for Polish Wikipedia) aren't reliable sources. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:41, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

And you are stupid or schauvinist enough not to notice or understand that I'm referring to sources outside wikipedia which you can really very easily find here: Talk:Sosnowiec#Silesian_Metropolis or in articles on pl.wiki (which are also listed here: Talk:Sosnowiec#Silesian_Metropolis). The only point of the whole situation is that there are no actual english sources on this particular topic and you're actually using it as an excuse not to actually verify that User:Poeticbent is forcing really shitty fiction simply because he/she is a registered wikipedia user. And this is why wikipedia is simply schauvinist shit.--83.10.5.144 (talk) 02:50, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

And the other editor presented their own sources and arguments. And a third editor proposed a compromise which you should respond to on the article's talk page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:55, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

SilverSpooner

Thanks for the block of that account, much appreciated. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:31, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

User Symaptisch is testing your topic ban

Symaptisch (talk · contribs) is testing your topic ban. [26][27][28] --Ronz (talk) 03:32, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

@Ronz and Joel B. Lewis: Yes, blocked a year. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:36, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I think some intervention is needed

Closed. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:16, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Coffee seems to be having a meltdown on WP today, quite disturbing to observe, attacking other admins, leaving obscenities in edit summaries [29], participating in dramafests all over the place. Coffee should turn off the computer and go and lie down, or someone should step in and intervene. I don't know where else to post this, hope you don't mind.Smeat75 (talk) 17:13, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

@Smeat75: That someone can't be me as they seem to think disagreeing with a few of their actions over the years (politely, I think) seems to constitute attacks, harassment, and hounding. I obviously don't but it's clear anything I say won't be taken well. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:21, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

@Smeat75: This comment is unacceptable and in no way shape or form can be seen as anything other than antagonizing. The fact that Neil didn't call you out for some of those aspersions speaks volumes. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 17:32, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Coffee, seriously, you need to step back a bit and step away for a while. I have no idea what is going on but it is clear that you are not acting appropriately. And you love talking about aspersions, but on the AETalk page, you cast aspersions on me an Ymblanter which is unacceptable. Please take my advice and take a weekend break. I fear that if you continue this way it might result in more action that we don't need. (Just in case you want to claim hounding again, [30] )Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:43, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I think it might be easier for Coffee to step back if people stopped berating them for their mistakes, perceived or otherwise. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:23, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

What about casting aspersions? He is claiming that many editors are hounding him, that is not a mistake in process or administrating, this is casting aspersions on many editors. Something that other editors get warned or blocked for. I have no problem with letting this go, but Coffee does need to take responsibility as well. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:31, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

@MPants at work: It would be easier if Coffee stopped doing things like this. There's no way I would ask another editor to take that warning and smile and toddle off and that editor should be supported when protesting. Otherwise it's "they said-they said" and an unaware third party editor or admin looking at that now or in the future is going to think, "oooh, admin warning!". --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:37, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

He's lashing out, and has been doing so for a few days now. I'm not defending his behavior in its entirety or even in a general sense (though I've seen a few instances where he's been put on blast for no good reason), I'm just pointing out that the situation is escalating, and that's not the direction we should be going in. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:45, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

This is a volunteer project. Coffee is doing something that desperately needs to be done. It's been discussed at great lenght in various venues. You don't think he's doing a perfect job the way you would personally do it? Well chip in and do your best to help and that will be a contribution. Sniping and gotchas is just not. SPECIFICO talk 18:50, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Accusing editors like me of purposeful and blatant harassment does not desperately need to be done. I’m certainly no saint but I don’t appreciate those patently false and absurd characterizations of my actions. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:08, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, given that you haven't touched in article in a week it certainly is looking like you, at the very least, have nothing better to do at the moment. Here, let me help. GMG ^talk 19:16, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Mr Ernie I agree that the warning he gave you was out of line. NeilN obviously agrees as well. I'm sure SPEC would agree, and Sir Joseph, and TheGracefulSlick, and EEng, and I'm sure plenty of others. Coffee screwed up and got an earful from several of you at the talk page. Coffee isn't listening, which is frankly not surprising because they've been taking shit left and right for almost every admin-related action for at least a couple of days now. Maybe they deserve it. I don't know. But I do know that continuing to heap shit on them is not going to fix the problem. Coffee isn't going to hear that one, perfect argument that they've been royally screwing up as a result of their failings as a person and an admin and then do a complete 180° turn. Nobody would. So can we please try a different tactic? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:19, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

