User talk:SarekOfVulcan/Archive 22

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15 ← Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25

Administrators' newsletter – January 2018

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

Administrator changes

added Muboshgu
readded Anetode • Laser brain • Worm That Turned
removed None

Bureaucrat changes

readded 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

Arbitration

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

Request

Could you ask someone to stop stocking me, please? [1] I'm trying to stay away, but that is hard when you are followed around this site. I try to check sites to make sure others have not used it for at least a week before I post, but this is the second time in two days.[2][3] C. W. Gilmore (talk) 14:15, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

That's something that should be presented at WP:ANI. A single admin can't impose an interaction ban. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:21, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
I was hoping someone could ask to end the following, I came here because I've never done an ANI and was afraid to mess it up. I only wanted someone to back off, not get them in trouble, that's not my style. But if you insist, then I will try. Thanks C. W. Gilmore (talk) 14:33, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
I will try, it's my first time. Thanks C. W. Gilmore (talk) 14:39, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
  • ANI started, but I can't do the notification per the IBAN. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 14:51, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
    Right. You should have reminded me there was an IBAN in place, I would have dealt with it. Sorry about that. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:53, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
sorry about the hassle, I had only been hoping that someone could ask that I not be followed. I was trying to keep the one week rule that I imposed on myself and that's much easier to do when I'm not getting followed from page to page. To Slatersteven, ' anti-Semitism in the UK' had been clear for 10 days so I began to post their again. Once it was no longer clear I finished up my conversation and I will not post there any further just as I will not post on your page per my self-imposed rule. I'm not trying to set double standards but I am trying to keep my distance and that's easier when I'm not followed. Thanks to everyone and sorry it became a huge dust-up. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 04:00, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
As I understand it your IBAN would not (anbd does not) prevent you from commenting, you just cannot reply (or refer) to DS). MAybe the scope of your ban needs re-explaining.Slatersteven (talk) 10:17, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
This is now the second time you have entreated me to Step Closer to the boundaries and this is the second time I will decline. I have dealt with editors that use the reporting of others as a weapon. I will respectfully stay away from the boundaries, thank you. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 10:52, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
As I said I think that someone needs to explain to you what the boundries are.Slatersteven (talk) 11:27, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
I was blocked for a week for posting a link to my sandbox that was a pretty good explanation thank you. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 11:34, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I still feel a breath on my neck [4] C. W. Gilmore (talk) 02:41, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Still feeling that breath [5] C. W. Gilmore (talk) 15:55, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
On that one, you were both pinged into the discussion at the same time by an uninvolved party. I don't see a violation there. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:10, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks and I know, it just feels like this breath on my neck and the boundaries being pushed and pocked. Thanks again, just for listening. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 18:01, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

RfC on Reconfirmation RfAs

Hi SarekOfVulcan. Having read the feedback left by many editors whom I respect, I am considering closing the discussion on my proposal at Wikipedia talk:Administrators#Alternative proposal: requiring resignation before a new RfA as withdrawn. Since you started the original thread, I wanted to get your thoughts on whether additional discussion is necessary. Personally, I think the conclusion is forgone that neither my proposal nor yours will achieve consensus, though I fear I may be becoming more pessimistic as time goes on. Mz7 (talk) 18:22, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

@Mz7: I would personally prefer you didn't, but I understand where you're coming from. This is going to keep happening. I think it's a good thing. But if people are going to scream "it's not policy" every time it happens, then we need policy. Let's keep the discussion going on your proposal: I'll withdraw mine, because that definitely isn't going anywhere. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:26, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Sweet Caroline

Dear SarekOfVulcan,

On this issue of the release date of the Neil Diamond song, "Sweet Caroline", I am attempting to keep the correct release date of the song in the article based on the actual words of Neil Diamond himself, (based on multiple AP, Guardian and other sources). It is clear that the release date is September 16th, 1969 and not June 1969 as some of the posters allude.

Mr. Neil Diamond himself stated that and I posted multiple sources and yet the date is all of a sudden being changed by multiple people on here? I posted the links with the interview with Diamond where he verifies this fact in multiple places.

This article has been correct for years and now, it is incorrect...I know one of the users has some clout on here, ( " Binkersternet "), but that should not matter when I have presented the truth.

I have donated multiple times to Wikipedia and I feel that the article should simple reflect the actual artists' words about the song that he wrote and sung. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weintzer (talk • contribs) 17:12, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

That's why we work with secondary sources - primary quotes can be incorrect. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:14, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I understand secondary sources, and I gave several, but if Neil Diamond himself cannot be relied upon as the singer and songwriter of this song for 48+ years, then we have a problem with documentation... The song was apparently given to a few sources and it apparently took off before it's OFFICIAL release date of September 16th, 1969, (which is the key to the entire discussion...OFFICIAL release date), which is what the article has correctly stated for a decade... This article has been correct on Wikipedia for 10+ years and now one person on Wikipedia with some clout changes it, and no matter what anyone says, (even Neil Diamond himself apparently), matters? Even the Neil Diamond fan club website lists the official release date as September 16th, 1969:

[redacted]

I am a long-term user and donator to Wikipedia and I am very disappointed with Wikipedia management that this could not be resolved better than this...This is akin to the Library of Congress changing the date of Nixon's resignation and Nixon himself disagreeing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weintzer (talk • contribs) 17:42, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

As pointed out elsewhere, you didn't provide a source where Diamond stated the date, you provided sources where other people stated the date -- and where it wasn't clear that they didn't get the date from us in the first place. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:48, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
  • The Daily Mail article doesn't say Diamond himself gave that date; it is the paper that gave that date, and the Daily Mail is not accepted as a reliable source. I've removed that "feelofneil" link--it simply copied the Daily Mail article and that's a copyright violation. In addition, it's not a source--it's simply someone's blog. We are sorry if you are not donating anymore, but I hope you understand that as an encyclopedia we have to rely on reliable sources. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 17:50, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Regarding Nixon's resignation date, we rely on high quality secondary sources published then, like the New York Times and the Washington Post. In this matter, the Billboard coverage from 1969 is far more reliable than newspaper articles published decades later or the singer's recollections. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:52, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Did Nixon actually ever acknowledge that he resigned? He certainly was a solitary man... Drmies (talk) 17:53, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

3 mo.

Didn't see that part. Derp.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  06:15, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, SarekOfVulcan. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 09:42, 9 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.

Yunshui 雲水 09:42, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

2nd opinion, please

I proteted the wrong version. Please see my talk page. Thanks -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:24, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Help if possible

This is currently being discussed at ANI [8]. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 10:38, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Spelling is the first to go when I'm flustered, thanks C. W. Gilmore (talk) 16:05, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

My exile from Wikipedia

What rights, if any, do I still have in Wikipedia as my editing rights are indefinitely (=permanently) revoked?

How can I call anyone's attention to errors I find in Wiki articles, or suggestions for improvements??

//sussmanbern Sussmanbern (talk) 00:11, 10 January 2018 (UTC) sussmanbern@hotmail.com

I am gratified that I have been unblocked (have I? what restrictions are still imposed on me?), I was utterly unaware that was going on and I would appreciate knowing some details (esp the names of anyone who spoke on my behalf!).

