User talk:NeilN

dogs again

What exactly did I do? I explained why they're not apex predators! TheFeralCat (talk) 17:34, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

TheFeralCat, editors don't care about your "explanations" if they're not accompanied by reliable published sources. I could "explain" why I thought dogs ate cats but I would get the same reception if I didn't provide sources. Stop edit warring and present sources. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:55, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Because there's no evidence dogs eat cats, and I can't show anything that say they don't, but I know they don't because all the things I've heard of dogs killing cats say they leave them, and the story with my dog, and my cat's mother story. TheFeralCat (talk) 18:51, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

TheFeralCat And no on is going to pay attention to your anecdotes. WP:V: "Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors." Other editors have told you this. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:12, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

it's a fact they don't eat cats. i can't produce proof but i know it's true, proof they do eat them? And everyone knows they leave them most of the time, so it would be more accurate to put that they kill them, and killing can lead to preying on anyway. TheFeralCat (talk) 20:48, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

TheFeralCat, can you please stop adding a new section every time you post? And "but i know it's true" is not an accepted rebuttal to sourced statements. Example from Dingo: Their consumption of domestic cats has also been proven. If you want other editors to listen to you, you need to provide sources that contradict existing sources. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:06, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

References

Ok, can I just say something? Killing can lead to preying on, and I need evidence they do eat cats. I know for a fact dogs almost always leave the cats they kill. If you put "kill", then that makes more sense, as if they kill them they usually leave them, and they can eat them after they kill them. If you let me edit this, and fix the wildcat page, I will never bother anything again. TheFeralCat (talk) 16:06, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

TheFeralCat, I'm acting as an administrator here, who has warned you against edit warring and tried to explain our verifiability and sourcing policies. If you want to make a change, you'll have to engage the editors opposing it. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:13, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Found this on dogs not eating cats: https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20111219204735AAu4a40 TheFeralCat (talk) 16:34, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

TheFeralCat, please actually read the reliable source guideline. Yahoo Answers is no better than "I know for a fact". --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:08, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

I forgot to follow through and actually revoke the talk page access. Thanks for catching that! OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:08, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

@Ohnoitsjamie: It was either that or have the page appear at the top of my watchlist for the next half-hour as the user made another twenty edits :-/ --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:12, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Oops!

Plip!

(or maybe a trout) to me for that revert. Thanks for cleaning it up! TheMesquito^buzz 02:16, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Protection level

Hi NieN, The Yo Yo Honey Singh is currently Semi-protected please set protection level of page to Pending changes protected (level 1). Thankyou. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Þørnø $ (talk • contribs) 13:19, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

@Þørnø $: It was RegentsPark who set the semi. You should ask them first. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:24, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

 Done NeilN, you have carte blanche to undo or change any admin action of mine!--regentspark (comment) 17:54, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

regentspark, thanks. I usually follow the guideline of asking the protecting admin first as they might have some insight as to why protection was set that way. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:59, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring on political correctness

I know that this is the standard complaint, but PC was left in the wrong version, the one that has nobody's agreement. Other editors had (and I just had) pointed to the possibility of DRN or RfC to the user you blocked. In the circumstances, may I revert once myself? Should I leave it to another 'regular'? There are actually few serious disputes on the article, most of us who have it on our watchlist, do so because we know it to be a target for pov-pushing from IP's and from newbie editors. Pincrete (talk) 20:44, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Pincrete, please leave it for another editor. Watchers of this talk page may chime in and have an independent look at the edit and discussion. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:49, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Could we get a block?

The IP 181.198.164.8 keeps changing the dates on Millennials and Generation Z. Could we get a warning and then a block if they persist? Thanks. 2606:6000:610A:9000:F802:B5B:AFCA:5526 (talk) 21:01, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Added an edit warring warning. Obviously I can't block but I'll keep an eye out. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:04, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Revdel at Wikipedia talk:Protection policy

Hi, you didn't need to do this nor did you need to revdel the edit of 20:16, 16 October 2015. Consider this situation on the same page from earlier this year: one bad edit, one revert; only the first edit needed to be revdelled. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:08, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

@Redrose64: One unnecessary revdel. Got it, thanks. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:25, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Redacting a sock puppet

Hi Neil, can you please redact puppets and masters related to puppet [[Warner Sun]]. Thank you. ...Checkingfax ( Talk ) 03:04, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