@MPants at work: Sure, what do you suggest? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:23, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I think Coffee taking a break might be for the best. But an enforced break is not going to help one bit. I can politely ask them to do so at their talk, as I'm one of a few editors who's "stood up for" them recently, maybe my opinion will be worth something. But part of that is you guys all getting a break from Coffee, as well as Coffee getting a break from all the criticism. So I'd ask everyone involved to please just let the matter drop for a few days, and if something needs to be done, it can be done in the future, with cool heads and some of that hindsight perspective. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:29, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)BTW, when I "wasn't listening" I got blocked. I'm not suggesting a block at all, but when every admin action is a terrible action then something needs to be done. I know at work I once in a while take a mental health day to recharge and I don't know if it's in policy but a (Redacted) block/action to make sure Coffee takes the weekend off and comes back on Monday recharged would be a good thing. I hope he voluntarily does that, which I think he is based on his page, but we are not to blame. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:31, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Coffee is imploding before our eyes and it's been going on for days now: Block after block, heavy-handed blocks, disproportionate blocks, refusal to take advice from seasoned admins regarding the blocks, calling editors liars, claiming there's an off-wiki conspiracy against him, paranoia, cursing in edit summaries, inappropriately threatening to block editors because they've done things no one else would see as blockable, removing comments from editors on his talk page that he sees as attacks and then changes the context of what's being discussed, silencing blocked editors by inappropriately removing talkpage access, telling good and longtime editors that the project doesn't need them when told they are done with Wikipedia because of all the above... Did I miss anything? I realize Coffee had some serious problems a while back, and maybe that's what's keeping anyone from doing something now, but I have to wonder how long this is going to be allowed to go on. I wish only the best for Coffee IRL, but right now it doesn't seem that continuing to have the bit and being allowed to continue on while repeatedly skirting the line of abusing the bit is doing him any good. Or the project. None of this equals building an encyclopedia, rather, it equals unneeded, unnecessary drama and disruption. Is that what an admin is supposed to be offering Wikipedia? Is any of this acceptable behavior for any editor, let alone an admin? From what I can see there is way more damage occurring than is needed - for the encyclopedia, for the community, and most certainly for Coffee. Left unchecked, it's only going to continue to escalate, and even if it doesn't, allowing everything that's happened to just fade away and not be dealt with appropriately is going to encourage him in thinking he can return to the same behavior in the future. I fear this isn't just a one-off or that being recharged on Monday after taking the weekend off is going to solve something that very obviously and seriously wrong here. When is enough going to be enough and something done to save Coffee from himself? -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 19:24, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I really don't want this to be more of a "bash on Coffee" thread than it already has so some potentially closing thoughts:

Coffee does some worthwhile heavy-lifting in contentious areas.

* Their participation in AE is almost always valuable and useful. Struck. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:46, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

No one person is indispensable to the project. If I left tomorrow I hope I'd be remembered with good thoughts but the project would continue on in the same fashion.
Admins can't sweat the small stuff. Criticism, even sharp criticism, is not a personal attack or harassment. Commenting on past incidents is not stalking. Ignore the unkind words, focus on the substance. "Only a blind fool and complete idiot would've blocked." Well, maybe I was a blind fool and complete idiot?
If the small stuff is getting to you, step back and do something that makes you happier.

