Jump to content

User talk:NeilN/Archive 35

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 30←Archive 33Archive 34Archive 35Archive 36Archive 37→Archive 40

Administrators' newsletter - February 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Administrator changes

NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67
Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
  • Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
  • The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Arbitration

Obituaries

  • JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.
Discuss this newsletter • Subscribe • Archive

13:37, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Republic of Ilirida

Hi Local hero He a nationalist Fyrom is and Albanian Albanians in the Republic of Macedonia we have a Albanian referendum for political and teritorial autonomy in macedonia 11 and 12 january 1992 https://books.google.ba/books?id=2ycTQOISqWQC&pg=PA82&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=true you must to listen to our side not only his Local hero,see and the page Gostivar Local hero put a religion object for a skilyne photo please to return ILIRIDAproud (talk) 18:20, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

ILIRIDAproud, I strongly suggest you stop casting aspersions on other editors and stop edit warring and editing using IP addresses. That article is under discretionary sanctions which means any contested changes need consensus via discussion. I also suggest you stop using the term "FYROM" - see WP:FYROM. --NeilN talk to me 18:32, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Why to stop using term fyrom http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/47/a47r225.htm Fyrom is a ofifcial name ILIRIDAproud (talk) 18:37, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

ILIRIDAproud, what the U.N. does or doesn't use is up to them. Wikipedia has its own naming conventions, in this case arrived at after much discussion (linked to in WP:FYROM). --NeilN talk to me 18:44, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

This to removed Republic of Vevčani Liberland Azawad Autonomous Republic of Northern Epirus it makes no sense to stay ILIRIDAproud (talk) 18:55, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

ILIRIDAproud, if you want content removed from those articles then please post on those articles' talk pages. As an administrator, my job is to stop disruption on Wikipedia, not to weigh in on content matters. --NeilN talk to me 19:09, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Alright I will not change more You can remove protection ILIRIDAproud (talk) 13:46, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

@ILIRIDAproud: That protection was put in place to prevent drive-by editing by anonymous IPs. Was that you? --NeilN talk to me 13:51, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

for me is open, and I have not changed nothing ILIRIDAproud (talk) 14:07, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Dangerous Woman Tour

Hi. Myself and User:Musicpoplover12 have warning and un-doing a style issue by User:Fan4Life because of ownership, fancruft and non-compliance with MoS for concert tour articles, and Fan4Life keeps reverting both of us. It has gone on for a few days, and it has turned into an edit war, regrettably yet provocatively. We have both warned him/her, explained why in edit summaries and left a warning on his/her talk. Oddly, an IP address is also un-doing myself and Musicpoplover12 as well, which is making me think that the IP is also Fan4Life in order to avoid him/her making multiple reversions in a short time span. I'm now seeking admin intervention because it's gone to far, I know that, and I do not wish to further participate in creating an unstable history for the article of reversions when it isn't achieving anything and Fan4Life is not listening, and I don't want to further drag myself into the mess that has ensued. Can you help please? It is over something as small and silly as including the end date of the tour in the info box.  — Calvin999 23:58, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Calvin999. Where's the talk page discussion on this? Also, what part of MOS are you referring to and what's the source for the end date? --NeilN talk to me 04:57, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
@NeilN: Hi NeilN. I know Calvin999 should answer because you were the one that asked, but since I'm available, I'll answer.
  • Calvin999 said the following to Fan4Life in this warning statement on Fan4Life's talk page: You're first, only and last formal warning, for disruptive editing, destabilising the edit history of said article, deliberately and provocatively causing an edit war two experienced editors, ownership, fancruft, ignoring MoS and citing unsourced information, because you've been warned enough times in edit summaries to cease and desist. Continue, and you will be reported for the above reasons which could potentially lead to a block from editing for a period of time.
  • Calvin999 also put in an edit summary of the Dangerous Woman Tour page, and this regards to the MoS: "That's not how it works. You don't have a WP:CRYSTAL ball. You don't know if there will be more dates. We input as it is currently shown. Stop assuming ownership and fancrufting else you'll be reported."
  • Before this incident, I created five tour pages for tours that have yet to start. Pages I created include: Pentatonix World Tour 2016, Emotional Roadshow World Tour, Death of a Bachelor Tour, Illuminate World Tour, and just recently, Memories Do Not Open Tour. ALL the tour pages I created, I've included an end date regardless if more dates are to be announced, and I made these pages when they were very first announced. In the Dangerous Woman Tour talk page, there was another user that covered this dispute back on September 23 and 24, 2016. This user, Keeganmccarthyrocks, said, "April 15th is the end of the first leg. And the first leg has only been released. It's like this in all the concert tour Wikipedia pages. They put a temporary end date. Please stop threatening people and being disrespectful because you have a different opinion. I was trying to make a compromise".
  • Even this user put an end date not knowing that Ariana Grande was going on tour to Europe. Like all tour pages, we put an end date regardless if more dates are announced. Like for example. I thought Coldplay's A Head Full of Dreams Tour was ending in the end of 2016 after their Oceania leg, then out of surprise, Coldplay announced a SECOND North American leg of the tour. Another one was Pentatonix announcing a second North American leg of their tour as a surprise. So what the point of this argument is, we absolutely do not know if a tour will continue, so we preemptively put the final date of a tour of what the source says. The following are sources I used for this page that has tour dates: [1] and [2]. NOTE: I use the artist's official website as a secondary source because a second show for the same city could be announced, like New York City, Amsterdam, London, and Łódź, they were announced through the website. The primary source provided won't catch on to when the second show is. Thanks! Musicpoplover12 (talk) 07:38, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Ariana Grande announces UK and Europe 'Dangerous Woman' tour – Priority Tickets". nme.com. October 20, 2016.
  2. ^ "Tour". arianagrande.com. Retrieved September 19, 2016.
To repeat what Neil said, where is the discussion on the article's talk page? Also, what part of MOS are you referring to? Discussion (much less threats) should never occur on a user's talk page. Always use the article's talk page, and always be civil and discuss edits, not editors. Softlavender (talk) 08:19, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi Musicpoplover12. I broke up your response by adding bullet points to it to make it more readable - I hope you don't mind. I have a couple issues with the way this is being handled. First, the "first, only and last formal warning, for disruptive editing..." is pretty harsh for what can be considered a content dispute. The old Wikipedia adage, "edit summaries are not a substitute for talk page discussion" comes to mind here. Second, I did some poking around in the sources and can see the other side here, as "more tour dates will be announced!" appears in a couple of them. Fan4Life could very well say it is you who are crystal balling by putting in an end date. Not taking sides here, but if you make a statement like "[l]ike all tour pages, we put an end date regardless if more dates are announced" then should be able to point to a discussion or guideline where that consensus is stated. That may be an obvious practice to you, but it's not obvious to Fan4Life. If no consensus yet exists, then I suggest trying to form one by posting to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Concert Tours. --NeilN talk to me 13:38, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

IP-hopper/IP-sock

I saw this IP-hopper/IP-sock just submitted a false report and tried to ban me.[1] I clarified why I have reverted his edits.[2] His ip-range, edits and behavior are similar to the IPs who always appear on Modu Chanyu. Plus, this falsification and edit summaery[3] is exactly same as this one[4]. And just like blocked User:BöriShad, he targets same articles and same section (etymology section). e.g. Atabeg, Bey, Baghatur, Bogatyr and etc. He just removes current cited content and replaces it with copy-pasted content from another article (dubious and pov-themed). How should I deal with him? Best solution or related board? Because he uses dynamic IPs and I don't know if it's possible to submit a SPI case to see if he's is related to that BöriShad or not. Plus, needs a npov revision. --Wario-Man (talk) 10:00, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

The report I gave was not a false. You can control what is told. The editor began his threatening words again. Instead of discuss, they threaten other editors. You can check the report here. You can check on the discussion. It's very clear who is the pov editor.--88.251.248.36 (talk) 11:22, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

WP:BOOMERANG. Do you really think that you can evade your block by editing as IP/anonymous user? BöriShad, it seems you don't know what POV and pov-pushing is and that's the reason why you do it on Modu Chanyu and Baghatur. Removing the content you don't like and copy-pasting irrelevant stuff from other articles. Even you falsified Beckwith's work on Modu Chanyu by IP-hopping for several times and you just inserted your personal opinion in a sourced text. Very similar to blocked account BöriShad who tried to remove Beckwith's work on targeted articles. NeilN rejected your report. And actually, it's you who abuse wikipedia rules just because you want to own that article and insert your povs. My edit summaries and comments are clear enough. Your ip-range and edits are exactly similar to blocked user BöriShad and some disruptive ip-hoppers. Your first edit with a misleading edit summary. You DID NOT restored anything! You removed cited text and copy-pasted from another article[5], then you reverted User: Diannaa's edit[6], and finally started your edit warring[7] and then submitting a false report on WP:AN3 to block me. --Wario-Man (talk) 12:18, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
@Wario-Man: Having looked into this, I agree that block evasion is going on. It's not much use blocking as the block evader uses a dynamic IP but I will semi-protect pages if it becomes necessary. --NeilN talk to me 14:52, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Naeem Prasla