@Checkingfax: Redact? Not sure what you want me to do here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:17, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I was hoping you could vaporize their disruptive input to Wikipedia. Cheers! ...Checkingfax ( Talk ) 04:20, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

@Checkingfax: Can't do that as that's normal disruption and not covered by WP:CRD. There was an admin who tried that with another socker. He got taken to ANI and dramah ensued. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:26, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm... somewhere yesterday I read a blurb that it was SOP if requested. Thanks! ...Checkingfax ( Talk ) 04:28, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

review methods

Hey NeilN, I have started up reviewing again recently with the help of the new tool (not sure of the name but buttons appear on the side of my browser allowing me to mark pages as reviewed with a tick). I have generally been giving users the benefit of the doubt and in cases of articles that might not be notable I added more references needed, if there are no references, then I add the unref tag. I have been feeling the notability tag is a bit too harsh and not wanting to scare the newecombers away. As for that article that you linked, that's my bad as I felt since it was linked it wasn't an intended copyvio (i.e. person just added from that page with the intention of rewording it later). Of course if another person looks at the article and feels it should be deleted then I don't mind, as I feel an extra set of eyes having a look is better than me being bold and nominating the page for deletion. I hope this answers your question. Kind regards, Calaka (talk) 11:34, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Same reasoning for the trekking article. Giving it a chance for the person to add more references to prove its notability with additional articles/sources. If they do not respond or don't add more sources proving its notability, then I would agree to another user adding the article to be nominated for deletion/prod. Cheers.Calaka (talk) 11:37, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Hmm the Colleen article can be rewritten to be less promotional sounding, would you suggest they are not notable?Calaka (talk) 11:41, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Calaka, please stop reviewing and carefully read through Wikipedia:New pages patrol, noting the copyright violation instructions and: "Does the article have any other glaring issues? Try to fix them. If you can't, then check Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup for any appropriate cleanup tags that might need to be applied to the article." If you have reviewed an article, you cannot let copyright violations be dealt with by another editor. I don't see any speedy delete or prod tagging by you. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 11:51, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Apologies.Calaka (talk) 11:54, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Infobox mystery

Hello, I have a question. In the Presidents Cup info box, do you happen to know why the past year and the next year randomly decide whether they want to appear in the info box? ... If you look at the 2015 Presidents Cup info box, you will see that the year "2013" appears as the past year, but there is no "2017" appearing as the next year. On the other hand, if you look at the 2017 Presidents Cup info box, you will find that the past year "2015" is there, AND the next year "2019" (in red link) is there as well. ... These years appear randomly for some strange reason, and I don't see any way to control it within the info box. Do you know why this is the case, and do you know any way to get it within our control? Johnsmith2116 (talk) 17:26, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

@Johnsmith2116: My guess is that it's the template code but I cannot see what needs fixing. Pinging @Pigsonthewing and Nigej: for some ideas. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:53, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Beyond me; it may be worth asking at WP:VPT. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:06, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

The code for the next year in Template:Infobox team golf tournament is

{{#switch:{{{year}}}|2000=[[2003 {{{name}}}|2003 →]]|{{CURRENTYEAR}}=|{{#expr:{{CURRENTYEAR}}+1}}=|#default=[[{{#expr:{{{year}}}+2}} {{{name}}}|{{#expr:{{{year}}}+2}} →]]}}

Since {{{year}}} equals {{CURRENTYEAR}} on the 2015 page, the {{#switch}} evaluates to nothing, whereas on the 2017 page it uses the #default case (a link to the tournament two years ahead). SiBr₄ (talk) 18:27, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

@SiBr4: Any idea how to fix this? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:31, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

It depends on what the wanted behavior is. Should the 2015 page include a link to the next tournament, or should 2017 not include it? SiBr₄ (talk) 18:37, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

@SiBr4: 2015 should include a link to 2017. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:44, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

@SiBr4: [1] works on User:NQ-Alt/sandbox/new. Is that it? - NQ-Alt (talk) 18:50, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes, those CURRENTYEAR cases are what prevents the link from showing up in this year's tournament. I removed them in the real template (for the Presidents Cup only) before I saw your newer post. SiBr₄ (talk) 18:57, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