I'll leave this thread open for a while but no more bashing, please. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:47, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I agree 100% with MPants at work. To answer NeilN's question: If there is a legitimate concern about admin conduct, it should be raised in a more formal setting like ANI. If that fails to get some level of resolution, then anyone can request that Arbcom examine it. What is not helpful is the death by 1000 cuts approach that seems transparently crafted to drive Coffee into a crisis of self-doubt and despair. Shame on some of you. FWIW, I believe NeilN's feedback has been mostly fair and diplomatic.- Mr X 🖋 19:53, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

NeilN, NBD, but I don't know why you redacted my comment. It was a sentence that followed the sentence you didn't redact about me taking mental health day off work, which is a common term for time off work or school. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:02, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
Does it really need to explained to you that you should't post speculation about an editor's mental health?- Mr X 🖋 20:11, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Sir Joseph, I was considering asking you to strike that section, myself. It's exactly the sort of thing that's not helping. I understand your frustration, but really, the best thing right now would be to close this thread and all of us stop discussing it for a while. I'd do it myself, except this is not my talk page and I don't want to overstep. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:12, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

(Sorry to post in a closed thread but I need to clarify), as I wrote in the first section, I often take a mental health day to take off work and just enjoy the day. It's a common term that just means to shut off your computer and take a day off. It had no negative connotations, I was just using the common term. I apologize if anyone read it differently, but that was not my intention. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:39, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I think, Neil, closing this thread is a good idea. Per MP and MrX, no reflection on what you're saying. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:14, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Jim Humble on Quackery

For your information: Jim Humble claims to have discovered MMS on his own webpage (http://jimhumble.is/about). On another webpage he claims to be the archbishop of the GENESIS-II chuch for health and healing (http://genesis2church.is/our-church). In contrary to Escape_Orbits complaint, the article in The Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/science/2010/sep/15/miracle-mineral-solutions-mms-bleach) does mention Jim Humble by name. An article in The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/autism-bleach-california-us-genesis-ii-church-mms-scientology-a7409186.html) writes "The secretive Genesis II Church was founded by Jim Humble, a former scientologist, who has claimed in a video to be a "billion-year-old god from the Andromeda galaxy". Your issue for writing unsolicited information about living people does not hold true, since Jim Humble himself tries to take all the credits for a substance, that the FDA has warned of (https://www.aboutlawsuits.com/miracle-mineral-solution-mms-warning-11838/) and the DoJ sentenced suppliers (https://www.fda.gov/ICECI/CriminalInvestigations/ucm448541.htm). Every word that I wrote in the chapter on Jim Humble either comes from his own website, from serious newspapers, or from US governmental agencies. I don't see what other sources you need. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosemann (talk • contribs) 20:18, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Rosemann. You really want to talk to the IP user who reverted you, not me (I'll invite them here). I agree this source seems okay for some claims about Humble. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:27, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for pinging me. Quackery seems like the least of the gentleman's issues, and I would agree with the characterization. Still, I have two problems with adding him to the article: One, are there WP:RELIABLE sources that make that claim specifically, and if there are, then: Two, does he meet our WP:NOTABILITY guidelines? If he doesn't, and there's no bio here on him already, I'm dubious about his inclusion in the article. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 20:50, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello NeilN, thanks for considering this issue. I very well understand that it is perhaps difficult to objectively tell if something is quackery or simply an non-traditional way of treatment. For the inherent consistence of WIkipedia, however, I'd like you to refer to the single WP entry on Miracle Mineral Supplement. Nothing that I added about Jim Humble to the quackery article is fundamentally different to the more extended description under WP Miracle Mineral Supplement. In the latter one a reference to then-Attorney General Lisa Madigan is made, describing a case of pseudo-medical MMS prescription by saying, "You have a situation where there are people, complete quacks, that are out there promoting a very dangerous chemical being given to young children... Ingesting what amounts to a toxic chemical - bleach - is not going to cure your child." Jim Humble is the "master mind" behind MMS, as one can read on his personal website and the website where he claims to be archbishop of GENESIS II, a cult that praises MMS as its holy sacrament. All their claims read like a Monthy Python joke, but it is all meant to be taken serious. The claims by Humble are so hilarious, that I also completely agree that he does not deserve a personal WP article. But the entire MMS story is perhaps a prototype of modern days quackery. I presented these additional information also to Escape_Orbit, who used to deleted my text always within seconds. But to response to my talk he did not found time yet for more than 12 hours. Strange, isn't it ? (Rosemann talk) 13:15, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