However, considering the Very Distinct possibility that I will again rub someone the wrong way, please answer my previous question - When my "editing rights" are revoked, what rights do I still have in Wikipedia? and When my editing rights are revoked, how can I tell someone (in Wikipedia, in a position to do something about it) when I spot an error in an article or have a suggestion for an improvement? These are very significant questions to me, and you may want to clarify these matters as part of the verdict you issue in future disciplinary cases. Anyway, I don't intend to harm anyone (and, although I might be tempted, I don't know who anyone really is or where to find them, and I am too arthritic and elderly to chase anyone around), and will try to deserve this act of clemency. Sincerely, Sussmanbern (talk) 07:02, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

SarekOfVulcan can add their own interpretation, but I will offer my own observations and advice. You have been unblocked as a result of your appeal and you can edit normally. Indefinite does not equal permanent. That being said, this is a collaborative project, so I will offer some helpful advice: Never, ever, ever add unreferenced content under the claim that you will add references later. Use your sandbox space to draft and proofread fully referenced content, and only then, add that content to the encyclopedia. Never, ever tell any other editor to stay away from editing any article. Any editor in good standing (including you and me and the person who complained about your behavior) can edit any article at any time, as long as they comply with our policies and guidelines, which include Verifiability, which is fulfilled by referencing all new content. Never tell a "joke" which alludes to firearms as a solution to a Wikipedia dispute. That kind of behavior is completely unacceptable. Drop the snark. If you drop these behaviors, you can edit here. On the other hand, resuming these behaviors will certainly lead to much longer block. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:35, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Quas Primas

Hello. Please do not delete my edit to Quas Primas. It is an extremely important document. Most people might think it is a dead document with doctrine that is OBE, that is not cited any longer by the Catholic Church. Most people believe it is not in the current Catechism. By adding a very short sentence all can see this is wrong. It is not a dead document but it is very much alive and current one cited in the current Catechism and still part of today s doctrine. This will open the eyes to thousands of people. This will change the understanding of thousands of people who study catholic doctrines. Also it is a reference like edit. People looking to find Quas Primas somewhere will know where to find it in the Catechism. If they want to read the reference to the document they will know exactly where to find it in the Catechism. It is a very short but very important edit. Thanks a lot and Happy New Year!!Aroniel2 (talk) 15:17, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Your Victorian lack of amusement.

Yes, a typo, as the edit history (taking into account edit conflicts) makes pretty clear. Either way, the subject was directly raiseed on the talk page. Anmccaff (talk) 18:02, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Jefferson Davis Park

Sadly, removing one word will not end this, as they put this article up for AfD within minutes of it being accepted. It seems to be more about getting at me then anything and it's been going on for severalmonths. K.e.coffman and Nihlus tried to stop it back in November, but quiet did not last long. Thanks for everything. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 13:05, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

AN Revdel

You hid the username on the revdel you recently made to WP:AN, but your subsequent edit to the page has the username in the edit summary. You might want to take another look at that one. Cheers, Tazerdadog (talk) 02:46, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

I think Tazerdadog means this edit. Boomer VialBe ready to fight the horde! • Contribs 01:40, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
I was actually referring to this one.Tazerdadog (talk) 02:56, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, probably should have. If it had been more offensive and less WP:DENY, I would have been more thorough. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:01, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Question out of ignorance

-But should you have someone's TP on your Watchlist, if there is a two-way IBAN in place?

-Whether or not it is, who could I ask to have them stop following me on their Watchlist as I think it is the source of the WP:Hounding. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 08:59, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Or should I be taking these questions to someone else? It's just that I've brought questions about stalking to you in the past. Thanks C. W. Gilmore (talk) 09:01, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

You shouldn't have his page on your watchlist. Anyone else's watchlist is not your problem. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:32, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Nil Einne did a redirect [9] for Jefferson Davis Park, Washington. That's where the question came from, but I will drop it and say no more. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 13:03, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

This seems to be a clear case of skirting the limits of the interaction ban. Your response here isn’t quite at the same level as your response to the other party yesterday. I’ve just seen the block. Please disregard my message. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:17, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Is is even possible to tell if someone has a certain talk page on their watchlist? If not I see no real way to enforce that. Anyway, I now see that Darkness Shines has flounced off and indicated they'll sign up a new account, so it might be worth keeping an eye on Gilmore's activity and watch for suspicious, irrationally angry, new accounts pestering him about stuff. Reyk YO! 17:52, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't think it's possible. However if someone is aware what was posted by an editor they are ibanned with and on the talk page of said editor, within minutes of it being posted and there would have been no ping/notification nor did anyone tell them about it, that's a major red flag. Most likely either the person is watching the contribs of the person they are ibanned from (which is probably blockable except it's difficult to be sure it's going on). Or they are watching the talk page of the person they are ibanned from (which is definitely not a good sign regardless of whether it's blockable).

There may have been nothing wrong with adding the talk page in the first place if there was no iban and maybe the person didn't think to remove it when they were ibanned. But once they start noticing it, if they understood the purpose of the iban it should be obvious it needs to be removed. (I.E. Admitting it is a good sign but it would be much better if that also came with "I removed it once I realised I was still watching it".)

That said, SarekofVulcan is right that this is not something the party's who's talk page is being watched should concern themselves with, they equally need to keep away as much as possible. Let the community deal with any possible problems. I'd also note while there's generally nothing wrong with checking out someone else's contrib history when there's no iban, it would be best if you refrain from clicking on any contribs which obviously involve an editor you are ibanned from e.g. they are to their talk page. While the temptation may be understandable, ultimately as said, to make the iban work you need to stay away from the other editor/s as much as possible.

Anyway I think I speak for many when I say I would really like it if I never hear of this iban ever again, and it's not because anyone is blocked. (Well this applies to most things, it's just that this one has been cropping up a lot recently.)

Nil Einne (talk) 15:49, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Belated reply to ping

You pinged me at C.W. Gilmore's page, but I think it's resolved now? I'm happy to look at something if you still want feedback, but if it's no longer needed, I have other things I should be doing. I looked at it for 3 minutes and can't even figure out what's going on, so it might take me a while. Plus, I might be about to get blocked for a few days because I'm not 100% sure I'm going to be able to resist calling racists "racists" on-wiki. So probably ought to sign off for a bit.... --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:11, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Cyber reviewed and unblocked, so I think we're good for now. Thanks for checking in. :) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:45, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

AN/I

Sarek, I don't disagree with you reverting my close, but I am hoping that you will provide a rationale. The report was about the editing behavior of one editor, but there wasn't any extensive discussion before the comment-removing incident was escalated to AN/I. Cheers, Alex Shih (talk) 20:08, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Looks like we posted to each other's talk page at the same time (20:08 UTC). On the same page we are :-) Alex Shih (talk) 20:09, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
For the sake of centralized discussion however, do you think another venue at AN/I is necessary? I would think one of us can issue a warning at Cassianto's talk page (even though it probably won't be well-received), and that would be sufficient in my opinion. The removal of comment was entirely inappropriate, but now that I have closed the RfC, the point should become moot. Alex Shih (talk) 20:14, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
I don't know if anything more needs to be done - GRuban's voice was heard, and the discussion is formally over. I already mentioned on ANI that Cassianto shouldn't have done it, so it would probably be redundant to go to his talk. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:18, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) I haven't been mentioned, and I'm grateful- just wanted SarekoV to know I didn't deliberately close the thread on top of his re-opening deliberately- I didn't check the page history and somewhat naively assumed I was the first to consider closing it  :) but, by then the RfC was over, so I assumed I was. sorry about that. >SerialNumber54129...speculates 20:45, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Not a problem. The situation had changed since I reopened, so... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:46, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

KofC

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Arbitration motion regarding Doncram

The following is cross-posted from the Arbitration Committee noticeboard.

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

Remedy 5 (SarekOfVulcan–Doncram interaction ban) of the Doncram arbitration case is suspended for a period of six months. During the period of suspension, this restriction may be reinstated by any uninvolved administrator as an arbitration enforcement action should either SarekOfVulcan or Doncram fail to adhere to Wikipedia editing standards in their interactions with each other. Appeal of such a reinstatement would follow the normal arbitration enforcement appeals process. After six months from the date this motion is enacted, if the restriction has not been reinstated or any reinstatements have been successfully appealed, the restriction will automatically lapse.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 23:14, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration motion regarding Doncram

Why?