@SiBr4: 2015 should include 2013 as the "past" year, and 2017 as the "next" year. And equally, 2017 should include 2015 as the "past" year, and 2019 as the "next" year. Johnsmith2116 (talk) 18:55, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Now I notice that the desired result of having the "2017" show as the "next" year on the 2015 article is there, as of a few minutes ago. How did that happen? Did someone here do something? If so, please tell me so I can know if for future articles. Johnsmith2116 (talk) 19:02, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Johnsmith2116, it was a coding change to the infobox template. [2] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:09, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks @SiBr4: and Neil. It appears to be alright now. I also had the same issue with the Solheim Cup page, so I followed what was done on the Infobox template, and it is now also okay. Johnsmith2116 (talk) 19:20, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

My edits on Satanism

Hello, I'm kind of new to wikipedia. Before my edit on Satanism, I hadn't done any edits before (though I have used wikipedia for research in the past). I didn't change much, I just wanted to add a link I thought would be useful to those looking into Satanism. But it was deemed inappropriate... Could I please know why? Was it the format? I'm not sure how to embed links on wikipedia but I'll read up more on it if needed. Thank You For Your Time! Mrs. Richard Wagner 666 (talk) 19:06, 17 October 2015 (UTC)Mrs. Richard Wagner 666

Mrs. Richard Wagner 666, the site is inappropriate. Please see WP:ELNO #11: "Blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority. (This exception for blogs, etc., controlled by recognized authorities is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities who are individuals always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for people.)" --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:12, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Why is this site not recognized? It provides more information on Satanism than any of the sites listed. It is a good source of information. Perhaps even though it is not recognized it could be considered a primary source :) Thank you for your time :) Mrs. Richard Wagner 666 (talk) 20:12, 17 October 2015 (UTC)Mrs. Richard Wagner 666

Mrs. Richard Wagner 666, what academic sources or experts in the field have covered the site? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:16, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

High Priestess Maxine Dietrich is the founder of Joy of Satan Ministries and the website joyofsatan.org. Being a high priestess, she is very expert on Satanism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrs. Richard Wagner 666 (talk • contribs) 20:28, 17 October 2015 (UTC) Sorry, for got to sign! Mrs. Richard Wagner 666 (talk) 20:34, 17 October 2015 (UTC)Mrs. Richard Wagner 666

Mrs. Richard Wagner 666, Maxine Dietrich has no Wikipedia article. "...as a minimum standard, recognized authorities who are individuals always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for people...". Bottom line, you will need to find a recognized independent expert (by Wikipedia standards) that states Dietrich is a recognized authority. Anyone can claim to be an expert in a subject and editors' opinions on that expertise don't matter. It's what other experts (preferably academics) say that matters. Otherwise, we'd have links to 10,000 blogs about Taylor Swift written by "experts" on Swift. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:57, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

We have an article on Marlene Dietrich. Isn't that good enough? And I didn't know that Taylor Swift was into satanism? Be careful or you'll have hundreds of Swift fans cursing you.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:09, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Bbb23, oh I'm well aware that Swift fans can easily rival soccer fans in terms of crazed devotion. Was with a couple of younger female relatives and their friends a couple weeks ago and made the mistake of opining on Swift's body of work. Oh. My. God. I would have gotten a more gentle reaction if I stuck "He was born in Kenya!" in Obama's article. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:21, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Some relevant reading regarding OP. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:36, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Santacon

Hi Neil, the Santacon page was brought to my attention. After viewing it, it is biased based on sensational media coverage. 1. It is biased to New York. 2. It is biased negatively. Now, the NY event has it's issues. But it is wrong to attribute the NY event to all Santacon events. I have organized the event in LA for almost 10 years, and we have never had these kinds of issues or coverage.

Additionally, the LA Times citation, is a news story about the New York event. It is incorrectly attributed to another city.

I seek to include balanced view of the event. How might I go about doing this without having all my edits changed?