Hi. Thanks for deleting the article Naeem Prasla. I just wanted to know why it was you gave this user a further warning, rather than a block? They have been sufficiently warned about removing speedy deletion templates on their talk page already. Thanks, LoudLizard (📞 | contribs | ✉) 20:01, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi LoudLizard. I debated on this one and decided that our "blocks are preventative, not punitive" philosophy mandated a final warning for creating inappropriate pages instead of a block. Since the article was deleted, there was no point blocking them for something they couldn't do again (i.e., remove a CSD template). --NeilN talk to me 20:08, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Question about an article

NeilN, I have a question about what to do next at the BBC Breakfast article. User:Bob N1C2 (and occasionally User:Jeff 21 on the sand) has been adding an "episode guide" into the article for the past month. I have tried communicating on Bob's talk page in October 2015 for similar edits, as well as yesterday. I've even posted on the article's talk page in hopes that they would see it, but they haven't responded and instead keep re-adding it (knowingly that I've posted it). What's my next step if they won't communicate? Thanks, Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 03:49, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

@Corkythehornetfan: I have warned both Bob N1C2 and Jeff 21 on the sand about edit warring. If they continue without discussing, please let me know. --NeilN talk to me 07:08, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, NeilN. You have new messages at Twitbookspacetube's talk page.
Message added 03:45, 6 February 2017 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Twitbookspacetube (talk) 03:45, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Bearden High School (Tennessee)

Cheezum crow. And thank you very much. I was gentle--I think a lot more of the athletics section need be pared. Cheers, 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:10, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome. A couple claims in the material you were removing definitely need sourcing per BLP. --NeilN talk to me 15:15, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
As much as possible, using WP:WPSCH/AG as the relevant guideline, so a lot of the regional titles and lesser achievements aren't notable, either. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:19, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Block needed?

You'll remember, I'm sure [8]. EEng 00:51, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

@EEng: Blocked two months for the two edits. --NeilN talk to me 01:09, 7 February 2017 (UTC)


You need to check and rein in Fyunck(click). This user is out of control.

Hi, while you're being a hypocrite and calling me out, you need to look into (Fyunck(click)'s bullying and attacking other users for simply contributing and editing in good faith with NPOV to the Serena Williams article. This user has attacked and accused other users of being clones or sockpuppet simply because they disagreed with his or her biased and opinionated editing, which I assume is not tolerated here. It's one thing to call me out, but you need to check yourself and check this user and monitor his or her disruptive accusations and disruptive editing. Just because I'm new here and have an opinion doesn't mean I should be bullied. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.38.85.122 (talk) 02:16, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Two blocked sockpuppets and a bunch of IPs making similar edits usually means something is going on. And this edit summary was totally out of line. --NeilN talk to me 02:20, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, everybody is a sockpuppet when you don't have any good counter argument. You are a hypocrite and a disgrace. You are abusing your administrative tools to bully other editors. This was never about me and isn't about me. The fact that you have completely ignored the bullying tactics and disruptive editing of Fyunck(click) on Serena Williams page is highly suspect and I cannot take you seriously. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.42.139.5 (talk) 02:36, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

@92, also, that sentence you're editing ("many commentators...regard her as the greatest tennis player of all time") is a textbook example of Puffery and Unsupported attribution. ~Awilley (talk) 03:44, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

The Prince of Egypt

Thank you for the PP and blocks. As you were doing that I had started an SPI. Not sure about that last one, like you. Could just be an innocent new person caught in the middle. Hopefully a CU can clear it up.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 03:48, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Taking Let99 to WP:ANI

Remember Let99? He is still making problematic edits at the Eidetic memory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article. See Talk:Eidetic memory#Same editor again (permalink here). I am very close to taking this matter to WP:ANI. This editor returns every few months to make problematic edits with "you are wrong" arguments and nothing to back him up on the arguments. It's worth bringing the matter to you before I escalate things by taking it to WP:ANI. Whether you weigh in as an admin or just another editor is fine. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:31, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

I also queried Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines about what to do when an editor keeps editing a closed RfC. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:34, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Commented on talk page. --NeilN talk to me 14:59, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Holy crap, you archived your talk page

Amazing. Softlavender (talk) 05:13, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Wuss. EEng 06:40, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Softlavender, just for that, I'm going to the unarchive the last three archives and merge them onto this talk page :-p --NeilN talk to me 11:58, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
LOL. It was getting rather irritating. But since you are no longer paying me secretarial wages, I declined to interfere myself. :) Softlavender (talk) 12:17, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
...can't get around that old minimum wage, eh  ;) O Fortuna!...Imperatrix mundi. 12:56, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Maybe Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi would do you a solid and take up a collection. Would you be willing to do that solid, Fortuna? That would also do me a solid as well. --NeilN talk to me 15:45, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
I AM SURROUNDED BY SOLIDITY!!! :D O Fortuna!...Imperatrix mundi. 15:56, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi sublimely does the solid. –EEng
I really don't think I've got it in me... O Fortuna!...Imperatrix mundi. 16:21, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

And this is why I love Wikipedia. All throughout grade school I was taught there were three states of matter - solid, liquid, gas. Now, out of the blue, I learn there's a fourth. --NeilN talk to me 16:02, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Don't forget Supercritical fluids (used in dry-cleaning and coffee decaffeination among other things) and this list of other states of matter. I remember not so long ago having my mind blown by learning that there were more than 5 senses (Sense#Non-traditional_senses) ~Awilley (talk) 16:32, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
There's certainly plenty of supercriticality here at Wikipedia, although an excess of sense is less in evidence. The term Disordered hyperuniformity (found on your list) applies well too, methinks. EEng 16:35, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
@Awilley: I've always wondered how dry cleaning works... --Izno (talk) 19:00, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Out of the blue is right. EEng 16:35, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

You've got mail

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

(talk page stalker) CrashUnderride 16:11, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Check your email, NeilN

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.— {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 22:49, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Something worth keeping an eye on...

Seeing the subtle, yet odd disruption that this editor has created, it might be worth having a look at 2602:306:3357:BA0::/64 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). This IP range has a VERY long history of CU blocks (which I think are related to User:Haunted331, but I could be wrong...). They have continuously resumed editing disruptively almost immediately after the rangeblocks have expired... Thanks. 172.58.40.115 (talk) 05:09, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Hey Bbb23? --NeilN talk to me 05:14, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
FWIW I wanted to let you know I declined the anon's unblock request (if you haven't already seen). Best, Mifter (talk) 05:47, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Mifter. --NeilN talk to me 13:00, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
I've reblocked the range, this time for six months. Thanks everyone.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:33, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Use of talk page

Don't mention me on any talk page other than mine. If you have an issue or a complaint my talk page is open for all to use. Please it is rather impolite for you to do otherwise. Celestina007 (talk) 14:46, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Celestina007, Wikipedia is a collaborative project and thus discussions take place on a wide variety of pages and generally stay where they are started (like here). My comment involved both you and Adam and was a direct response to your comment on his talk page, and placed there so it can be seen by all interested parties. --NeilN talk to me 14:53, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Oh okay, This might appear very strange or bizzare to you, but some editors have some sort of close relationship with subject of their articles, hence you see certain editors defending vehemently subject of their articles whom you know are not really Wikipedia material. I'm am Nigerian and by God, I had not ever hear of the subject until stumbling on his article, I am an information scientist, it is my duty to be up-to-date , so if you claim to be a notable Nigerian and I do not know about you then something isn't right, hence i asked for a "speedy deletion of that page" it was removed by him and shortly after another editor whom may not even be Nigerian queried the article. This practice may be rare or non existent in Europe or America, but in Nigeria, i mean do a sharp Google re-search , there is a reason my country is notorious for corruption. I hope you understand why I hope someday you would understand why I act radically. Celestina007 (talk) 15:55, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

@Celestina007: Thank you for explaining where you're coming from. A couple things. First, I'd advise you to avoid relying solely on personal knowledge when editing Wikipedia. Editors edit on subjects they have no previous personal knowledge of all the time. They do this by doing research and expanding their knowledge, Second, if you're going to continue tagging articles for deletion on the basis of notability then please read WP:A7 carefully: "This applies to any article about a real person, individual animal(s), organization, web content or organized event that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant, with the exception of educational institutions. This is distinct from verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability." In this case, "Bimbo commenced her acting career in 1996 and has produced, directed and featured in several Nigerian films including Omo Elemosho, by Yewande Adekoya" is enough to disqualify the article from an A7. If you're not sure the subject actually exists then you should be doing a web search to determine the status. --NeilN talk to me 17:04, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Anti - fraud editors and articles

I really do not know how anyone can fight fraud editors and articles on Wikipedia absolutely and totally, and even worse for individuals who are in a continent or geographical area where corruption is extremely low or non existent, making them almost alien to the idea of corrupt practices, but we in Africa, and I am particular about my country Nigeria, where corruption is no new bed fellow, we have been battling this vice ever since anyone can re-collect, I thought "anti vandalism" would help me in this quest of eradicating fraud articles, it can, to an extent yes, but what do you do when a whole page is a hoax/ blatant lie ?, that is , subject of article may be real , but notability is a lie , and even worse still, when it is only you fighting against that particular kind of vice, some editors obtain cash from non-notable people and create pages for them, this may sound extremely bizzare but this things happen here in Nigeria. So please try and understand my radical Behaviour to articles that seem suspicious, in the end we are all working for the betterment of Wikipedia.