@Rosemann: This removal by Escape Orbit was according to policy and was very properly done. See WP:SYNTH: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.". This is even more important for biographies of living people. It doesn't matter the topic - quackery, politics, scandals, science, business... anything - the policies are the same. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:16, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN:Its hard to believe that a pseudo-medical treatment like MMS is blacklisted by the FDA and its trade sentenced by the DoJ (https://www.fda.gov/iceci/criminalinvestigations/ucm469831.htm), but its "inventor" Jim Humble can not only continue to mislead desperate patients via his websites, but that he can not be called a proponent of quackery in WP. If I understand your point (and WP:SYNTH) correctly, than by presenting a legal statement by an Attorney General saying "....pseudo-medical MMS [is]...prescribed by complete quacks...." and by presenting this elaborate web-presence by Jim Humble and his GENESIS II cult that claims to have pioneered MMS as therapy for virtually every disease does not permit the conclusion that Humble "invented" quackery himself ????? Honestly, this is a punch in the face of basic logical reasoning. If this Syllogism has been invalidated within WP, than bye-bye community based knowledge. (Rosemann talk) 13:30, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

@Rosemann: WP:SYNTH exists to prevent editors from making connections that haven't been reported by reliable sources. Otherwise we could have things like, "X was president of the university from 2014-2017. Y scandal occurred in 2016. Therefore X's policies caused the Y scandal" when in fact X may not have had any part in Y. Some connections are more clear-cut but if they are, they're usually reported in third party sources. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:35, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Look, even if there are direct claims that he's a quack, I don't see adding him to the article unless his notability as an individual has been established. The world is awash with phonies and hoaxters, some of whom do irreparable damage, and it's not an encyclopedia's role to list them, even if our intentions are on behalf of the public well-being. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:55, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Edit war

the dispute that led to your recent protection is becoming an issue again. please message Sports Fan 007 to put an end to this. Olsen24 (talk) 22:01, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Both of you are now blocked for two weeks. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:05, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I actually made a request for page protection on MTA Regional Bus Operations bus fleet. I was unaware of these editors being blocked. Do you mind reviewing the RFPP request? epicgenius (talk) 22:24, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Done. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:28, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Repeated insertion of original research

Asmodim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is repeatedly inserting original research in various articles and refusing to stop, despite being warned. Short of reporting them to the ANI, I'm not really sure what to do. Your help would be highly appreciated. M.Bitton (talk) 22:12, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

M.Bitton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Despite several attempts to solve this misunderstanding he refuses to engage in a discussion and indiscriminately removes everything I do under "original content". The issue here is that the Numidia article refers to the "kingdom of Numidia" an entity that disapeared with the Roman annexation and thus has nothing to do on elements from the Roman period. However the article on Africa (Roman province) deals specifically with the Roman period in North Africa, including Numidia (the Roman administrative province and not the berber kingdom) this is a problem of homonyms that he does not seem to comprehend. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asmodim (talk • contribs) 22:19, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

@M.Bitton and Asmodim: This dispute is about one issue across a series of articles, correct? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:22, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN:Yes, indeed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asmodim (talk • contribs) 22:24, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the issue is across a series of articles that Asmodim decided to "make right", by replacing reliably sourced content with their original research. M.Bitton (talk) 22:28, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