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vsnt777 (talk • contribs) 19:23, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Vsnt777. You'll need to find reliable sources covering the other events and add a summary of what they say to the article. Also, please read our conflict of interest guidelines. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:29, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

There are issues of reliable sources around this event due to its subversive nature. If all "reliable news coverage" is sensationalized media, wikipedia is showing a biased, incorrect view. In lieu of "reliable sources" I request the NY coverage edited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vsnt777 (talk • contribs) 19:31, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Vsnt777, if the event is covered by reliable sources due to its subversive nature, then that's what is going to get highlighted in the article. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:36, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh come on. The NY articles are sensational pieces written to drive eyeballs for advertising revenue. In some ways, wikipedia using these"reliable sources" is furthering the capitalist nature of Xmas. One of the points of Santacon is to challenge capitalism, and give people a fun, festive way to fight the commercialization of life. The way the wikipedia entry is written, one might assume that the NY event is THE only event. I have no issue with the NY coverage. But I have a LOT of issue with that event being the only one covered. Because, based on one of your sources (santarchy.com) there are over 100 santacon events that happen every year. Most are not like NY. So wikipedia covers only the worst actor because it gets "reliable" media attention?

I went back to check the media coverage of past years in LA, and those pages are 404. While you can say I have a conflict of interest, because I am a primary organizer, I am also the best source on what has happened with this event in LA and on the West Coast. I have kept the LA event true to classic cacophony ideals under my steward. And this is exactly why the LA event (and many other events) do not get sensational coverage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vsnt777 (talk • contribs) 19:44, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Vsnt777, sources don't have to be online. You can go to the library and dig up newspaper coverage from archives (either offline or online - they should have accounts to news archive services). And again, Wikipedia summarizes what other sources deem notable. A SantaCon event in Podunk, Nebraka is unlikely to generate much coverage so it's not going to be mentioned. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:52, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

{tpw} Delayed response, but I think the editor's complaint could be construed as a complaint that the article violates WP:BALANCE.  Etamni ^mobile | ✉ | ✓ 20:07, 6 November 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Etamni-m (talk • contribs)

Hello

Hello. I made a comment over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women#WikiProject Men saying that I disagreed with the creation of the Wikiproject and it's principles, and that I didn't see the point of it. In turn, an admin by the name of Rosiestep has made a threatening comment to me accusing me of harassment (despite me just saying that I disagree with the Wikiproject's creation and ideas which is not harassment, I've never even heard of or spoken to her before) by saying to me "I'm an admin and I've never taken someone to task at ANI, but if you continue your harassment-like tone (that's how I perceive it), you'll be my #1." I think it is an abuse of the power given to an admin and it is not something that should be used to attempt to install fear in an editor and an "I'll have you reported" mentality. Saying that I will be her number-one person to report despite not having anything to report me for I think is incredibly poor behaviour from an admin. To me, this is not someone who should be an admin if they are going to make threatening remarks just because you don't share their opinion and use their position to act a cut above the rest.  — Calvin999 19:52, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

@Calvin999: Let me get clarification from the admin. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:01, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Something tells me that you won't be getting a reply anytime soon!  — Calvin999 20:46, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

M1 (Istanbul Metro) issue

Hi, NeilN. I thought I'd run something by you – there's been a IP-shifting editor that's been engaged in what I'd consider to be a low-grade edit war at M1 (Istanbul Metro). The most recent iteration of this has been the IP replacing direct links to the articles on the stations along this rapid transit line to articles... that are not about the stations. I really don't know what to do here – if I revert again, I'm afraid I'll be effectively edit warring as well. And I don't know how to communicate with this IP as they keep shifting (and I'm not even sure communicating with them will be fruitful anyway – I may have even tried that in the past... I can't remember for sure). Anyway, any ideas here? Thanks in advance... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:57, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

IJBall, I've protected for one week. What I usually do in these cases is outline my concerns on the article's talk page. Then, if I'm reverted again with no attempt at communication, I will revert with an edit summary of "per talk page". If I'm re-reverted, I will look for admin help using the appropriate channel. It's easier for admins to take action if they see good-faith attempts at resolving the issue are being ignored. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:13, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

OK, thanks! – I'll hit the article's Talk page, and see what happens. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:21, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Cholesterol 7-alpha-hydroxylase

Hello Nei1N, we are students of Medicine of the University of Barcelona and we are doing a Chemistry project in which we have to improve the information about one topic on Wikipedia. This project was created few years ago by the University itself (here is the information https://ca.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viquiprojecte:Bioqu%C3%ADmica_UB). You have to know that our information is taken from books and we do have references. So PLEASE don't erase every information we are uploading. If you would like to know more let me know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BQUB15-Agarno (talk • contribs) 00:02, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Hopefully resolved. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:51, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Name