Thank you for understanding. Celestina007 (talk) 16:26, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

@Celestina007: Undisclosed paid editing and spamming are nothing new on Wikipedia and we try to eliminate the practices and their output as much as possible. If you come across an article which uses dubious or fraudulent sources then the best thing is to start a WP:AFD or ask an experienced editor for their opinion. --NeilN talk to me 17:12, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Alright, thank you so much Celestina007 (talk) 03:38, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Kalash people

Hello User:NeilN, thanks for reverting the removal of referenced information by SPA accounts on the article about Kalash people. Could you kindly protect the article since there have been new SPA accounts weekly that attempt to remove the same information? I would appreciate it. Thank you! With regards, AnupamTalk 21:27, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

@Anupam: Semi-protected for six months. Not sure what's up with the repeated edits but at least this way they'll have to use the talk page to discuss. --NeilN talk to me 21:35, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

POV Investigation Into BLP

user:NeilN, I am relatively new to Wikipedia, so I don't know if this is proper - but I think I uncovered a serious issue and I want to make sure this get's handled correctly (by you). I've posted an issue (#34) in the Wikipedia incidence board, but I'm afraid that user:Inlinetext will delete it before it's handled. I'm afraid of condescending and derogatory confrontation with this user. Can you please take a look at it? I think that he has seriously defamed a WP:BLP and is now getting away with un-sourced edits. DocTox (talk) 02:00, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Apologies user:NeilN, I obviously misunderstood the process. The issue is now up to #24 and is titled: "POV Investigation for Page, Massive Edits by Inlinetext, Possible COI". It seems some Admin are taking care, sorry for the confusion and thank you for your time! DocTox (talk) 02:41, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Page re-move needed

Hi NeilN, hope you are well. I created the article History of Hajj long ago. Someone unnecessarily moved it to History of the Hajj. According to naming policy, articles should not be used in the title. Moreover, the Hajj is grammatically not sound here. Will you re-move it to the previous state? I can not do it as it involves first deleting then moving.

Also, please take a look at Mama Qadeer which I have tagged for speedy deletion as it is a duplicate to Missing persons (Pakistan). -AsceticRosé 02:58, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @AsceticRose: You don't have to delete the redirect if it is a redirect to the page being moved and there are no other edits. See Wikipedia:Move over redirect. The system deletes it for you even if you're not an admin. Adam9007 (talk) 03:02, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Adam9007 for your tips and the move. I'm curious about how you did it. By the method you described above? If yes, I will try it in future. -AsceticRosé 03:13, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
@AsceticRose: I just moved the page to the redirect's title and it worked. If you look at the page's deletion log, you'll see that the previous redirect has been deleted, even though I'm not an admin. Adam9007 (talk) 03:18, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
@AsceticRose: I have no ideas what Kautilya3 was doing here but both articles now reflect the proper subject. --NeilN talk to me 06:00, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
My apologies. A big faux pas on my part. I probably had two tabs open, and put the content in the wrong one. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:55, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

More likely socks of Aries009

Same MO of Serena related articles, all new users. User:Samuraijohn, User:Guardianlight, User:Quistis30. Probably more but they had me going for a sec at Victoria Azarenka before I caught on. Fyunck(click) (talk) 7:32 pm, Today (UTC+10)

@Fyunck(click): All blocked by the ever-vigilant Widr --NeilN talk to me 14:23, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Edit

Hello Neiln , I would like to add my link could you suggest me or could you give some guidence that I could edit my link.

dda smart cities — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bimlakarakoti (talk • contribs)

Hi Bimlakarakoti. You can't, simple as that. Please read WP:ELNO if you want to know why. --NeilN talk to me 14:27, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Possible problem spanning multiple vehicle articles

Hi NeilN, would you (or another whose tact is backed by authority) please take a look at Reattacollector's recent, 11 February 2017, edit history? In a relatively short period of time they've unilaterally made multiple large excisions and converts of established pages to redirects without merging data to new targets and without offering either proposals or explanations on talkpages; all taking place within vehicle articles.

I've reverted one instance which affects something I'm working on [9] but sorting out the remaining situation (which may require reverting a single user multiple times across multiple articles) en masse seems like more than I'm pragmatically empowered to deal with.

Thanks for your time and consideration, --Kevjonesin (talk) 12:46, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Thanks for engaging with them, NeilN. Please address points regarding use of talkpage proposals, explanatory notes, and edit summaries when seeking to make major changes to articles in mainspace and how such serves as a courtesy to fellow editors and a service to the project.
Having done the initial investigative leg-work and presented links to ease the path for those who might follow, I thought I'd leave direct personal engagement to those whose temperament and mandate might perhaps better fit the task. My research leads me to wonder if some sort of personal vision of wiki taxonomic orthodoxy might be at play as there seems to be a pattern of unilaterally blanking established subtopic content and emphasizing broader parent topics. Hints of some sort of 'crusade' to me, in which a user feels they are acting 'in good faith' but in practice are causing damage by arbitrarily removing longstanding developed content.
My inclination might be to simply revert all the problematic edits and say something to the effect of, "Bad. Bad. Stop that!". ... I suspect someone else may be able to make the point more tactfully with less chance of leaving the recipient feeling like they've been chided as a naughty infant. ie. With luck and skill, another may be able to achieve some degree of understanding in addition to compliance.

Thanks again for your time and attention, --Kevjonesin (talk) 01:15, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

I responded on my own talk page, but I also wanted to post my input here as well, in case my first response was missed. I merged the Mercury Sable article with the individual Ford Taurus generation articles. The entire Sable article was just a fork of the Ford Taurus article, and a poorly written one at that, not to mention that every individual article about the different Ford Taurus generations had a section about the Mercury Sable basically describing the Sable and any unique features and options to begin with, which made me believe that that messy, redundant article was better off just merged with the Taurus. It has since been reverted, so I started a discussion on the talk page in hopes of reaching a consensus on the action.

That was the same motivation behind my activity on the Chrysler minivan articles. The Dodge Caravan, Plymouth Voyager and Chrysler Town & Country are more or less the same vehicle, differentiated only by trim and equipment. Each van had its individual article, and all three of those articles basically had the same information, all of which was forked from each other, with varying quality. Then on top of that, there was then another individual article for the Chrysler Voyager, which was basically a slightly modified Caravan for export, that was a low-quality fork from the Dodge Caravan article. And then another Chrysler minivans article that is another overview of all the generations. How many articles do we need to just say the same thing over and over again about the same topic? I don't understand why coverage of them is spread around multiple redundant articles, as I believe that all of the vans can sufficiently be covered by one article, that was made up of the best information from each article. Not only is it easier for the reader, as all the information about these vans are in one place, but it also makes it easier for us to improve our coverage of these vans and ensure uniform quality with the edits and articles. For an example, the Fiat/PSA joint developed minivans just have a single article, Eurovans, instead of having four individual articles for the Citroën Evasion, Fiat Ulysse, Lancia Zeta and Peugeot 806 that are all clones of each other just like the vans they are covering. Thus I've compiled all four of those articles into new articles about each generation:

Since Chrysler has merged all of their minivans into one model for 2017, the Chrysler Pacifica (RU), that article can stay just the way it is. It appears I may have ruffled some feathers with changing so much as quickly as I did. But I was unsure exactly who to consult. I'm aware of WikiProject Automobiles, but there is little to no activity there anymore. Enough that I am also unaware of any users that are actively committed to improving automotive coverage. The Chrysler minivan articles seem to have low activity as well, with no single user active in maintaining them. If I tried a proposal would it just sit for six months with no response? And well, I figured somebody has to do it.