Trump–Russia_dossier_allegations was clearly a speedy as an attack page considering the existance of Trump-Russia dossier, so please explain your decision so I'll have a better understanding of where it needs to go...thanks in advance. Atsme📞📧 21:38, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

An attack page is a page, in any namespace, that exists primarily to disparage or threaten its subject; or biographical material that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced or poorly sourced. It definitely didn't threaten, and it was neither unsourced nor poorly sourced. "Disparge" is a harder call, but since it appeared to me to be a WP:SPINOFF from an article that survived a recent AfD, I was pretty sure it wasn't speedy-worthy. Take it to AfD and see what happens, you might be able to get a quick SNOW close if I'm wrong. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:44, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

User:C. W. Gilmore

Hi SarekOfVulcan. Please can you explain what your rationale was for revoking this user's talk page access? What disruption was being caused? Thanks, fish&karate 11:07, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

He was under an IBAN that said "don't talk about each other". He was blocked by Floq for claiming he was being stalked. He claimed stalking again. He was warned by Bugs not to even talk about DS on his talk page. He promptly repeated the claim. That was the disruption that led me to remove talk page access. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 11:21, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
I feel that removing the talk page access without warning was unnecessary, as no disruption was being caused. To leap straight to revoking access without a prior warning revocation was being considered, so soon after an editing block was (correctly) imposed, seems like kicking the user while down. But thank you for your explanation. fish&karate 11:53, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
If you're blocked for disruptive editing, venting on talk is not part of the disruption. If you're blocked for violating an IBAN, doubling down on the claim that you were blocked for making is part of the disruption, and if you do it again after being warned to stop, I'm not sure what else you should expect. After all, lengthening the block wouldn't affect your ability to continue the disruption. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:04, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
  • FWIW, as the blocking admin, I'm OK with removal of talk page access. CWG made it pretty clear at the time that they did not plan to stop talking about DS on their talk page. If they change their mind, they can email me, Sarek, any other admin, or UTRS. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:14, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Good Humor
For this reminder that I have to be truly old to be able to understand this joke without having to look it up. Regards SoWhy 10:39, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Mississippi Flagships

The state of Mississippi does not recognize a particular flagship university. See the page here: http://www.mississippi.edu/universities/ where it describes each university but does not designate a flagship. The term "flagship" is a marketing approach by Ole Miss, but it is not substantiated.

The College Board calls it a flagship institution. Mississippi doesn't say it's not a flagship, it just doesn't designate one. Now, if you have a ref from mississippi.edu stating that there is no flagship in the state, that would be persuasive. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:00, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Robert C. Seacord for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Robert C. Seacord is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert_C._Seacord until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Rogerthat94 (talk) 23:27, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Ok, I'll bite, what's my association with this article? I don't see that I've ever edited it. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:30, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
I saw that you had voted to delete the article on Ekkehard Hübschmann. This AfD was relisted due to a lack of votes. I therefore notified editors who had voted in favor of deleting and keeping articles on academics per Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate_notification. --Rogerthat94 (talk) 23:47, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Ah, I see. Thanks for clearing that up. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:48, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Abortion - thanks for the warning :)

Hi. Appreciate the warning. I came across the article and could immediately see the bias in deliberately posing the issue as 'pro-choice' v 'anti-abortion' rather than 'pro-choice v pro-life' or even as 'pro-abortion rights v anti-abortion rights'. My one attempt to make the article more neutral was immediately reverted so I take the hint - avoid this article as it is controlled by one side of the argument! I will edit elsewhere :) regards Lin4671again (talk) 15:28, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

The hint was merely not to get blocked through lack of awareness. You're welcome to edit there. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:31, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 26

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 26, December – January 2018

  • #1Lib1Ref
  • User Group update
  • Global branches update
  • Spotlight: What can we glean from OCLC’s experience with library staff learning Wikipedia?
  • Bytes in brief

Arabic and French versions of Books & Bytes are now available in meta!
Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:36, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

President of Kenya

Hi. I see you protected the Uhuru Kenyatta page. Could you do the same for the President of Kenya? There's been some vandalism in the last 2 days thanks to political events in Kenya. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Masgwembe (talk • contribs) 17:39, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

O Canada

Please correct the error in O Canada. The new version is not the national anthem until the Governor General signs it and that has not been done. I can find NO sources, much less reliable sources that supports the current Wikipedia version. There is consensus for what I am saying in the talk page.

I know there is a Wikipedia joke that the protected version is the wrong version but, in this case, it is clearly an ERROR. So either unprotect it or change the lyrics to the old version, which is still the official version. Thank you. Vanguard10 (talk) 05:51, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2018).

Administrator changes

added None
removed Blurpeace • Dana boomer • Deltabeignet • Denelson83 • Grandiose • Salvidrim! • Ymblanter

Guideline and policy news

  • An RfC has closed with a consensus that candidates at WP:RFA must disclose whether they have ever edited for pay and that administrators may never use administrative tools as part of any paid editing activity, except when they are acting as a Wikipedian-in-Residence or when the payment is made by the Wikimedia Foundation or an affiliate of the WMF.
  • Editors responding to threats of harm can now contact the Wikimedia Foundation's emergency address by using Special:EmailUser/Emergency. If you don't have email enabled on Wikipedia, directly contacting the emergency address using your own email client remains an option.

Technical news

  • A tag will now be automatically applied to edits that blank a page, turn a page into a redirect, remove/replace almost all content in a page, undo an edit, or rollback an edit. These edits were previously denoted solely by automatic edit summaries.

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:51, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

212.186.7.98

Hi SarekOfVulcan. I just wanted to let you know that as soon as your block expired, this IP has continued the same disruptive behavior which led to the original block. Mz7 (talk) 19:07, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

You blocked me!

You blocked me for no reason at all! With zero warnings! If you do not give a warning then that means that you are abusing your power. You have no right to be an admin! I am reporting you! PaulG524 (talk) 16:59, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

You might want to look into the concept of WP:BOOMERANGs before you do that. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:01, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
@PaulG524: You realize we can see the history of your talk page, right? --NeilN talk to me 17:03, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

-That's irrelevent. Admins are required to give a warning. You on the otherhand did NOT give any warnings. That is a violation of adminship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PaulG524 (talk • contribs) 17:20, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

WP:BEFOREBLOCK -- administrators should ensure that users who are acting in good faith are aware of policies and are given reasonable opportunity to adjust their behavior before blocking. That's what these were.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:24, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
@PaulG524: No policy states the blocking admin is required to warn before blocking. I strongly suggest you get back to editing (keeping all the warnings you've gotten in mind) before someone decides your disruption is outweighing your contributions. --NeilN talk to me 17:26, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

-Yes there is. There are a total of 4 warnings. You claim to know so much about wikipedia's policies. But you are the same guy who was accused of being a racist. You are not a good admin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PaulG524 (talk • contribs) 17:34, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Never said I was one. :-) Are you going to report me, or just keep on with the personal attacks here? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:36, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

February 2018

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on L.L. Bean. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. ContentEditman (talk) 22:28, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

I really should have put money down on how quickly you were going to post this here, but I don't think anyone would have bet against me. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:29, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Changes on DeMolay international Article

Hi @SarekOfVulcan, I would like to understand why you reverted my changes on page DeMolay International. I understand that English is my second language, but the text was not so bad or worse than it’s right now (with a main text plus two sections named Overview, no Info Template on the article and the section Values being underrated). Also you can check the “Talk” part of the article and see that a lot of users asked to improve the article. Also, you said that the page problably has Copyrights problem. I can confirm you that I didn’t copy a text without referring to the author. I completed the page with informations that were on the Wiki in Portuguese, the book Hi Dad!, my experience as a member for 5 years as an active member and 2 years as senior DeMolay and member of a Advisory Council. I visit recently DeMoly in Germany, and I could see that not only possible candidates but also Masonic Lodges don’t have a good place to search for information about DeMolay, which doesn’t helps DeMolay to grow here. With this situation in mind, I would like to understand why the changes I made were reverted, and if it is the case, discuss possibilities to solve problems on my changes.