Hy User:NeiIN, I hope u are doing well. My request is to change the name of article Nondenominational Muslim to Non-denomenational Muslim. Thanks! Septate (talk) 05:20, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Septate, moved to Non-denominational Muslim. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:41, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

updating article whilst avoiding vandalism

Why did you remove the list of national winners from the EMA article just because a couple of stans of my favourite act of the winners (and the most unexpected of them) seriously vandalized the page? Keep protecting the article though, and Remember to cite using the EMA voting page for regions.Elaych22 (talk) 07:59, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Elaych22, I did not remove anything. I just protected the page to stop the rapid vandalism and unsourced edits. I see you've posted an edit request on the talk page and another editor has responded. If you have a bit of patience, it should all work out. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:45, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

From WP:AIV

I think your warning may not have gone through (reference: your post on AIV), as I don't see your name on the talk page edit history. --JustBerry (talk) 14:39, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

JustBerry, yes, unfortunately there's no "Warned by..." option. In this case the editor was warned by Anthony Bradbury. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:44, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Sounds good, just making sure. P.S. You can use Template:Await and add bold text after it. --JustBerry (talk) 14:46, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, NeilN. You have new messages at IsraphelMac's talk page.
Message added 20:45, 18 October 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

IsraphelMac (talk) 20:45, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Stephen Harper Article

Thank you for putting a tag on the Environmental Policy section of the Stephen Harper article, and for not reverting more than twice. I look forward to discussion specific areas of the article with you on the talk page. I am currently in a discussion with User:Patar knight on the talk page. My inclusion of the Lower Churchill project in the article in particular was thanked by User:Ntb613 on (13 Oct 2015)Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk) 07:49, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Kashmir conflict continued

I guess the RPP got deleted this morning. I don't have a problem with 1RR. In fact, I always edit as if 1RR is in effect. But with a page like Kashmir conflict, you get IP hoppers, off-wiki canvassing and POV pushing. So 1RR is counterproductive. It disadvantages the serious editors while giving a "free reign" to the POV pushers. It won't work unless you are willing to police it. If you are going to police it, I am quite happy with 1RR. - Kautilya3 (talk) 11:28, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Kautilya3, look in the rolling archives for a suggestion. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:07, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Is this what you mean? I believe the argument is centered around what belongs in the lead, correct? This article covers a timeframe of about 70 years so anything in the lead should describe events that have significant historical impact. You might want to ask editors to find sources that provide a historical overview of the conflict (instead of cherrypicking "news of the day" pieces) and see what they mention in the first few paragraphs. This suggestion is patterned on WP:MEDRS where we don't use individual studies but rather meta-studies which review and summarize the available literature.

I am quite ok with that. Should I put it up for discussion citing you as the source of the proposal? - Kautilya3 (talk) 13:47, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: I meant the RFPP rolling archives:

Kautilya3, it's not a free reign for the IP editor. He is bound by the same policies you are. Protection is constantly asked for on these types of articles and we're not going to set a precedent on this board by saying only registered editors are "serious" editors. I do have one suggestion for you. See if there's consensus to implement WP:ARBPIA-style editing restrictions on these articles. "All articles related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, broadly construed, are under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24-hour period). When in doubt, assume it is related. Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Reverts of edits made by anonymous (IP) editors that are not vandalism are exempt from the 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:58, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. The last sentence addresses my concern, which I didn't read carefully earlier. I will mull over that. I think we have been operating essentially under similar norms in the last few days. - Kautilya3 (talk) 14:33, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Neil, here is a question. So, the registered are not limited to 1RR for reverting the IPs. What about the IPs? Are they limited? If not, this doesn't seem to achieve anything. If they are limited but the registered users are not, then the asymmetry is likely to lead to further heartburn. - Kautilya3 (talk) 17:07, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes 1RR should be apply on all major India-Pakistan topics. India-Pakistan war of Indo-Pakistani War of 1947, Indo-Pakistani War of 1965, Indo-Pakistani War of 1971, Kargil war, 2014–15 India–Pakistan border skirmishes,Kashmir conflict, Hafeez Saeed, Siachen conflict, Siachen glacier etc should be included in this. There can be more topics. --Human3015^TALK  02:47, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Kautilya3, IP's are limited to WP:1RR. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:53, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Ok, Human3015 has much more experience with these articles than I do. So I will assume it is useful. I will propose it in the India-Pakistan Cooperation Board and see what the others fee. - Kautilya3 (talk) 08:50, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Dear Neil, there has been absolutely no discussion of the dispute for three full days. This vindicates my statement that there is actually no dispute. Can you cancel the full-protection and apply the ARBPIA-style editing restriction for a limited period, say 1 month? If it works, we can continue it indefinitely. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 10:43, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Dear Neil if you allowed this then trust me people will never visit Indian forign ministry press confrence and will come to wikipedia filled with non nuetral indian point of view. I know a person with responsible head will never allow all this NA122 (talk) 13:31, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