There are so many more examples of this too around Wikipedia. For one, I also think the Mercury Villager article should be merged into Nissan Quest, as the Villager is just a rebadged Quest and there is no unique information in that article that isn't or can't be covered in the Nissan Quest article. But I am not going to do any more unilateral moves like that until this is resolved. Reattacollector (talk) 15:32, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Reattacollector, being bold and doing uncontentious mergers is fine (but you should stop and discuss if someone objects). My main concern is preserving attribution, as our copyright policy requires, by following the instructions at WP:CWW. Can you please fix the attributions (see WP:RIA). --NeilN talk to me 16:29, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
I was unaware of this policy when I merged the pages. Now that it is already done, what would be a good way for me to still properly attribute? Maybe make a section on the talk page which lists all the articles that had their content merged into the new one? Reattacollector (talk) 17:07, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Reattacollector, see WP:RIA which I linked to above. If you have further questions, please don't hesitate to ask. --NeilN talk to me 17:17, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

[edit conflict]

  • NeilN, did mergers in fact occur? Please offer examples. I noticed blanking of longstanding pages as they were converted to redirects, but I don't recall noticing overt signs that their copy and imagery had been retained at length elsewhere. The circumstances I examined most closely surrounded the Dodge Caravan article. It appeared to me that after blanking of the original article, only brief mention within a few lines remained elsewhere. But, NealN, perhaps you noticed merged Dodge Caravan content somewhere I missed? --Kevjonesin (talk) 17:50, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Hi Reattacollector, thanks for the patience and amiability you've been showing regarding your fellow editors offering opportunities to apply more inclusive methodology.
Please take some time to consider the Wikipedia:Summary style guidelines; perhaps starting with:

"A fuller treatment of any major subtopic should go in a separate article of its own. Each subtopic or child article is a complete encyclopedic article in its own right and contains its own lead section that is quite similar to the summary in its parent article. It also contains a link back to the parent article and enough information about the broader parent subject to place the subject in context for the reader, even if this produces some duplication between the parent and child articles. The original article should contain a section with a summary of the subtopic's article as well as a link to it. This type of organization is made possible because Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia: unlike traditional paper encyclopedias, it only takes a click for readers to switch between articles, and there is no need to conserve paper by preventing duplication of content."

Please consider how Template:Further information might prove useful in accommodating the spirit of such, and perhaps Template:See also as well, among others.
Thanks for your time and consideration, --Kevjonesin (talk) 17:50, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
@Kevjonesin: A merge (or split) does not have to have formal discussion and notification. Any editor can copy-paste text or portions of text from one article to another and turn the first article into a redirect as long as the copy is properly attributed. Of course, common sense needs to be exercised here. To wit, is the action likely to raise valid objections (and an objection about not following process for process sake is contrary to WP:BRD)? --NeilN talk to me 18:08, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

@Kevjonesin:, the content of the Dodge Caravan article was split up and moved to:

Those articles contain all the information from the Dodge Caravan, Plymouth Voyager, Chrysler Town & Country and Chrysler Voyager articles merged together. As the articles were all forks of each other, the information and writing was more or less the same, with differences in prose and development, as one may have been edited more heavily than the others (a big reason why I think its better for the encyclopedia that they are merged). So I selected the best of each of the three to move to the new articles. I didn't just blank the Caravan article, the bulk of its information was saved and moved to those articles. Reattacollector (talk) 19:26, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

By the way, Reattacollector, I'm fine with you offering a new series of minivan articles organized by manufacturer platform series. In fact thanks for putting in the time and effort to do so. I just don't see that such an offering necessitates the mass removal of the existing model name articles.
I feel that having cross-linked overlapping organizational schemes simultaneously in place not only does no harm, but serves to aid readers arriving with different aspects of interest (ie. we don't need to force someone to sort through five different platform series articles to get a history of the model name 'Dodge Caravan'; especially not when a fairly robust article authored over time by multiple editors to encompass such already exists).
Consider also that many readers may arrive to the wiki more familiar with a consumer 'make, model, and year' format than with an industry 'manufacturer platform series' format. As the wiki has access to plenty of data storage, we're free to accommodate both formats—to serve a general readership and those with more specialized interests—by keeping in place overlapping articles which make note of the same vehicles within a different scope and focus.
'There's more than one way to skin a cat', and as relates to matters at hand, in a digital wiki we're able to skin more than one at once. "This type of organization is made possible because Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia: unlike traditional paper encyclopedias, it only takes a click for readers to switch between articles, and there is no need to conserve paper by preventing duplication of content." --Kevjonesin (talk) 18:24, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Iam not promoting others

Unknowingly few words were added . You are finding reasons on how to insult others. I am not a marketing staff of any organization. You people are again proving my statement. I haven't done wrong according to me. For some intentional causes, you are doing do. In another post it was mentioned that my account is going to get blocked. Iam not going to worry about that. I am not asking others to lend information. If you want authentic information for developing encyclopedia better you people do. No one must block me. Who are you to block my account. I have stopped using wikipedia. I told 'I QUIT'. Even after this if anybody speaks, it is senseless. Edson Frainlar (talk) 15:12, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi, and I hope you don't mind a comment from me (even if it's senseless). I'm sure you weren't intentionally trying promote anyone, but I've just looked at one of your deleted articles... and it was written in a very reverent and praising tone. Almost every sentence was telling us how good the organization is, and how great are its achievements. There was also far too much minor detail (which we'd generally call "unencyclopedic"). Finally, there were no sources cited in the article. Wikipedia articles must be written in a purely factual and neutral tone (see WP:PEACOCK for some guidance on what to avoid), and content needs to be cited to reliable sources (see WP:RS). I can see how you might not have understood all this, and the messages you received were perhaps not exactly helpful, but your aggressive and accusatory response really did not help. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:26, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Restore Vijayant Thapar

I want to restore the page of Indian army soldier Vijayant Thapar who was awarded Vir Chakra, the third highest wartime gallantary award of India, it was deleted on the ground that this award is not notable but there are articles on other soldiers who were awarded Vir Chakra like Ajay Ahuja, Chuni Lal and more. There is also one more page of the same soldier but with wrong spelling Vijyant Thapar which is also deleted. Please restore Vijayant Thapar. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 18:16, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Abhishek0831996. I can restore it as a draft article but you will need to improve it so it addresses the objections raised in the deletion discussion. Are you willing to do this? --NeilN talk to me 18:27, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes I will improve it using reliable sources Abhishek0831996 (talk) 18:30, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Abhishek0831996, please see Draft:Vijayant Thapar --NeilN talk to me 18:36, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Are my edits to this page sufficient to address the objections raised in the deletion discussion Abhishek0831996 (talk) 10:03, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Abhishek0831996, I don't think the changes show the subject meets WP:SOLDIER which was the main objection. However the AFD had only light participation so paging DGG here for their input. Abhishek0831996, are there no media sources you can find that published biographies of the subject? --NeilN talk to me 16:20, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
It's true those sources are currently pretty poor, but the coverage does exist: Zee News, India Times, The Times of India, Zee News, The Times of India, The Hindu, The Indian Express, India today. also books (possibly- haven't checked the publishers), [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], and [15]. The papers at least are almost totally hagiographical (perhaps unsurprisingly); but they contain the information. Just FYI. O Fortuna!...Imperatrix mundi. 17:03, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi. Abhishek0831996, incorporating these sources in the article might make a case for the subject meeting WP:GNG. "Significant coverage addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." --NeilN talk to me 17:36, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
The good thing is, it'll get rid of the copyvios too :) O Fortuna!...Imperatrix mundi. 17:45, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Closed at last

Hey, Neil, thanks for closing Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Continuing_styleguide_trivia_disruption_from_Dicklyon.2C_now_becoming_simple_attacks_on_editors. But I'm disappointed in your note that "editors are divided on whether or not the original complaint has merit". Sure, it's true, but can't you, as an admin, read it and conclude that the complaint was without merit? If not, what lesson am I, and they, to take from all this noise? It's a content dispute where I was accused of calling another editor a liar, which I plainly did not do, and in fact talked that editor into a much more reasonable comment and position; that's never done by calling someone a liar, I'm sure you'll agree. And the bit about a "a disruptive war of attrition on other editors" is completely baseless. By no stretch does any part of this complaint "have merit". Right? Dicklyon (talk) 02:12, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

@Dicklyon: If I thought the original complaint had or did not have merit I would have contributed to the discussion rather than closing it, summing up what other editors thought. I'd also like to point out that the initial post did not accuse you of calling another editor a liar; it accused you of "treating those who disagree as liars". There's a difference here. For example, I can craft my words in a response to imply I think another editor is a moron but outright calling that editor a moron is going to land me in hot water a lot faster. --NeilN talk to me 17:53, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
True point, but since I treated the editor's contribution as "not credible" and got her to fix it, that's not at all like treating her like a liar. Dicklyon (talk) 19:31, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Just curious

Hi NeilN. I wonder do you remember your recent interactions with this TekSavvy Solutions editor geolocated to London, Ontario? I may be wrong, but he or she seems to overlap and be somehow strangely similar to this TekSavvy Solutions editor geolocated to London, Ontario? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:18, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

@Martinevans123: Same discussion style and both have edited Head-mounted display so I would say they're the same person. Their block for edit warring expired months ago so they're free to edit. --NeilN talk to me 17:31, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. Hmm. They say "I've been a contributor to Wikipedia since it's inception. I don't keep track of my contributions and I'm not looking for credit." With an interaction style like that one, I think it's probably just as well they are not looking for credit. I imagine there is probably an IP-linked trail of destruction stretching back to the start of the encyclopedia, if one dared to look. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:45, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Randy Blalock

Thank you for your quick acción, I had reported the now blocked editor at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism in case you want to mark it as done there. Regards. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 23:51, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Crystallizedcarbon. I was acting on your report at WP:AIV - thanks for that. A bot automatically removes blocked editors from that page so there's no need to do anything. --NeilN talk to me 23:55, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Perfect then. Thanks again. I just notice I used the wrong name pasting the article instead of the editor! (time for me to go to bed ). --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 23:59, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