Arthurhosang (talk) 22:03, 20 February 2018 (C)

I'm not ignoring you, I just don't have the time to properly answer you. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:09, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Post deletion

If someone adds a comment after a closed AfD and you don't think it's appropriate, you should move it to the AfD's talk page (every AfD has one), not just delete it. It's less likely to be noticed there than where it was placed, of course, but there's no call to expunge it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:17, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

RfC on inclusion of Matt Lauer content

Hi,

You previously participated in the inclusion of Matt Lauer content in the Noah Oppenheim article. There is an RfC on the matter, with a vote, and I am notifying everyone involved.

Talk:Noah_Oppenheim#RfC_on_inclusion_of_Matt_Lauer_content

As I have disclosed before, I am a paid consultant to NBC News so am not voting on the matter.

Thanks,

EdBC1278 (talk) 18:49, 22 February 2018 (UTC)BC1278

Help with TBAN

Please remove the external link for article Joey Gibson (political activist). It's too close to my TBAN for me to do it. Thanks and if you open the link, you will see why. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 15:25, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Um, yeah. Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:35, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
I think this is the correct link [10] -C. W. Gilmore (talk) 15:40, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
I'm not going to add that one - I see no need to help provide free advertising. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:41, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

requesting advise on block

Dear SarekOfVulcan (nice name!),

I have tried adding text to an article about a very interesting topic in physics (I'm a university physics professor). There were recently two papers published in a very reputable physics journal (Physics Review) on the subject and I thought it worth updating the Wikipedia article on that subject. When I made the edit, another editor nearly immediately jumped in a deleted my edit, saying that "Original research is not appropriate for inclusion in either article space or talk space" By looking for the term "original research" on Wikipedia I came to understand this to mean unpublished work. Of course, this was not unpublished. When I tried using the talk page of the article to help the other editor understand the error, I received no response for a couple of days. So I rewrote my edit, emphasizing that I was reporting on two articles recently published in Phys Rev. Again the editor deleted my edit but did not justify the action, rather chided me for reposting. My attempt to engage on the article's talk page went unanswered again, so I tried the other editor's talk page, but received a rebuke there as well.

[I ask Jobberone to help and he did briefly but has noted on his talk page that he is ill and will be inactive for some time now. I also noted that you made a comment after Jobberone did. So I am hoping because of your comment you are available to advise me on this.]

Here is the article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aharonov–Bohm_effect

You can see some of what happened on the last section of the talk page ("Latest information on the A-B effect").

You can see a second editor added a brief note affirming the same (incorrect) assertion about "original research". This second editor has also not responded to my attempts to engage.

Finally there is a note from the first editor that "practice is" not to discuss recently published papers. Obviously, this is not a substantive response to my post. And it would surprise me that this is really "practice", because it would consign Wikipedia to old topics.

So I am left befuddled. I believe that my attempted edit is entirely proper and unobjectionable, but my attempt to help the other editor see this has not met with any sort of substantive conversation.

I'm new to Wikipedia and have not figured out how to resolve this. I am certain that anyone who reads that article would want to know about the two new papers directly related to the subject. I would be happy to learn how to proceed.

Best regards, Murraydaw (talk) 14:41, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Just pinging you again on Feb 21, hoping that this will make it to your email, and that you'll be able to take time to help out. Murraydaw (talk) 22:21, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't think I'll be able to help you with this. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:46, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you anyway. Who would you suggest that I go to for help? Murraydaw (talk) 22:03, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:10, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. Can you give me a personal recommendation of someone you know who is reasonable?Murraydaw (talk) 22:21, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

If we were reasonable, we wouldn't be editing here. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:35, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
I've had this page on my watchlist for a bit (I don't remember why offhand) and I happened to notice this and take a look at it. Murray is completely right, here. The other two users are accusing them without cause of having a COI with the material, and claiming the material is unpublished, or is merely to be published in the future. It took me ten seconds of googling to find this, and the entire source is available here. It looks to me like the other two read the text added (which is not quite up to our usual standards in physics topics) and just assumed this was some crank pushing a pet theory. I'm posting on the talk page and restoring the reverted material. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:38, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, MPants. I didn't like what I was seeing, but didn't feel comfortable getting involved there. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:45, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
I have never before heard of nor encountered this "100 cites" practice. I understand that it's normal not to put cutting-edge research in our articles, but that's more a matter of wikivoice vs source voice. A paper that makes it through peer-review can certainly be cited for its own claims. I reworded the addition to provide attribution and commented at talk, though the issue of whether mention of this is WP:DUE is an open one. We'll see how it goes. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:08, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Ouch! You've used a template to send a message to an experienced editor. Please review the essay Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars. Doesn't this feel cold, impersonal, and canned? It's meant in good humour. Best wishes. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:09, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2018).

Administrator changes

added Lourdes†
removed AngelOfSadness • Bhadani • Chris 73 • Coren • Friday • Midom • Mike V
† Lourdes has requested that her admin rights be temporarily removed, pending her return from travel.

Guideline and policy news

  • The autoconfirmed article creation trial (ACTRIAL) is scheduled to end on 14 March 2018. The results of the research collected can be read on Meta Wiki.
  • Community ban discussions must now stay open for at least 24 hours prior to being closed.
  • A change to the administrator inactivity policy has been proposed. Under the proposal, if an administrator has not used their admin tools for a period of five years and is subsequently desysopped for inactivity, the administrator would have to file a new RfA in order to regain the tools.
  • A change to the banning policy has been proposed which would specify conditions under which a repeat sockmaster may be considered de facto banned, reducing the need to start a community ban discussion for these users.

Technical news

  • CheckUsers are now able to view private data such as IP addresses from the edit filter log, e.g. when the filter prevents a user from creating an account. Previously, this information was unavailable to CheckUsers because access to it could not be logged.
  • The edit filter has a new feature contains_all that edit filter managers may use to check if one or more strings are all contained in another given string.

Miscellaneous

Obituaries

  • Bhadani (Gangadhar Bhadani) passed away on 8 February 2018. Bhadani joined Wikipedia in March 2005 and became an administrator in September 2005. While he was active, Bhadani was regarded as one of the most prolific Wikipedians from India.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:00, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Revdel??