@NA122: Actually what Sockmaster Kautilya3 is proposing is good thing. You are new, and you are not aware about ArbCom sanctions, if such sanctions strictly applied on such pages then all pro-India and pro-Pakistani people will stay away from these articles, there will be no edit warring or POV pushing, all biased people will get blocked soon, this applies to both Pro-Indians and Pro-Pakistanis. --Human3015^TALK  13:51, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

@Kautilya3, NA122, and Human3015: Please see this. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:59, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

IP 166.137.96.x

Hi NeilN. You previously blocked 166.137.96.227 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for vandalism. It seems that even before the block has expired, they have returned vandalizing same articles as before as 166.137.96.165 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Politrukki (talk) 13:43, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

@Politrukki: Let's see if a rangeblock of 166.137.96.128/25 helps. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:52, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Request

Could you delete this redirect page Microsoft Lumia 550? I'm planning to write an article under that name. Thanks. Ayub407^talk 06:04, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

@Ayub407: No need to delete. Just edit. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:06, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Alright. Ayub407^talk 06:07, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Metacritic score?

Hi, so another user has been to removing the metacritic score on the page "Revival" by Selena Gomez. They have also messaged me asking me to not re-add it because the metacritic score is in the review description, therefore the score shouldn't be shown in the top. But I've seen most other album pages have the score at the top and in the review summary. What should I do in this situation? I don't want to get in trouble for edit-warring, but I'm pretty sure they're wrong. Smoore95GAGA (talk) 13:00, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Jugdev

Neil - about 2 weeks ago you blocked User:Jugdev for a week for (recidivist) edit warring at Programmatic media, suggesting that he voluntarily follow a 1RR rule upon his return. He sat out an extra week after his block but this morning has 1) reinserted his preferred version of certain text that is highly questionable - factually - if not demonstrably untrue (this is well-covered on the Talk page); 2) reinserted the text when it was removed; and 3) removed my own Talk page comments in the course of a discussion about this issue. I do not see this round ending up any differently than any of the prior ones - he's quite intractable - and ask for an appropriate administrative response. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 13:44, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

JohnInDC, looking at the talk page edit, the removal of your post was probably accidental. I've given the editor a final warning. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:53, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

It's not the first time he's removed others' comments (he blanked the whole thing three weeks ago), but I'll grit my teeth and AGF. Thank you. JohnInDC (talk) 14:01, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Smoore95GAGA

I see you indefinitely blocked this user for edit warring and making threats. Would something like this warrant revoking talk page access? Just thought you should know the user is still enraged at you and making personal attacks. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:02, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

SNUGGUMS, if those personal attacks were directed at someone else I would probably revoke talk page access, especially if I was asked to do so. But as they're directed at me, and really, I just skip over the insults when I'm reading, I've left talk page access alone so they can blow off steam and eventually request an unblock if they cool off and want to return. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:09, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. Probably worth keeping an eye on, though. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:12, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Selangor FA

Please banned this guy from edit Selangor FA forever-ever (2001:e68:541f:a546:c8ad:5d9c:188c:d578) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.32.70.193 (talk) 23:58, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

The article is semi-protected for three months to stop the recent disruption. This seems like a regular occurrence. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:55, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Please protected page Selangor FA forever-ever from vandalism not add period for three month to stop recent disruption.Please banned this guy from edit Selangor FA forever-ever.this guy is vandalism to delete kit evolution from page Selangor FA :(2001:e68:541f:a546:c8ad:5d9c:188c:d578) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.49.72.236 (talk) 03:46, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but no. Indefinite protection is rare and not warranted in this case. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:16, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Page Fc barcelona boleh jer dilindungi selamanya — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.144.127.91 (talk) 05:36, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Please add fully protection to the page Selangor FA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.144.127.91 (talk) 07:04, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Please remove semi protected i want to add something to shirt sponsor — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.144.127.91 (talk) 13:04, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Edit requests for how to use the talk page to propose your change. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:07, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I do not know how to use it because I was an amateur users — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.144.127.91 (talk) 13:56, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Just propose what you want to change on the talk page. I'll take care of the template. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:59, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Please unblock semi protected tq