User:PjdW97

Hello Neil, according to this the above mentioned editor seemed to be wanting his email address removed as he has mentioned it accidentally. I checked his contributions to find that he included his email address in some other places as well, including this, this, this and this edit. I believe the edits should be permanently removed from Wikipedia to protect user privacy. Thank you. RoCo(talk) 00:15, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

FWIW I deleted the email address when I replied to the user's post on my talk page. — Sam Sailor 00:26, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
I think PjdW97 was mainly concerned about his address showing up plainly in the contrib edit summary history. --NeilN talk to me 00:32, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
PjdW97 also stated he was new to Wikipedia and doesn't understand how it works completely. I do not think he knows that all edits are preserved in history. He might have pointed out only the edit summary because that's what he found. The email address could violate his privacy for all I know. Also, Sam, thanks, but I meant a permanent removal, even from the history page. I'm not sure if only Oversighters are granted that permission though. RoCo(talk) 00:39, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Coffee, your opinion? --NeilN talk to me 01:37, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Am :d dno if I'm meant to edit this? Am... have patience with me men ive no clue whats the procedures are here. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Whelan_(rugby_player) does that just disappear after a certain time or is there anyone I can email too get it removed men? Id just like too forget this stressful situation ever happened, I just feel uneasy with that page there after being moved all the time. If ye can pass me on an email too get it removed completely be great men. I don't mind ye having my email, if It goes against wiki privacy delete away. Sorry for the inconvience and this entire situation, ye shouldn't have yere time wasted like this! and I dno should I post this here, sorry if its in the wrong one. PjdW97 (talk) 01:42, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

@PjdW97: The deletion log will remain on the page, if that's what you meant (NeilN, please confirm this). Don't be sorry, you did nothing wrong! Also, your email address will remain on Wikipedia indefinitely and anyone can view it. If you're okay with it, we're fine. Let us know if you would like to have it removed. Thank you, and all the best! RoCo(talk) 04:43, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
Dealing quickly with two stubborn disruptive editors. Otherwise using the broom prudently. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:35, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Robert. --NeilN talk to me 01:38, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Dil-e-Jaanam (2017 TV series)

Just an FYI it appears that it was previously redirected to another article, wondering if this is a hoax/the same thing? Chrissymad ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 15:33, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

@Chrissymad: Don't think so. Different actors and there are some (not-so-great) sources out there. [16], [17] --NeilN talk to me 15:44, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

February 2017

Stop icon

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

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. --Élisée P. Bruneau (talk) 16:54, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

@Élisée P. Bruneau: You realize you have seven reverts in the past 36 hours? --NeilN talk to me 16:57, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Sigh. --NeilN talk to me 18:40, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
If it wasn't for Them Pesky Kids, you mighta got away with it!!!  ;) O Fortuna!...Imperatrix mundi. 20:12, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
This will be the fourth time I've "gotten away with it". Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/NeilN --NeilN talk to me 20:16, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
They be like, 'I'll get them meeces next time!' :D O Fortuna!...Imperatrix mundi. 20:56, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
"I hate that mirror, it makes me feel so worthless" (allegedly) Martinevans123 (talk) 20:51, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Japan–Korea disputes

I added {{Liancourt Rocks probation}} to this talk page, just so you know. It's very closely related, so I figure we may as well advise people that the rules apply. I wonder if we ought to consider consolidating that template with {{Liancourt Rocks probation related articles}}, since they are basically the same thing. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:10, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

@Arthur Rubin, Future Perfect at Sunrise, and Spartaz: Since they are involved, too. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:12, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
@Nihonjoe: One thing we should do is replace any article probation wording with discretionary sanctions references to reflect the current motion. --NeilN talk to me 17:16, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Works for me. Want to work up a suggested wording and post it here? ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:27, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Playmate Dispute

My main thought at this point is that this is another aspect of a very long conflict about the notability of certain women known mostly for their looks or the assessment of others of their looks. There have long been very contentious AFD's about state and local beauty pageants. It appears that if there are being AFD's about centerfold models, it is really the same conflict. My own thought is that the centerfold should be ipso facto notable, but we don't have a guideline to that effect, so it isn't. I am thinking about what to do with this dispute at DRN. However, it is a very long contentious dispute. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:34, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: I would close it, as it needs to be an open community discussion, not centered around one article. Plus from what I've seen, the OP has a shaky grasp of deletion policy. --NeilN talk to me 18:42, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Hindi again

Hi NeilN, another language warrior on our hands [18], [19], [20], and talk page [21]. I give up. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:58, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

RfC

User NeilN, I wrote that discussion [22] before RfC tag [23], that's why I missed that standard. Now I've reopenned RfC in accordance to the rule ► [24]--g. balaxaZe★ 12:03, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Re-Your warnings

This edit has been already reverted by an experienced editor. Please do not take it personally and if you want to revert my edit, do so. Last but not the least I think he is the same IP user who is registered now. Regards Umair Aj (talk) 19:11, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Umair Aj, restoring an edit reverted by a experienced editor is not automatically unconstructive editing. You need to look at the edit yourself and use your judgement as to whether or not the edit improved the article. In this case, the article itself says, "Arthur Stanley Jefferson was born in his grandparents' house on 16 June 1890 at 3 Argyle Street, Ulverston, Lancashire, England." so changing UK to England in the infobox may be contentious, but it's certainly not vandalism as you labelled it. You can revert, but be aware that this type of thing is a content dispute and not something you should be using warning templates for. --NeilN talk to me 19:22, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
I am grateful the way you have shown your concern. I will definitely keep your guidance in my mind. Umair Aj (talk) 19:29, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

About my edit on Islam and antisemitism

I added the ideological affiliation of two scholars who were quoted in the article's range of opinion section. They are both Zionist Jews which raises questions about conflict of interests. Hiding their ideological affiliation makes the article deceitful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SakibArifin (talk • contribs) 19:33, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

@SakibArifin: The term appears in neither biography. You'll need to find reliable sources reviewing their work that calls them that. --NeilN talk to me 21:25, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

User talk:208.108.214.36

Hi there. I see that in the past you have placed a school block on User talk:208.108.214.36. It would be helpful if you would consider this again, as that address has made a lot of unsourced edits to rap music articles. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:53, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

@Magnolia677: I've softblocked the IP as it was being also used by vandals. I've left a message for the person editing the rapper articles. --NeilN talk to me 21:07, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Undid revision??

Any particular part of my proposed revision that you want me to source? Most of what I wrote is based on my own life experience. As I am both a health and environmentally-conscious person, I have many good reasons for wanting to add venison to my diet. It has a much higher nutritional value than most commercial meat, and I see it has more natural and ethically sound. Further research has given me reason to think that both my family and I could benefit from the lean protein found in the meat muscle of wild deer who have spent their lives in nature on a diet of grass and wild plants. Yet my parents can't fathom the thought of my pointing and firing a gun to take the life of such a beautiful animal! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.60.41.24 (talk) 02:13, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi 73. All article content needs to be sourced using reliable, published sources. Original research (your opinions and experiences) is not permitted in articles. --NeilN talk to me 03:53, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Dougernst

Hello Neil,

I am pinging BethNaught as well. This is for me an unusual situation so I am going to be as frank as possible without going too far, I hope. I noticed that this editor asked a question at the Teahouse, and the username looked familiar but was I was too busy with work obligations to look into it. Then upon returning to the Teahouse, I noticed that they had been blocked. Given the name and the edits to Napa Valley College, I am 99% sure that I know this person (unless impersonation is going on). The person is not by any means a close personal friend but someone I have communicated with occasionally over the years and someone I respect. I live in the Napa Valley and this editor is someone well known in our community, a highly regarded person with lots of knowledge and the skills to potentially be a productive Wikipedia editor. I suspect that this is a newbie mistake.

So, I am wondering if you would be willing to reach out to this editor offering an unblock in exchange for short term mentoring that I am willing to provide? My email link is active if there is a need for that. Thanks. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:15, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Cullen328. Always good to hear from you. I've always said unblocks of my indef copyright blocks for first time offenders should be easily and freely granted provided the editor understands the problem. How do you want to proceed? --NeilN talk to me 04:22, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
I would appreciate it if you would leave a personalized talk page message for them. If you agree, I will also reach out through social media. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:33, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Done --NeilN talk to me 04:40, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, NeilN. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 14:21, 17 February 2017 (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.