Really? I have doubts over your capabilities, but this really tops it. The actual point was to show people what disruptive edit summaries look like in quick succession. Unbelievable. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:25, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

In other words, "Hey, I'm making these disruptive edits that will mess with everyone, but that's ok, because there's a really good reason!" It's not like we didn't already know what it looked like, considering your first time was the second time it had been pasted into the thread... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:28, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
No, in other words "hey, I'm making these edits to demonstrate what a complete fuck up this decision is". You messed up yet again, the point was to show what disruptive editors (you might know them as "vandals") could do to watchlists etc. People are completely unaware of this change (me included) so it needs demonstration. But you messed up and rev-del'd it (which was an abuse of your position given you knew what was trying to be achieved). Oh well, the clock's ticking for you now. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:32, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
I think you'd better stop now, you're in danger of having a whole bunch of people looking to see you removed from your position. Deliberately obfuscating a clear problem that needs open discussion is disruptive and you should stop with immediate effect. You are abusing your position and abusing the tools you have to hide a serious issue that needs resolution immediately, not sweeping under the carpet. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:39, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict)You'll notice I didn't revdel Davey or Iridescent. They did it once and stopped. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:41, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, SarekOfVulcan. --Deskana (talk) 20:40, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, thank you SarekOfVulcan for clearly obfuscating a problem that clearly has been introduced without correct disclosure. Thanks again. Just what we expected. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:44, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

David Ogden Stiers

Has an editwarrior promoting "gossip-boy" as a source, and possibly using IP edits as well to re-add material which has been discussed a few times now. You might wish to take a look. Collect (talk) 21:15, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

newbie question

Assuming D4 does clarify the question you commented on in special:diff/829122043 do you know where I should be replying to questions like this? The section is "discussion among uninvolved editors" so that doesn't seem right. Should I create a section below it called "replies to uninvolved editors" to answer? ScratchMarshall (talk) 20:04, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Reply at the bottom of your own section. We'll figure it out. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:13, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) Yes, using
; Response to statement by User:Example : {your comment} ~~~~
is advised. (Confession: as I only found out myself half an hour ago!). ...SerialNumber54129...speculates 20:21, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Faraci

Hi. I notice you are relatively active in closing deletion requests. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Faraci has been live for the appropriate 7 days now, and is overwhelmingly in the direction of a merge. If you feel it is also time to close this, please act. Thank you. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 00:59, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

i comment about a wrinkle in time.

i notice you undo 198.40.29.8 on lead section in article. he insist on putting edit back. what you recommend? IUpdateRottenTomatoes (talk) 21:42, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm not going to edit war about that. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:01, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Email in Wikipedia

Can you tell me what is to prevent people from canvassing through email addresses given in Wikipedia, or where I might get this question answered? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jzsj (talk • contribs) 14:37, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

WP:CANVASS. See also WP:ASPERSIONS. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:41, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

WP:POLEMIC

Material that can be viewed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws. The compilation of factual evidence (diffs) in user subpages, for purposes such as preparing for a dispute resolution process, is permitted provided it will be used in a timely manner.
Users should generally not maintain in public view negative information related to others without very good reason. Negative evidence, laundry lists of wrongs, collations of diffs and criticisms related to problems, etc., should be removed, blanked, or kept privately (i.e., not on the wiki) if they will not be imminently used, and the same once no longer needed. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:16, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Revert of Changes on DeMolay International Article

Hi @SarekOfVulcan, I would like to understand why you reverted my changes on page DeMolay International. I understand that English is my second language, but the text was not so bad or worse than it’s right now (with a main text plus two sections named Overview, no Info Template on the article and the section Values being underrated). Also you can check the “Talk” part of the article and see that a lot of users asked to improve the article. Also, you said that the page probably has Copyrights problem. I can confirm you that I didn’t copy a text without referring to the author. I completed the page with informations that were on the Wikipedia in Portuguese, the book Hi Dad!, my experience as a member for 5 years as an active member and 2 years as Senior DeMolay and member of a Advisory Council. I visit recently DeMoly in Germany, and I could see, that not only possible candidates, but also Masonic Lodges don’t have a proper website to search about DeMolay. And that doesn’t help DeMolay to grow here. With this situation in mind, I would like to understand why the changes I made were reverted, and if it is the case, discuss possibilities to solve problems on my changes. Thank you Very much, Arthurhosang (talk) 21:42, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

@Arthurhosang: We do not use editor experience (see WP:No original research). Also, we do not copy material from other sources, even with attribution.
We only summarize and paraphrase other sources, and we provide citations to those sources. Your edits did not properly cite the sources you got information from.
Also, Wikipedia does not cite Wikipedia, because that leads to circular sourcing. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:49, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Thank you very much Ian Thomson for you time and patience, I'll read those articles carefully and change my contribution to fit on in. Arthurhosang (talk) 22:01, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reverting! - I undid their revision when I edit conflicted with you, Anyway thanks for spotting and reverting much appreciated :), –Davey2010Talk 20:21, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

@Davey2010: Can you give me a hint on the reason why two of my posts were simply deleted? --Mathmensch (talk) 20:23, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Revert

Can you explain this revert to me? Dif-tur heh smusma! --Mathmensch (talk) 20:20, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

You changed the target of Davey's link. The other two edits shouldn't have been removed, and I've restored them. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:23, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Obviously, the page is still the same, with the exception that the new one shows des certaines langues qui j'ai apprises and a wikibook that I've written (nothing one could concievably want to hide). --Mathmensch (talk) 20:27, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
I took out the time to find the guideline where it is said that correcting links is acceptable: Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Editing_others'_comments --Mathmensch (talk) 13:30, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
"Correcting" links is fine - I did it myself yesterday. Removing a specific version from a link that's talking about the contents of that version, not so much. See also WP:Competence is required. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:02, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Tony

That's what I wanted to know. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:40, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Motion: Discretionary sanctions appeals update

Um, the voting sections are for us, do you want to move your comment to the "Community comments" section? Doug Weller talk 18:26, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Actually, I already moved it for you before I saw this. Thanks for the input, and see my comments there. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:30, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
    • *headdesk* Like I didn't already know this? Thanks for cleaning up my mess. :-( --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:53, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Regarding Arabic numerals

It is 4 experienced editors against one who is now blocked for edit warring, but I wanted confirmation from an administrator (you) that it is okay to revert Lptx's edit on Arabic Numerals. Thanks, Vermont | reply here 01:09, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Just as well to wait for someone else to stroll around. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:11, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
Which someone did. Thank's for your help in blocking and such. Happy editing :-) Vermont | reply here 01:15, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

14 years of editing, today

Hey, SarekOfVulcan. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee!
Have a great day! Chris Troutman (talk) 23:27, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2018).

Administrator changes

added 331dot • Cordless Larry • ClueBot NG
removed Gogo Dodo • Pb30 • Sebastiankessel • Seicer • SoLando

Guideline and policy news

  • Administrators who have been desysopped due to inactivity are now required to have performed at least one (logged) administrative action in the past 5 years in order to qualify for a resysop without going through a new RfA.
  • Editors who have been found to have engaged in sockpuppetry on at least two occasions after an initial indefinite block, for whatever reason, are now automatically considered banned by the community without the need to start a ban discussion.
  • The notability guideline for organizations and companies has been substantially rewritten following the closure of this request for comment. Among the changes, the guideline more clearly defines the sourcing requirements needed for organizations and companies to be considered notable.
  • The six-month autoconfirmed article creation trial (ACTRIAL) ended on 14 March 2018. The post-trial research report has been published. A request for comment is now underway to determine whether the restrictions from ACTRIAL should be implemented permanently.

Technical news

Arbitration

  • The Arbitration Committee is considering a change to the discretionary sanctions procedures which would require an editor to appeal a sanction to the community at WP:AE or WP:AN prior to appealing directly to the Arbitration Committee at WP:ARCA.