@Asmodim and M.Bitton: Okay, going slowly here. No one disputes the place was named "Numidia"? Just what is the best target article? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:32, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN: I guess, it would have to be Apuleius and Augustine of Hippo, since all other OR insertions are related to them. Both of them were Numidians (born in Numidia, as can be read in their respective Britannica articles[31][32] and hundreds of other RS). M.Bitton (talk) 22:39, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN: It was named "Numidia" but there were several "Numidia"s. The one that is relevant here is the Roman Numidia, which is not covered in the anachronic "kingdom of Numidia" that bitton wants but in Africa (Roman province). Here is a timetable of the province of Africa for more clarity:

EVOLUTION OF THE PROVINCE OF AFRICA
Pre-Roman Conquest	Carthage			Eastern Numidia (Massylii)	Western Numidia (Masaesyli)		Mauretania
by 146 BC	Africa			Numidia			Mauretania
by 105 BC	Africa			Eastern Numidia	Western Numidia	Mauretania
by 45 BC	Africa Vetus			Africa Nova	Western Numidia	Eastern Mauretania	Western Mauretania
by 27 BC	Africa Proconsularis				Mauretania
by 41 AD	Africa Proconsularis				Mauretania Caesariensis		Mauretania Tingitana
by 193 AD	Africa Proconsularis			Numidia	Mauretania Caesariensis		Mauretania Tingitana
by 314 AD	Tripolitania	Africa Byzacena	Africa Zeugitana	Numidia	Mauretania Sitifensis	Mauretania Caesariensis	Mauretania Tingitana

Legend

Roman control

@M.Bitton: A question: Should the name be one thing but the link piped to the "most relevant" article? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:47, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN: The most relevant article is Numidia. The fact that is was divided at one point into east Numidia and west Numidia makes no difference, it's all part of its history. M.Bitton (talk) 22:51, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Okay. Asmodim, what makes your target article have better content for this particular context? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:55, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

The article Roman province of Africa, refers to all the historical, economic, cultural and political aspects of the region under the Roman era, while the Numidia article treats of the berber kingdom that happened to share the same name of one subdivision of the African probince and is anachronic in this context.Asmodim (talk) 23:01, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN: Please do not pay any attention to the table (EVOLUTION OF THE PROVINCE OF AFRICA). It's wrong. Numidia, regained its independence and became a separate province in AD 40. M.Bitton (talk) 23:06, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

@Asmodim and M.Bitton: At this point I suggest we call in an editor skilled in giving third opinions. I can do so if you want. You can keep the conversation here or move it to a place of your choosing (I suggest Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Africa). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:12, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN: If that's ok with you, I wouldn't mind keeping it here. M.Bitton (talk) 23:16, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Sure, if Asmodim agrees, I'll list it at WP:3O. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:17, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN: At this point, a possible solution would be to create a new article "Numidia (Roman province)" or category in Africa (Roman province) providing @M.Bitton: would take care of the references specifically for this subdivision if he insists for having Numidia written in wikipediaAsmodim (talk) 23:21, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't mind giving a third opinion, and I don't mind brushing up on my Roman history to do so. I'm just about to leave work; as soon as I get home, I'll look over some of the sources and edits and chime in with any thoughts I have. Glad to see you guys both making an effort to work this out! ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:30, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Asmodim There is no need to create a new article. Numidia (the Roman province) is already partly covered in the numidia article. If more content is warranted, it will be added. M.Bitton (talk) 23:44, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

MPants at work Thank you. M.Bitton (talk) 23:46, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

M.Bitton The issue here is that the article deals mainly with the berber kingdom of Numidia and not the Roman province while the 2 are seperate (by some centuries) and are very much unrelated.Asmodim (talk) 23:49, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Asmodim Here's your chance to improve it, just like I did a minute ago. That said, Wikipedia's content is governed by certain core policies, including the non negotiable verifiability. So if the WP:RS say that X is born in Numidia and describe him/her as Numidian, then it's not for me, you or anyone else to say otherwise. M.Bitton (talk) 00:11, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

M.Bitton No need, the current Numidia page is about a different entity than we are speaking of, I prefered creating the page for Numidia (Roman province) as in the french wikipedia and so the case is closed.Asmodim (talk) 01:15, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

@Asmodim: There's a huge amount of unsourced content on that page so M.Bitton may not agree the case is closed. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:19, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

@Neil: You did not count the bibliography.Asmodim (talk) 01:22, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Asmodim and M.Bitton: Sorry about the delay, there. I had to drive home, feed my kids and read up some.