David J Johnson (talk) 14:21, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Oops

I had already blocked the reporter at this no-action an3 report. If you think he shouldn't be blocked, I can unblock. Obviously I agree with your assessment that the editor reported shouldn't be blocked. :P --slakr\ talk / 22:36, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Slakr. No issue with your block. --NeilN talk to me 22:39, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

You courtesy-blanked an AFD and

the editor in question also posted their email at another page [25] - so that needs to be removed from view/deleted/whatever/[redacted]/etc,. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 04:27, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Taken care of, thanks. --NeilN talk to me 05:25, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Question

Hello Dear NeilN! I added academical sources in article. I do not know how else to prove the importance of this scholar. - OTOGI Messages 13:31, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia page

Amoritas,

I am one of the few doctors that specialize in Regenerative Medicine such as stem cell therapy for joint and tendon pain. I am also concussion specialist. These are 2 areas of medicine in which it is rare to find a physician or knowledge on. I believe it is a service to the general public to be informed that a physican such as myself does exist in these specialities. Because of these unique skills, I'm hoping you can allow my profile to remain. If there is anything I can do to improve my chances to be on Wikipedia please let me know. The Wikipedia article is under: Vinay Chopra Vchopra2005 (talk) 16:39, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

@Vchopra2005: No, sorry, Wikipedia is not a place to promote yourself. We only write biographies about people meeting our notability guidelines. --NeilN talk to me 16:44, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Re: My talk page

Just in case you didn't see my response as it was archived pretty quickly, LOL! Although things actually seem to be okay for the time being.

Thank you, Nein. To explain, semi-protection is only 100% useful against IPs; however, not so much against registered accounts since they can easily make several edits in their user space to get around that by getting confirmed status, which our long-term sockpuppeteer has done in the past, and I wouldn't put it past them to do it again with only semi-protection on my talk page. Amaury (talk | contribs) 15:07, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Amaury (talk | contribs) 16:40, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Amaury. I did see your note before it was archived. I'm very reluctant to implement a higher level of protection than currently necessary per our protection policy. If the disruption you forecasted actually started occurring then I would definitely look at implementing 500/30. --NeilN talk to me 16:53, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
I actually agree with you. Everything actually seems to be okay for now. Amaury (talk | contribs) 17:00, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Stale report

I beg your pardon, sir. What's a stale report? Thank you.LakeKayak (talk) 17:11, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi LakeKayak. It means the vandalism you're reporting is stale. See point #3 at WP:AIV: "The warnings must have been given recently and the users must be active now, especially for unregistered users." The IP you reported last edited five days ago. --NeilN talk to me 17:18, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know.LakeKayak (talk) 17:19, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

IP on Donald Trump

Hi Neil, thank you for blocking the IP. Can you also revdel their now reverted comment on Donald Trump talk? I'd show a diff but then that would also need a revdel. Don't want to make work for you. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:22, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi SW3 5DL. Done. BTW, diffs don't need revdels. They show up like this. --NeilN talk to me 18:34, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for letting me know that and for deleting the edit. SW3 5DL (talk) 03:11, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Ken Sibanda

I was actually about to change it over to G5 given the most recent edit by a clear sock (see block) which is also a duck of the creator... Also the last Draft:Ken Sibanda was deleted as a g5 as well. Not sure if this makes any difference to your draftifying it but I've also opened an SPI since the behavior of the editors involved in creating the Sibanda spam seem to match that of the others. It was also recently denied at RfPP a few days ago for unsalting and before that was declined/denied at deletion review. Also would you mind revdeling that edit summary since it's pretty insulting. Cheers! Chrissymad ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 18:27, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Chrissymad. You're right. Another sock blocked and draft deleted. --NeilN talk to me 18:40, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for protecting Wilmington Grammar School for Girls

Hello, NeilN! Thank you for ending the ongoing vandalism on said page. I had previously warned one of the vandals (who had already recieved a ClueBotNG warning) and fixed vandalism in the grid on top of the article, but I didn't expect it to be revandalized so intensely and quickly. Because of the ongoing vandalism, I wanted to contact admins in order to get the article protected, unfortunately I was unable to find directions for doing so in the vandalism help pages. Is there a centralized area to report articles like this, which are currently being vandalized, so they will be protected by admins? Thank you -ImmernochEkelAlfred(Spam me! (or send me serious messages, whatever you like)) 19:41, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi ImmernochEkelAlfred. The place to request protection of pages that are being vandalized is WP:RFPP. If you activate the Twinkle gadget through your user preferences it makes reporting much easier. --NeilN talk to me 19:45, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! I'll try to get into it and keep Wikipedia safe and clean! -ImmernochEkelAlfred(Spam me! (or send me serious messages, whatever you like)) 19:52, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

TY for the welcome box! -ImmernochEkelAlfred(Spam me! (or send me serious messages, whatever you like)) 20:04, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks

Hello N. Thanks for this. I made several stabs at fixing it and failed. I appreciate your effort :-) MarnetteD|Talk 22:22, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

@MarnetteD: Ha! I won't tell you how many previews I did before I finally found the issue! --NeilN talk to me 22:26, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
We were trying them at the same time so that means there are no edit conflicts when using the preview button - heehee. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 22:30, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Vijayakanth wikipedia - Fake sources..

Greetings,

Wikipedia is the source to provide only the truth news and everyone across the world expects the same. While i come across vijayakanth wikipedia the information provided are irrelevant against him. Since he entered into Politician there will be more opposite party tell about the news to people in election campaign to win the election. And i am asking how that news will be true?? And there is a paid news magazine to publish that news. Whether that will be the source??? The source should be he directly involves the activity, humanity, speech, etc.. (For eg.. If someone tell wikipedia is worst and the paid newspaper publish those.. And how it will be the source).

Everyone expects Wikipedia should be a best source for the public to be realistic one. Hope you understand Sir/Mam.

Appreciate your support. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharvin Rajkumar (talk • contribs) 06:01, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Sharvin Rajkumar. "Irrelevant" info is a matter for discussion - please see WP:WEIGHT. Incorrect info can be taken out but you need to go slowly, and state why each piece of info you're removing is factually incorrect. --NeilN talk to me 06:06, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Greetings,

Expecting your reply Sir. Let me know can i edit the fake sources and news and also the caste (reason specified only for Political reason to decrease his image).

And also i can add his own Facebook account as a source for his personal life.

Appreciate your support. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharvin Rajkumar (talk • contribs) 06:10, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

@Sharvin Rajkumar: See my response above. You need to stop referring to "fake news" in your edit summaries - it's not helpful. The news isn't fake but the sources aren't backing up the article content. See this as an example of what to do. One edit, one piece of info dealt with, and one accurate edit summary. As for Facebook, please read WP:BLPSELFPUB. "Such material may be used as a source only if: 1) it is not unduly self-serving; 2) it does not involve claims about third parties; 3) it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject" --NeilN talk to me 06:23, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
@Sharvin Rajkumar: It looks like you opted not to take my advice and are censoring the sources you don't like. I'm not going to edit war with you so I'll leave you to it, but don't be surprised if the sources are restored. --NeilN talk to me 06:52, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Greetings,

As per your advice i have updated the information but right now i cannot see that now. And again the same fake one was representing in Wikipedia. I really feel even fake news were highly accepted in Wikipedia too. Thanks.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharvin Rajkumar (talk • contribs) 09:15, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

@Sharvin Rajkumar: No, definitely not "per my advice". That's why your blocked now. If you want to be unblocked, I suggest you actually read what I wrote above. --NeilN talk to me 15:35, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Edit war

Thank you for the information. But it is not a matter of Armenia and Azerbaijan. On the contrary, POV attachments made to the cities of Turkey. AND the discussion was ignored.--ArslanYabgu (talk) 17:56, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

@ArslanYabgu: You are editing Armenian-related content and on subjects historically tied directly to Armenia. The message informed you that "discretionary sanctions [can] be used for pages regarding Armenia". --NeilN talk to me 18:04, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
The articles I have made are about Turkey. These articles are not about Armenia but about Turkey. I do not remove the armenian name. When you look at it, you will see that it is in the relevant section. I started a discussion for discussion but editör ignored it and entered the editing war. Wikipedia is based on neutrality. No specific privilege granted to an ethnic origin. The changes that have been made violate the policy of neutrality.--ArslanYabgu (talk) 18:11, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
@ArslanYabgu: Removal of Armenian name, again with a city with significant Armenian ties, and Armenia again. You are welcome to edit in that area but you need to edit carefully. --NeilN talk to me 18:21, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
No I dont remove armenian name. Please review the article. You will see that spellings are in the relevant section. I give you an example. Kashgar is a historically and today uyghur city. Uighur spelling is located in the relevant section. That's what's right. And there are no Armenian population in these Turkey cities. Armenian language is not official or used language. If spelling is brought to the head of the article. This wikipedia will be used for propaganda purposes.--ArslanYabgu (talk) 18:47, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
@ArslanYabgu: I gave you the diffs showing what you did what you say you didn't. Please click on the links above. I do not think you'll be editing in this area for very long if you deny basic facts about your editing. --NeilN talk to me 18:55, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Armenian spelling is already included in the article. I removed this from the lead of the article. Already in the relevant section. When you look, you will see. I made a statement in the discussion. This is ignored.--ArslanYabgu (talk) 19:00, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
@ArslanYabgu: And so, your editing indicates informing you about discretionary sanctions in this area was warranted. You can choose to ignore the information but you can't say you are unaware of it. --NeilN talk to me 19:05, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Interpretation of D/S

Hi NeilN, I actually think your interpretation of D/S was totally sound. The question is, how on earth this is being applied at 2016 United States election interference by Russia.