Miscellaneous

  • A discussion has closed which concluded that administrators are not required to enable email, though many editors suggested doing so as a matter of best practice.
  • The Foundations' Anti-Harassment Tools team has released the Interaction Timeline. This shows a chronologic history for two users on pages where they have both made edits, which may be helpful in identifying sockpuppetry and investigating editing disputes.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:23, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Beat me

Wow. You beat me on the second with this. I was doing the same with edit summary "Schoolbook example of a disruptive wp:POINTy edit.". . - DVdm (talk) 22:42, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Great minds... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:44, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Um

Declined G7? Why on earth are you declining a G7 that is fully valid? — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 16:00, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion is intended to reduce the time spent on deletion discussions for pages or media with no practical chance of surviving discussion. As it's not clear that this page wouldn't survive an MfD, it shouldn't be speedied. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:02, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
That is a complete misreading of our speedy deletion policy, and that seems like you have a crystalball or perhaps are saying you in fact would like them kept, either of which is an unacceptable reason for any admin to take an action in a case. Granted you and I have not been on good terms for quite some time, so I find it surprising you found it necessary to get involved here when there are a few hundred other admins that patrol CSD. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 16:05, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
You know damn well you shouldn't be doing what you're doing. I'm gone. Although it's clear you never wanted me around this site in the first place. Enjoy your comfortable life making other's miserable. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 16:13, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Please help

Hello,

My name is Amber, and I am the editor for Quest Software Wikipedia page. I saw that there is a message template at the top of the Quest Software page that says "This article contains content that is written like an advertisement." I reviewed the entire page with my colleague, and we are not sure which part of the article is written like an advertisement. Would you mind taking a look at the page and advise on how I can edit the page so that it won't look like an advertisement?

Atadokoro (talk) 21:55, 6 April 2018 (UTC)atadokoro

(talk page watcher) Hi Atadokoro! There are a combination of things that, put together, will create concerns that much of the article is written like an advertisement. For example, the lead sentence in the article summary paragraph (the one at the very top) says, "with more than 50 offices in 24 countries" - which can be seen as one trying to speak positively about the size of the company (especially when put in the lead sentence like that). The Solutions and services section of the article also talks about the company's services and uses wording that reflect that it's written as such, since it contains phrases like "a fully integrated service desk" and "allows users to streamline the process" - both seem worded as if it's speaking positively about the company's services instead of being straight to the point. The History section also lists unnecessary things like each an every time the company has won some award, or "expanded into this market or that market" - which also add to the overall concerns expressed in the template added to the top. I recommend that you read Wikpedia's guideline pages on reflecting a neutral point of view in content, what words you should watch out for and avoid if possible, how we define 'advertising', and you should read the Wikipedia essay that I wrote, called "Identifying blatant advertising" - which will give you a good start and a good idea of what things we look out for in extreme cases. Please let myself or SarekOfVulcan know if you have any questions about the pages I linked you to here, and we'll be happy to help you further. Thanks again for the message and I wish you happy editing :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 22:27, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your help! Atadokoro (talk) 22:40, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

1990'sguy at Ark Encounter

By my calculation user:1990'sguy seems to be ~6RR in the last 24 hours alone (he's done something like six individual revert/undo edits since 3am), although it takes two to tango, a lot of the stuff at Ark Encounter is arguably down to him. I didn't dig that far, but I noticed he's been reported at 4RR to WP:ANI before, but they let him off when he self reverted. As the admin on this do you want me to work up a 3RR report, or just ignore it and trust that your lock will sort it out? He seems a bit excessively revert happy.GliderMaven (talk) 22:30, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

The block is sufficient for now. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:48, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
Well, the block came to an end, and while it takes two to tango, he's still revert warring.GliderMaven (talk) 01:45, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

WP:POINT

It would appear that EW, racist innuendos and disregarding policies on WP:RS, WP:CIV and WP:POINT leads to impunity and nobody caring, after all. Shameful, but predictable.

Cheers! Coltsfan (talk) 17:53, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

They've edited 4 times since they were given the warning, and none of the edits were obviously problematic. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:59, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, i guess making insinuations about people's ethnic background and how that, somehow, affects who they are as editors is "not problematic". Bye. Coltsfan (talk) 18:09, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
They were warned, they stopped the behavior. Blocking is preventative, not punitive. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:11, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Inappropriate block, should be lifted ASAP

Your recent block of User:BigDwiki was not appropriate. BigDwiki had not edited the article for roughly two weeks, made only a single edit incorporating a previously unseen, unquestionably reliable source, and at least attempted to address prior objections to the statement at issue. This is standard, WP:BOLD, editing. If BigDwiki had added the statement back after objection, that might have warranted an edit warring sanction -- but their actual content did not. In contrast, User:EvergreenFir summarily removed the content without any pretense of addressing the new and reliable source -- even though the reliability of sourcing has been a central element of the disputes over use of the subject's birthname. Your failure to apply a parallel sanction to EvergreenFir betrays a lack of evenhandedness. Frankly, as I commented at ANI, the discussion of this matter has been a gigantic clusterfuck, with several editors insisting on applying their own preconceptions to a situation where the article subject's own actions and statements demonstrate that those notions do not apply. Your precipitate, non-evenhanded action has only made a bad situation worse. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 18:05, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

@Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: There was absolutely no consensus on the talk page, despite BigDWiki's assertion. Further, it's a clear violation of MOS:BIRTHNAME. The discussion about the inclusion of the name elsewhere in the article is a different topic and being discussed on the talk page. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:46, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
The block you wanted lifted ASAP expired before you even posted this. I don't see how this could possibly be a BLP violation, but that's neither here nor there. Natureium (talk) 19:56, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Note to self

Check Cast recording redirects for CastAlbum.org info. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:00, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Books & Bytes - Issue 27

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 27, February – March 2018

  • #1Lib1Ref
  • New collections
    • Alexander Street (expansion)
    • Cambridge University Press (expansion)
  • User Group
  • Global branches update
    • Wiki Indaba Wikipedia + Library Discussions
  • Spotlight: Using librarianship to create a more equitable internet: LGBTQ+ advocacy as a wiki-librarian
  • Bytes in brief

Arabic, Chinese and French versions of Books & Bytes are now available in meta!
Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:49, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Invitation to WikiProject Portals

The Portals WikiProject has been rebooted.

You are invited to join, and participate in the effort to revitalize and improve the Portal system and all the portals in it.

There are sections on the WikiProject page dedicated to tasks (including WikiGnome tasks too), and areas on the talk page for discussing the improvement and automation of the various features of portals.

Many complaints have been lodged in the RfC to delete all portals, pointing out their various problems. They say that many portals are not maintained, or have fallen out of date, are useless, etc. Many of the !votes indicate that the editors who posted them simply don't believe in the potential of portals anymore.

It's time to change all that. Let's give them reasons to believe in portals, by revitalizing them.

The best response to a deletion nomination is to fix the page that was nominated. The further underway the effort is to improve portals by the time the RfC has run its course, the more of the reasons against portals will no longer apply. RfCs typically run 30 days. There are 19 days left in this one. Let's see how many portals we can update and improve before the RfC is closed, and beyond.

A healthy WikiProject dedicated to supporting and maintaining portals may be the strongest argument of all not to delete.

We may even surprise ourselves and exceed all expectations. Who knows what we will be able to accomplish in what may become the biggest Wikicollaboration in years.

Let's do this.

See ya at the WikiProject!

Sincerely,    — The Transhumanist   10:24, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Toronto van attack protection

Hello, my friend. I'm just wondering why the protection?

Convenience link: History.

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:02, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

There was a request on RFPP, and an IP at 6RR+. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:08, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
Okay, but it was a single IP (school IP I think) and it was blocked before the protect. Do you think it would be okay to unprotect now? It's pretty heavily edited and there have been good IP edits. Best wishes and great respect, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:08, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Agree with above. The request at RFPP was misguided. At best it was a minor content dispute. Had this dispute been with an anonymous logged-in user the article would not have been protected and no action would have been taken. As Anna points out, and in common with nearly all other articles of this type, IPs make good edits but are invariably blocked by SP at some point down the line - for no good reason. 31.52.162.8 (talk) 10:55, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Unprotected. Let's see how it goes. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:43, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

208.123.149.179

I noticed that you block the 208.123.149.179 IP for being a vandal-only account, but IP adresses cannot be considered vandal-only accounts per this Wikiğpedia page.. --24.180.251.38 (talk) 17:52, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

I meant to just mark it as Vandalism, not Vandal-only. It's only a 3-hour block, so it should be clear what I actually meant. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:37, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2018).