Asmodim, I see you already created Numidia (Roman province). To be honest, it needs a lot of work. The first citation is (or rather, was) broken, and while it's acceptable to use non-English sources, English sources would be best. I'm unable to verify anything in it because I don't read French. I suspect from the sheer paucity of inline cites that a number of new citations will be necessary. It also needs a lead section. But given what I've read in the sources found in Numidia, I don't think it's undue to have that separate article.

Bitton, since the new article is created already, would you object to Asmodim linking to that for references to the Roman province?

ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it.

01:25, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

MjolnirPants Yes I do mind. The Numidia article deals with the provinces, there is no need (other than a WP:POVFORK) to create a new article. M.Bitton (talk) 01:30, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

What would be the POV in question to motivate the fork?

ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it.

01:31, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

jolnirPants 1) It could be a number of things that I'd rather not guess atm. What is certain is that Numidia (the Roman province) is part of the long history of Numidia and is already covered in the Numidia article. 2) The newly created article is full of WP:OR (the very thing that brought us here). M.Bitton (talk) 01:37, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Okay, well do you think you could improve it? If you can't describe the POV it's pushing, I don't think it's likely to be a POV fork. It may very well be undue, but I'm not too sure about that, based on some of the references. See this google search result (for the exact phrase "Roman province of Numidia"), for a list of cities with WP articles that were founded by Rome, in the Roman province, as well as what looks like a few good sources later on in the list. And that's just one particular phrase.

But assuming you're right, would it be acceptable to link figures from the Roman period directly to that subsection of the page?

ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it.

02:00, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

@MjolnirPants: Regarding the POVFORK: I was referring to the insertion of WP:OR content under a title that should clearly be made a redirect to an existing article. The fact that the editor created it while a discussion is taking place and declared that the case is closed, and that despite the numerous warnings to stop adding WP:OR to articles, only reinforces my conviction. The only properly sourced bit in the whole of article is the one I added to the Numidia article, which they copied (that's the extent of how much work they're willing to put in).

Okay, well do you think you could improve it? Frankly, I doubt I can do better than the reliable tertiary sources (Britannica, Oxford, etc.) who treat the history of Numidia (including its Roman provinces) under one article. The lack of serious coverage, the often contradictory sources and their use of time dependent descriptions (east of X in 100 AD, becoming west of X in 150 AD), etc., require a deep understanding of the subject, something that I cannot claim to posess.

But assuming you're right, would it be acceptable to link figures from the Roman period directly to that subsection of the page? While I do not see the need to do so, if such a solution brings peace and stops the WP:OR insertions, then I will not object to it. M.Bitton (talk) 20:12, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Okay, that looks like a solution, then. Asmodim, why don't you work on expanding that subsection, then use it as a target for your links (I can show you how to link to a specific subsection if needed), and I presume, M.Bitton that you would be willing to help Asmodim expand that section (using only reliably sourced information, of course)?

ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it.

20:16, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

MjolnirPants Sure thing. We also need to redirect the newly created article to Numidia. M.Bitton (talk) 20:23, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

M.Bitton Of course. As soon as Asmodim agrees. I've watchlisted both pages, so I'll kick in whenever I'm able.

ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it.

21:30, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

White's club London

An editor has initiated edit warring by refusing to accept a source from a national newspaper (the daily mail) and claims that evidence (real evidence, which is a legal term for things such as CCTV/video recording of an incident) is a 'spam' link to youtube when in fact it is not a 'spam' link at all, and doesn't meet the definition of spam.