When you can, please look at the diffs related to 1) the removal of Sprey, Binney and McGovern's comments, 2) the reverts of those removals, and 3) the reinstatements of the contested removals:

Sequence of Diffs

Those are all the diffs relating to the current dispute at WP:AE#Thucydides411 and WP:AE#Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Thucydides411. As is clear from the diffs, there is no relationship between Coffee's reasoning and their enforcement decision: their explanation would require blocking SPECIFICO, Volunteer Marek, Only in Death, Space4Time3Continuum2x, and Geogene. As I point out in my comment, your interpretation would include blocking Thucydides411, MelbourneStar, Guccisamsclub, and Only in Death). -Darouet (talk) 18:27, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Darouet, I've commented on both Thucydides411's talk page and at AE. --NeilN talk to me 01:10, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
@NeilN: Thanks, I'll check your comments there. I may have already seen the AE comment. -Darouet (talk) 01:23, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
@NeilN: yes, your comment at AE and at Thucydides411's talk is again spot on.
You write, "The meaning of "long-standing" changes from article to article. As with Donald Trump, I would take it to mean 4-6 weeks for this article." This is the the situation we had at 2016 United States election interference by Russia for the Binney/McGovern/Sprey commentaries. Only a few days prior to this particular dispute, MelanieN reverted two major, recent changes by BlueSalix [26] and Volunteer Marek [27], explaining as you have, "removal of longstanding material actually counts as an "edit", which under the DS can be reverted and should then not be removed again without consensus." [28].
Available diffs show that the "second scenario" that you describe is exactly what occurred at the article. This implicates SPECIFICO, Volunteer Marek, Only in Death, Space4Time3Continuum2x, and Geogene as as editors "A" (1RR vio), and Thucydides411, MelbourneStar, Guccisamsclub, and Only in Death as editors "B" (also 1RR vio). If any of these editors had agreed to mediation, this would never have happened. -Darouet (talk) 01:35, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
@Darouet: I believe I was the main non-involved admin at Donald Trump last June-August (before I started travelling) and found that it needed active admin intervention to keep things running semi-smoothly. I don't mean blocks but watching the article and talk page and posting reminders about restrictions when necessary. AE requests are much easier to deal with when you can show everyone knew the rules and were treated as consistently as possible. --NeilN talk to me 01:47, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
@NeilN: I don't envy your former obligation at Donald Trump: I have avoided the page for the sake of my personal sanity, and because the daily news in the US is also no source of peace. But it must have been interesting to have been involved then, to shed light on the outcome of the election shortly afterward.
My fear at 2016 United States election interference by Russia is that while you are wholly correct in your interpretation of DS, these regulations were not understood, and remain poorly understood (even by Sandstein). Even more importantly, in the dispute in question, the rules have not been treated or applied consistently. -Darouet (talk) 01:59, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

User:Heididoerr061

Consistent misuse of commas and hyphens, and refusal to engage other editors and/or learn from her mistakes. Can we give her a few days off? Thanks. —ATS 🖖 talk 22:05, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

@ATS: See here. I will block if they don't respond. --NeilN talk to me 00:02, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Much obliged. —ATS 🖖 talk 00:04, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Update: after a four-day break, she returned, ignoring your message. Perhaps a week off, perhaps two? Thanks again. —ATS 🖖 talk 02:02, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

@ATS: One week. --NeilN talk to me 02:49, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Update: block expired, literally right back at it. Unfathomable. —ATS 🖖 talk 19:41, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

One month now. --NeilN talk to me 20:03, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Bastille

Thanks for the page protection. Does this warrant a WP:RevDel I wonder? Karst (talk) 17:50, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

@Karst: Yes, done. Thanks for the catch. --NeilN talk to me 17:54, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Removal of content

Try to understand that it was a disputed information.It was me who had added it and i deleted it as i thought it was not appropriate.Any one is free to edit the article.I didn't claim any copyright of the article.All i said that i have been updating it since the beginning and i will continue to do so. Thank you for your advice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karankhajuria22 (talk • contribs) 21:33, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

@Karankhajuria22: To be accurate, that's not what you said here - "the authorities wanted me to remove the content that was controversial." --NeilN talk to me 21:38, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
@NeilN: It was not under the influence of authorities.All they did was question the grounds of information i added.I had no rigid ground for that information so i removed it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karankhajuria22 (talk • contribs) 23:13, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Karankhajuria22, did you see the article talk page? I offered to rewrite that section. And please start signing your posts by typing ~~~~ at the end of them. --NeilN talk to me 23:20, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Nsmutte

While I've got your attention, I've just found another one: Omkimkum (talk · contribs). 208.54.5.204 (talk) 04:44, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Found another one, see this: Pulihota (talk · contribs). 208.54.5.204 (talk) 05:02, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Blocky, blocky, block, block, block. --NeilN talk to me 05:04, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

About that research

Heya: I have made a project page for that research we discussed. I am sorry that I kind of went off at you… But I really think you did inform some of my thoughts about the matter later in the conversation. You can find the research project page @ Wikipedia:Page protection research. I would hope you can give some views on how it’s coming along on the talk page if you’d like. Wiki-Coffee Talk 14:10, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

@Wiki-Coffee: Thanks. I will take a look when I get a chance. Your prodding did spark one idea. Have a look at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(idea_lab)#Allowing_extended-confirmed_editors_to_turn_off_protection --NeilN talk to me 14:25, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

 Hey, I need some time: and I will review that content you posted. Well I am glad my prodding got some place ;) I don't mean to flatter myself but much of my prodding attempting does render happy endings... >.>. Either way, thank you for picking up on my ideas and turning them into something. I appreciate that. When you have time to look at that research article you could pass by the summery section and holla your views on how I can improve it on the talk? Wiki-Coffee Talk 14:36, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @Wiki-Coffee:

Woop! I agree: ;) O Fortuna!...Imperatrix mundi. 17:58, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

You made a mistake

You restored two categories to Category:People of Jewish descent, based on the Rfc on the talkpage. Apart from the fact that this was the first closure of a non-admin, in a case of 7:7, he clearly made a mistake when he said "Closed as Keep... a supported status quo.", because the categories were absent form the category page at least since 2013, so the status quo is to not have them. That is in addition to the very real possibility that part of the editors in the RFC were trumped up especially for that discussion, like what I reported recently on WP:ANI in Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Category:Jews. Debresser (talk) 16:47, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

@Debresser: And again, the close was upheld upon review. --NeilN talk to me 17:01, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
You can see for yourself how not serious that review was. As almost all reviews, by the way. In any case, there is the WP:MEAT issue also. Debresser (talk) 17:07, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
@Debresser: If you think the close and review were tainted, then you can bring that up at WP:ANI. I cannot be overturning closes made in good faith just on my say so. --NeilN talk to me 17:16, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
I just did some research: 4 of the 7 editors who voted "keep" there are suspicious. Please see the WP:ANI thread. Debresser (talk) 17:44, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
@Debresser: I do not see any ANI thread about overturning the RFC and review? --NeilN talk to me 17:48, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
It is in the same Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Category:Jews you commented on recently. Debresser (talk) 17:49, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

::::::NeilN, I think they were referring to this one. O Fortuna!...Imperatrix mundi. 17:51, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

@Debresser: It would have been better to create a new section or at least sub-section. In any case, please notify RFC and review participants and closers. --NeilN talk to me 18:01, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

This appears to be turning into a witch hunt. Instead of accepting the outcome of the RFC, you are moving to discredit users who voted against you. Fantastic.

Moreover, it was an !vote decision. Majority vote is, and was, irrelevant, a fact that you conveniently forget.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 18:31, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

The Human Trumpet Solo made 7 edits between that Rfc and the new uprise of the WP:MEAT issue... Debresser (talk) 18:51, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
@NeilN I made a subsection on that WP:ANI thread per your advice. Debresser (talk) 18:57, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

NeilN, why is an RFC on Categories of Jewish Descent being applied to ALL categories with Jews in it? The RFC was specific about "descent." Trumpet Solo is now reverting all categories with Jew in it and adding DESCENT categories in it. It is quite clear that the RFC did not cover that. Sir Joseph (talk) 21:31, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I have real life obligations and only occasionally check articles that are on my watchlist, with this issue being one of them. You are being way out of line here.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 21:31, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Replied here. Unless you specifically want to discuss my actions, let's please keep the discussion there. --NeilN talk to me 21:53, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Debresser and Sir Joseph

I understand that you were involved in this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Debresser_and_Sir_Joseph

The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 18:25, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