Administrator changes

added None
removed Chochopk • Coffee • Gryffindor • Jimp • Knowledge Seeker • Lankiveil • Peridon • Rjd0060

Guideline and policy news

  • The ability to create articles directly in mainspace is now indefinitely restricted to autoconfirmed users.
  • A proposal is being discussed which would create a new "event coordinator" right that would allow users to temporarily add the "confirmed" flag to new user accounts and to create many new user accounts without being hindered by a rate limit.

Technical news

  • AbuseFilter has received numerous improvements, including an OOUI overhaul, syntax highlighting, ability to search existing filters, and a few new functions. In particular, the search feature can be used to ensure there aren't existing filters for what you need, and the new equals_to_any function can be used when checking multiple namespaces. One major upcoming change is the ability to see which filters are the slowest. This information is currently only available to those with access to Logstash.
  • When blocking anonymous users, a cookie will be applied that reloads the block if the user changes their IP. This means in most cases, you may no longer need to do /64 range blocks on residential IPv6 addresses in order to effectively block the end user. It will also help combat abuse from IP hoppers in general. This currently only occurs when hard-blocking accounts.
  • The block notice shown on mobile will soon be more informative and point users to a help page on how to request an unblock, just as it currently does on desktop.
  • There will soon be a calendar widget at Special:Block, making it easier to set expiries for a specific date and time.

Arbitration

Obituaries

  • Lankiveil (Craig Franklin) passed away in mid-April. Lankiveil joined Wikipedia on 12 August 2004 and became an administrator on 31 August 2008. During his time with the Wikimedia community, Lankiveil served as an oversighter for the English Wikipedia and as president of Wikimedia Australia.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:05, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Just wanted to say:

You were very tough on me, but you were never unjust. I wanted to thank you for not merely putting up with me, but helping me on wiki and keeping an eye out for me, including my blunders. Thanks C. W. Gilmore (talk) 15:52, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

DePiep

I’m starting to think we've been had. It doesn’t take two days to work up a reply to an ANI thread. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:28, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Eh. I'm not going to make assumptions about what other people are up to in their lives. If they're not editing at all (short of those two brief comments yesterday), there could be all sorts of reasons. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:47, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I deleted the website as reference to the recent edits I made for Medical Transcription if it looks "promotional" to you. Thanks! ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by SuperAnomalous (talk • contribs) 05:30, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Canned comment on my Talk Page

Sorry, but I don't appreciate your placing a canned comment on my Talk Page. The OP was deleting material without sourcing it. I would reference it, but I'm relatively new and don't know how. In any case, the person involved is dead. I don't see how WP:BLP applies. (LIVING persons, right?) 2601:1C2:4E02:3020:4146:2231:C4F1:8E76 (talk) 17:05, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

If you had read the "canned comment", you would have seen that the policy includes "recently deceased" people. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:07, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
If you had read the WP:BLP statement, you would have seen that the policy DOESN'T apply to ALL "recently deceased" people. Here is a relevant segment: "Applicability to deceased persons, corporations, or groups of persons Recently dead or probably dead Policy shortcut WP:BDP Anyone born within the past 115 years is covered by this policy unless a reliable source has confirmed their death. Generally, this policy does not apply to material concerning people who are confirmed dead by reliable sources. The only exception would be for people who have recently died, in which case the policy can extend for an indeterminate period beyond the date of death—six months, one year, two years at the outside. Such extensions would apply particularly TO CONTENTIOUS OR QUESTIONABLE MATERIAL about the dead that has implications for their living relatives and friends, such as in the case of a possible suicide or a particularly gruesome crime.. [end of quoted material]. The material that was being added was in no way "contentious" or "questionable". It didn't have any "implications". He was not a suicide, nor was the incident a crime caused by him. (That we know of, of course.). 2601:1C2:4E02:3020:4146:2231:C4F1:8E76 (talk) 17:14, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
No, but it's negative, it's completely irrelevant to the article, and it's not needed. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:19, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
What is "negative"? I'd say it's "neutral", from the standpoint of the article. It doesn't reflect badly on any other person involved in the rail accident. It's quite relevant, because he's one of (only three people killed in the incident. As for "not needed": Please show me how do determine whether any given fact is "needed", or not. I would say that every given fact, in any WP article, isn't really "needed": The world won't end because a given fact was omitted. But the burden isn't on one side alone. The fact I (re-) posted is relevant, and factual. Sure, it wasn't referenced. I have nothing against it being referenced, and I would do so if I could figure out how to do that. I will insert a reference, but it won't look "pretty". In any case, this issue should be discussed on the Talk page of the article, not here. 2601:1C2:4E02:3020:4146:2231:C4F1:8E76 (talk) 17:53, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:General sanctions/Catalan independence

Wikipedia:General sanctions/Catalan independence, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:General sanctions/Catalan independence and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:General sanctions/Catalan independence during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. RGloucester — ☎ 00:31, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much

The RfC discussion to eliminate portals was closed May 12, with the statement "There exists a strong consensus against deleting or even deprecating portals at this time." This was made possible because you and others came to the rescue. Thank you for speaking up.

By the way, the current issue of the Signpost features an article with interviews about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

I'd also like to let you know that the Portals WikiProject is working hard to make sure your support of portals was not in vain. Toward that end, we have been working diligently to innovate portals, while building, updating, upgrading, and maintaining them. The project has grown to 80 members so far, and has become a beehive of activity.

Our two main goals at this time are to automate portals (in terms of refreshing, rotating, and selecting content), and to develop a one-page model in order to make obsolete and eliminate most of the 150,000 subpages from the portal namespace by migrating their functions to the portal base pages, using technologies such as selective transclusion. Please feel free to join in on any of the many threads of development at the WikiProject's talk page, or just stop by to see how we are doing. If you have any questions about portals or portal development, that is the best place to ask them.

If you would like to keep abreast of developments on portals, keep in mind that the project's members receive updates on their talk pages. The updates are also posted here, for your convenience.

Again, we can't thank you enough for your support of portals, and we hope to make you proud of your decision. Sincerely,    — The Transhumanist   10:34, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

P.S.: if you reply to this message, please {{ping}} me. Thank you. -TT

Square and Compasses

If it is not a Freemasonry Square and Compasses, than what the hell is it? Save the picture and enlarge on your computer. Link: https://ibb.co/iDGx38

--Filederchest (talk) 06:35, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

No clue whatsoever. That's why we use verifiable, reliable, secondary sources instead of going "hey, that looks like..." --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:50, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2018).

Administrator changes

added None
removed Al Ameer son • AliveFreeHappy • Cenarium • Lupo • MichaelBillington

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • IP-based cookie blocks should be deployed to English Wikipedia in June. This will cause the block of a logged-out user to be reloaded if they change IPs. This means in most cases, you may no longer need to do /64 range blocks on residential IPv6 addresses in order to effectively block the end user. It will also help combat abuse from IP hoppers in general. For the time being, it only affects users of the desktop interface.
  • The Wikimedia Foundation's Anti-Harassment Tools team will build granular types of blocks in 2018 (e.g. a block from uploading or editing specific pages, categories, or namespaces, as opposed to a full-site block). Feedback on the concept may be left at the talk page.
  • There is now a checkbox on Special:ListUsers to let you see only users in temporary user groups.
  • It is now easier for blocked mobile users to see why they were blocked.