This club is a male only club which was condemned by the former prime minister david cameron, and the fact that women activists have entered and staged a protest inside the building's dining room and entrance, which was all captured on video, is of importance to the wikipedia page, is an actual and factual event and is also posted on social media. Denial of this event is unacceptable.

I am quite happy to engage with anyone on a discussion page, but when links are referred to arbitrarily as spam, this is clearly a political motive to protect the 'reputation' of this club.

Please let me know how you suggest it would be best to proceed, and is there such a thing as an arbitrator on wikipedia who can see logic in a dispute? thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.98.211.168 (talk) 15:27, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello. Please see our bold, revert, discuss essay. You made a change, somebody else reverted, and now you should use Talk:White's to explain why your change meets Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and improves the article. Other interested editors will join the discussion if they so choose. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:33, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Also see WP:DAILYMAIL. Wikipedia has a clear written policy against using the Daily Mail as a source, in light of their history of fabrication; if a story is genuinely notable in Wikipedia's terms, a legitimate news source will have covered it and you should use that as the source; if nobody other than the Mail has covered it, then the topic is by definition not notable in Wikipedia terms, since we require coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. ‑ Iridescent 10:25, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Disruptive editor

Hi NeilN, I thought you should know that Andrew1588 is back to the same disruptive cut-and-paste move vandalism you blocked them for a couple weeks ago. Sro23 (talk) 22:44, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Nevermind, blocked by Ronhjones. Sro23 (talk) 01:56, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

User Bijanii

Hi there, your input is requested about User:Bijanii here. Thanks! UCaetano (talk) 04:42, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Declined the report and explained why. [33] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:56, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Mountains and molehills

I do not want to make a mountain out of a molehill by heading to ANI, so I hoped you could take a moment to look at a situation for me. I have been publicly threatened with a block here, and I cannot see where this user is an Admin. There is a lot of problematic behavior around this article the last few days, and before I do anything I would like your opinion. This small group of editors has apparently scared a new editor away by their behavior. You can see discussions here and here. Thank you for your time and attention! Scr★pIron^IV 15:17, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) They're not an admin. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:21, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

@ScrapIronIV: Thank you for raising this. Absolutely unacceptable behavior. I've warned both editors on the article talk page and their own talk pages. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:42, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much for addressing this. Scr★pIron^IV 15:44, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Mossad

How exactly are my edits disruptive? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.82.55.0 (talk) 20:42, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Replied here. Let's keep the conversation in one place, please. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:46, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Is this vandalism?

Hello Neil,

So I was patrolling through recent changes and I noticed a new user Bill Wong rapidly making edits, so far they've made around ~275 (equalling on average 0.3 bytes) and they were only created today. While editing is the purpose of Wikipedia, their edits are all minor spacing edits [34] and [35] that can easily be done in one swoop or left be. I am still trying to AGF here, I sometimes forget to use show preview too, so I left them a message on their talk page but they ignored it and continue to clog up edit histories on Chinese dynasty pages, like Zhou dynasty. Now this can easily just be a case of a confused editor and maybe I should leave them a second reminder but I am wondering if you have any other suggestions? Thank you, HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 21:00, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi HickoryOughtShirt?4. I've blocked 12 hours for disruptive editing so we can find out what they're up to. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:06, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Alright, thank you for being so quick. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 21:07, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Respond to unblock

Thank you, about my last page edit, I will return to make corrections, because it was not completed and don't be afraid of me !👍 Bill Wong (talk) 21:27, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

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

←

→

[1] ttps://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/05044033/filing-history

[2] ttp://www.b14643.de/Spacerockets/Specials/Hwasong-15/index.htm

[3] ttp://www.b14643.de/Spacerockets/Specials/Hwasong-14/index.htm

[1]

[1]

[2]