AE Russians and Reverts

Greetings NeilN. RE: your recent statement -- I know that's kind of the way the situation is being portrayed by a group of editors who are defending various content of theirs, now being disputed, but I feel that they're citing various "principles" that do not apply to their situation. In particular, the Russian Interference article has very little content that's more than "2 months old" and none of the stuff that's being challenged is "longstanding" by any reasonable definition. This is a long complicated article with all kinds of text and references and not every editor (most editors arrived two months ago or less) has gone over the article and checked all the content and references. On some articles, for example Donald Trump, there is a long history and disputed content has been discussed at length among many editors who decided on a consensus version. That's not at all the case on a new article with a disproportionate amount of news content where the subject matter itself is changing day by day. At any rate I think you know all of what I just said, but I'm here because the editors who are defending their right to reinsert disputed content into the article are falsely applying advice from Admins who were not describing either the background situation or the behavioral history of this particular article. The principles they are projecting on this article were never intended to apply to the current set of facts. If they wish to have a general community discussion about improving AE and DS and the definitions of Arbcom decisions, they should do so in the proper venue, not on user talk pages and AE threads. SPECIFICO talk 21:04, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: If the material was always in flux then it shouldn't be hard to disprove the longstanding assertion. Regardless, that restriction has been replaced by the regular WP:1RR. --NeilN talk to me 21:37, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
No, it's not that it was always in flux. It's that there is lots of stuff there and new editors join all the time and most editors are keeping up with more recent additions, and that your 2 month test is not met by the stuff that's claimed "longstanding" and that the test of longstanding therefore stable and consensus, while it applies to less contentious, more widely followed, and older articles like "Otto von Bismarck" or "Chicago Cubs", doesn't really apply here. Anyway I think the main point is that all the fragmented discussions need to be consolidated on some community-wide page, such as ARCA or anywhere else you think is appropriate -- I'm not experienced enough to know. SPECIFICO talk 23:11, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

SPI PP

Well now how are we gonna let the socks out themselves? XD Chrissymad ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 18:44, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Chrissymad Toss em in a dryer and hope they get lost. --NeilN talk to me 18:47, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
I have a list of some that I'm watching for contribs now (very similar naming conventions) so might get an influx on that SPI soon. Chrissymad ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 18:49, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Psychosocial (song)

Semi-protect the page to persistent long term abuse for nu metal genre warrior. 123.136.106.67 (talk) 23:00, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

BU Rob13 has blocked the IP range. --NeilN talk to me 11:46, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, NeilN. You have new messages at Dewritech's talk page.
Message added 14:50, 24 February 2017 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Dewritech (talk) 14:50, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Revision deletion

I'm thinking this this should be removed from public view under grossly insulting or whatever's most appropriate as well as any diffs associated to it, of course, such as Sro23's revert right after that so it can't be viewed anywhere. Amaury (talk | contribs) 04:12, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

@Amaury: Yes, done, thanks. --NeilN talk to me 05:26, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

The Russian Bride

Hi, can you please recreate the deleted article The Russian Bride, including its history, in draft space? Lyrda (talk) 14:14, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

@Lyrda: Done - Draft:The Russian Bride --NeilN talk to me 14:23, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Pete wolf vandal

The ip back now here.★Trekker (talk) 17:52, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

@*Treker: Thanks. IP blocked. Short semi on the article with a longer pending changes. --NeilN talk to me 17:59, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Ah, thank you. It's a relief to have it fixed so quickly.★Trekker (talk) 18:00, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
@*Treker: You found an admin who knows the scoop :-) User talk:NeilN/Archive_33#Another_Favor_to_Ask --NeilN talk to me 18:20, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Disruptive IP

Hi Neil, this IP user is continuing to edit war even after receiving an ARBIPA alert. The pages have been semi-protected for a while, but he/she resumes after it lifts. Can you tackle him? Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 18:17, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: Well, that was rather easy. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sheikh17 - six months. --NeilN talk to me 18:26, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protect request

Can you semi-protect Memories...Do Not Open and Something Just Like This to persistent disruptive editing. 183.171.183.140 (talk) 18:28, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Three days each. Non-emergencies or requests for articles that I'm not familiar with should probably go to WP:RFPP. --NeilN talk to me 18:33, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Why do you support profane and hateful page?

This page [[29]] is profane, offensive and hateful. The authors are some ukrainians. I can expect such behavior from them. They are just haters and nazi. But you are german taking your nickname you shouldn't condone this. This odor page creates bad reputation of Wiki. I will refrain to donate Wiki in future as I did before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickusa1 (talk • contribs) 18:55, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

@Nickusa1: Please see WP:NOTCENSOR. Wikipedia covers topics that various groups will find intensely distasteful. --NeilN talk to me 18:58, 25 February 2017 (UTC)


Seems like german admin got together with their ukrainian servants like it was in WW2 and both attack Russia. This is russophobia and YOU promote it. As the result you alienate big nation. Russians will not forget such insults like this page supported by you. It is objective not just my interpretation. As the result it will add little bit to the common opinion that Germany did not change from time of Adolf. --Nickusa1 (talk) 22:07, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

@Nickusa1: Are you aware that making threats on Wikipedia is a bannable offense?--Mr Fink (talk) 22:34, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

And where you see the threats? Don't be ridiculous. I just assess what this admin does. He exercises russofobia supporting and condoning insulting page toward Russian president. As their result he will alienate the mass of Russian people. He do it not me. I'm just a messenger here. If it is a policy of Wiki which I doubt it is plain stupid. If it is his prejudice then he does disservice to Wiki. --96.231.153.129 (talk) 22:42, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

In English, a phrase like "Russians will not forget such insults like this page supported by you" is regarded as a blatant threat in the form of a promise of future harm. Please do not be stupid enough to assume other editors are stupid enough to be ignorant of this.--Mr Fink (talk) 22:47, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Common I just messenger here. This insulting page is just a big offense for Russian people. Better to delete it on base of insulting Russia. But you do whatever you wish. I stop here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickusa1 (talk • contribs) 22:59, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Again, @Nickusa1:, WP:Wikipedia is not censored: Threats of Russian retaliation will not change this beyond getting you blocked for making vague and ominous passive aggressive threats.--Mr Fink (talk) 23:02, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Ein Bier, bitte. And thus, we have covered the extent of my German. --NeilN talk to me 00:16, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Edit summary

Your edit summary expressed my sentient exactly. Or wait ... was that unintentional? :-) Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 22:50, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Freudian edit slip. Yes, that was it, definitely. --NeilN talk to me 00:22, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Al-Baqara

Neil, thx for taking care of the other matter. I'm calling on you again. I'm very much mobile and something has been going wrong in this article: if I mistyped, it's the third sura of the Qur'an. I think an editor dropped the entire text in--I can't tell (it won't load in the Wikipedia app) and I can't revert since it's so much content it blows up my phone (in the desktop version). Can you please have a look and revert if that's warranted? Thanks again, Drmies (talk) 04:02, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

@Drmies: Fixed. Will talk to editor. --NeilN talk to me 04:05, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  • First time I hear that word outside of Hello Nasty. Not really "carousing" though--I'm trying to read the Qur'an and I do it late at night. Thanks Neil, Drmies (talk) 14:38, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

possible block

NielN, did you notice User:I pour boiling water on people's name? That name's not nice. L.S. inc. (talk) 14:36, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi L.S. inc.. Already blocked by Samtar. --NeilN talk to me 14:38, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
I know. it's like you create a task on your tasklist and you turn around to do it and it's already done. :) L.S. inc. (talk) 14:41, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Category people of Jewish descent

Hi there, you protected that category and reverted to what was then the rfc approved. At ANI, El_c overturned that closure. Can you either remove the protection so I can remove those two categories, or can you leave protection in, but you remove the categories? Thanks, SJ, Sir Joseph (talk) 19:34, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

@Sir Joseph: See this. --NeilN talk to me 19:59, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
thank you, so is it alright if I remove the categories? Sir Joseph (talk) 20:04, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
@Sir Joseph: Yes, that's all right. --NeilN talk to me 20:06, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Pančić Peak

NeilN, its ok to leave Pančić's Peak at full protection, but please restore stable version, there are no one to discus changes with, and its locked on, yes, you may guess, WRONGVERSION. :) But really, please restore agreed version before IP . --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 23:49, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

@Anastan: It is at the stable version. [30] And note the CU for the other editor has been declined [31] and they have not been blocked as a sock. --NeilN talk to me 00:35, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Disruptive IP's block doesn't seem to be holding

Hi, NeilN. I just wanted to give you a head's up that at User talk:2601:584:4500:2AE0:B81B:141E:9577:4773, it says the user has been blocked for a month since Feb. 11, 2017 (though a different, related IP address appears in an accompanying note —2601:584:4500:2ae0::/6). However, this IP was editing today. I thought you'd want to know, in case the blocking software is glitching. With thanks for all your help, --Tenebrae (talk) 00:57, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

The anons edit warring to remove "comedian" from Christopher Lloyd are socks of banned User:Bigshowandkane64, who has a seemingly unlimited arsenal of IP's as their disposal. Even range blocks are often ineffective, so most of the time the only way to end the disruption is semi-protection of the targeted pages. Sro23 (talk) 01:02, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
@Tenebrae and Sro23: Today's IP was 2600:1000:B073:64CF:84FB:B9BA:710C:A9CE which is outside the range. Page protected for a month. --NeilN talk to me 01:20, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, NeilN. You have new messages at Blurp92's talk page.
Message added 23:08, 28 February 2017 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Blurp92 (talk) 23:08, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Archive 30←Archive 33Archive 34Archive 35Archive 36Archive 37→Archive 40
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:NeilN/Archive_35&oldid=1085839686"