Arbitration

  • A recent technical issue with the Arbitration Committee's spam filter inadvertently caused all messages sent to the committee through Wikipedia (i.e. Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee) to be discarded. If you attempted to send an email to the Arbitration Committee via Wikipedia between May 16 and May 31, your message was not received and you are encouraged to resend it. Messages sent outside of these dates or directly to the Arbitration Committee email address were not affected by this issue.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:00, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Vandalism on Halle Barry and other articles

You've dealt with this cat before. Drmies (talk) 17:25, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 28

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 28, April – May 2018

  • #1Bib1Ref
  • New partners
  • User Group update
  • Global branches update
    • Wikipedia Library global coordinators' meeting
  • Spotlight: What are the ten most cited sources on Wikipedia? Let's ask the data
  • Bytes in brief

Arabic, Chinese, Hindi, Italian and French versions of Books & Bytes are now available in meta!
Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:33, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2018).

Administrator changes

added Pbsouthwood • TheSandDoctor
readded Gogo Dodo
removed Andrevan • Doug • EVula • KaisaL • Tony Fox • WilyD

Bureaucrat changes

removed Andrevan • EVula

Guideline and policy news

  • An RfC about the deletion of drafts closed with a consensus to change the wording of WP:NMFD. Specifically, a draft that has been repeatedly resubmitted and declined at AfC without any substantial improvement may be deleted at MfD if consensus determines that it is unlikely to ever meet the requirements for mainspace and it otherwise meets one of the reasons for deletion outlined in the deletion policy.
  • A request for comment closed with a consensus that the {{promising draft}} template cannot be used to indefinitely prevent a WP:G13 speedy deletion nomination.

Technical news

  • Starting on July 9, the WMF Security team, Trust & Safety, and the broader technical community will be seeking input on an upcoming change that will restrict editing of site-wide JavaScript and CSS to a new technical administrators user group. Bureaucrats and stewards will be able to grant this right per a community-defined process. The intention is to reduce the number of accounts who can edit frontend code to those who actually need to, which in turn lessens the risk of malicious code being added that compromises the security and privacy of everyone who accesses Wikipedia. For more information, please review the FAQ.
  • Syntax highlighting has been graduated from a Beta feature on the English Wikipedia. To enable this feature, click the highlighter icon () in your editing toolbar (or under the hamburger menu in the 2017 wikitext editor). This feature can help prevent you from making mistakes when editing complex templates.
  • IP-based cookie blocks should be deployed to English Wikipedia in July (previously scheduled for June). This will cause the block of a logged-out user to be reloaded if they change IPs. This means in most cases, you may no longer need to do /64 range blocks on residential IPv6 addresses in order to effectively block the end user. It will also help combat abuse from IP hoppers in general. For the time being, it only affects users of the desktop interface.

Miscellaneous

  • Currently around 20% of admins have enabled two-factor authentication, up from 17% a year ago. If you haven't already enabled it, please consider doing so. Regardless if you use 2FA, please practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:22, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Freemasons

Thanks for the comment at Talk:Ernest Shackleton. I didn't know that was the intended use of those cats, so I left it in when first added. Special:Contributions/Daniel.villar7 added it; and if you're feeling keen, there's a rich vein of additions to Foo Freemasons categories there. Pinkbeast (talk) 23:46, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Keurig Dr Pepper

Please remove the edit war post as I have stopped. SportsFan007 (talk) 21:03, 18 July 2018 (UTC)SportsFan007

I'm leaving it for now to get uninvolved eyes to determine what the status of the pages should be. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:07, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Oh ok, understood, thank you for your response. SportsFan007 (talk) 21:14, 18 July 2018 (UTC)SportsFan007

WP:OWB

I've never seen that essay before to my knowledge, but reading it now, almost every entry is something I've said or thought before. Good stuff. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:59, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) The entire "Zen and the art of..." section on my userpage was inspired by OWB. It's a seminal read. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:26, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
It's good stuff. Except for #11. That's not how NPOV works wrt fringe theories. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:34, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
A possibly better way of describing it is, if I've taken an album article to GA, and have adhered to NPOV exactly, you wouldn't be able to tell if I actually liked the album or not. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:54, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Oh, don't get me wrong: It's a great standard for anything non-controversial, or on which there is significant and legitimate public and professional debate (Minimum wage, anyone?). But imagine a WP article about Creationism where you couldn't tell if the authors were skeptical of it or not. Or an article on Breitbart News where you couldn't tell whether the authors thought it was a good source of journalism or not. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:00, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Mid-air collision

We admin-conflicted blocking Premicaa (talk · contribs). They were removing a DOB on an infobox that wasn't sourced directly so I needed to go and check elsewhere to see I could let them off with WP:3RRBLP or not. Since I couldn't, I decided to give them 24 hours; you went indef instead. I'm not going to argue the toss over the block, if you think indef is correct then it's perfectly within admin discretion, it just explains the somewhat odd edits I just made on WP:AN3. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:27, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Ritchie333, as I mentioned on ANEW, it was the combination of two brand new accounts jumping on to an article, edit warring to 3RR and immediately filing a report convinced me that no good was being gotten up to. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:51, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Keurig

Hi Sarek. Can you go ahead and move Keurig Green Mountain back to Keurig Dr Pepper? I've updated the lede and replaced the old logo with the new logo. All that needs to happen now is the page move, but I can't do that because of the redirect. Thanks, Softlavender (talk) 07:24, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Done. I think. :-) Everything else where it needs to be? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 09:09, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Great, thanks! I think everything else is where it needs to be, for as much as we currently know. It remains to be seen whether Dr Pepper Snapple is considered a subsidiary of Keurig Dr Pepper, or what. Even their websites are in transition. We may not know until they file their official Annual Report whether they call DPS a subsidiary, or a division, or what. But I think the articles are OK for now. Thanks again. Softlavender (talk) 09:20, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

I need another page move (unrelated to the merger, but related to Dr Pepper)

In the process of cleaning up and researching Dr Pepper Snapple Bottling Group, which I had AfDed in a fit of pique, I noticed the company changed its name to The American Bottling Company in 2008 (now noted and cited at the end of the article). So the article needs to be moved, but I can't do it myself. Can you take a look and do it? Note that apparently the "The" is part of the company name, per that SEC filing and per Bloomberg.com. Thanks, Softlavender (talk) 08:43, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for catching the duplicate diff in the 3RR report. I haven't had my caffeine yet this morning and my brain hasn't quite fully joined the land of the living. StrikerforceTalk 14:04, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

I recommend McDonald's Mocha Frappé. It's my morning caffeine of choice these days. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:08, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protection

How did you semi-protect the lithium (medication) wikipedia page because I want to do a permanent semi-protection and I have tried adding the pp-protected template on another article but the gray lock showing it's semi-protected does not appear. Do you know what the problem might be and if you do please let me know — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymous1941 (talk • contribs) 18:08, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

To place protection on a page, you need to be an administrator. The template is to show that the page has been protected, not to place the protection. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:37, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

If you are an administrator then it will give you the option of protecting the page compared to a wikipedia user that is not an admin because I thought I had the ability of permanently semi-protecting Companies Committed to Kids because there were so many unnecessary and useless edits by ip addresses and there was at least one edit where a user reverted possible vandalism from another user. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymous1941 (talk • contribs) 18:50, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Sorry about editing after discussion closure

Sorry about editing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Casual game after its closure. I started editing before the closure, got an edit conflict, & the edit conflict resolution window did not present the formatted result that I would have recognized as a closed result. I only saw the wikitext that I was trying to edit. Peaceray (talk) 19:12, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Not a problem, this happens. Often. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:13, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SarekOfVulcan/Archive_22&oldid=1141033067"