Declined. I have activated your edit request. NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:27, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Please Add this to page selangor FA kit manufacturer and Shirt Sponsor. tq

Period	Kit Manufacturers
1978-1979	Admiral
1980	Diadora
1981-1987	Puma
1988-1990	Adidas
1991	Mizuno
1992	Puma
1993-2001	Lotto
2002	Adidas
2003-2004	Kronos
2005-2010	Adidas
2011-2015	Kappa
2016-2019	Nike

Period	Shirt Sponsors
1985-2004	Dunhill
1993	EON
1998	Courts
2004	Talam
2005	Celcom
2006-2007	SYABAS
2006-2008	Gapurna TM
2006-2009	Kumpulan Darul Ehsan Berhad (KDEB)
2010-2012	Datum Corp
2010-2013	Menteri Besar Incorporated (MBI)
2014-2015	Selangor

Per capita of Indian cities wrong information shown, please take action[3]

Hi my name is Sam. I have noticed that the page Indian cities by per capita has to be made right. There is wrong information in that, which is not according to the information provided by authorized agencies. In that page Bangalore cities per capita is shown very less than shown in the reference. The actual per capita of the city is much higher, and the Brooking's report shows this clearly. In this page the per capita of Bangalore is shown as 1380$ in 2014. The real per capita is much higher and is 3590$ in 2012. The Brooking's report shows this clearly. (http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Multimedia/Interactives/2013/tentraits/Bangalore.pdf) I request you to make this correct in the page so that people can view the right information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samforprospe (talk • contribs) 05:38, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Samforprospe, please join the discussion on the article's talk page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:55, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

The problem is no body is serious about it or discussing about it. They just gave wrong information and want to carry on with it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samforprospe (talk • contribs) 20:25, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I know user Flipro has complained against me. That is why you are suspecting me. Please look at the article and decide by yourself that who is giving right information. I have provided right source for my update. I am not giving wrong information on wiki. Please check what is happening. the information in the page is wrong and I am correcting it using very authentic source and some people don't like it because it is against their personal wishes and they are complaining against me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samforprospe (talk • contribs) 01:17, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Samforprospe, I warned both of you not to call each other vandals. If you cannot work out your dispute on the talk page, please see WP:DRR for other options. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:24, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Sir please check by yourself whether the information and source provided by me is correct or not. I am providing the right thing and user Flipro is changing it frequently and he started complaining against me rather than talking. I initiated the talk with him and he is not replying. You can see this on his page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samforprospe (talk • contribs) 01:28, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Samforprospe, you need to take this up with other editors using the channels I linked to above and yes, Filpro needs to use the talk page. I cannot weigh in on who is "right" as I've taken admin action on that page (see WP:INVOLVED). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:36, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

User Flipro vandalizes lots of pages like this and he got many warnings from other admins before and still continuing to do so. He doesn't talk and provide sourse but just update without reason and vandalize.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samforprospe (talk • contribs) 01:45, 27 October 2015 (UTC) 

Thanks for what you have done. Please protect the page fully until an decision has been made by an administrator. Or else further vandalism will occur. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samforprospe (talk • contribs) 01:52, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Neil I am ready to talk with other users. But the problem here is that they are not ready to talk and are vandalizing. I told them several times to talk in the page with me. They are not co operating. The reason they are not ready to talk is because they don't have enough proof. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samforprospe (talk • contribs) 01:04, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

IPv6 range contribs

From your recent comment at AIV, I'm guessing you know of a tool to check contribs of IPv6 ranges? Or is this something else I have to make? =P — MusikAnimal ^talk 15:46, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

MusikAnimal, turn on the "Allow /16, /24 and /27 – /32 CIDR ranges on Special:Contributions forms..." gadget and then this works. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:50, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

BTW, do you know who runs this? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:53, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Ah yes, that JS gadget. I will give it another spin. That calculator is by the one and only Mr. User:NativeForeigner. — MusikAnimal ^talk 15:54, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

MusikAnimal I'd be toast without that calculator. Wish the WMF would pick up the ball and provide an integrated calculator/contribs tool. Sometimes you can't check the exact range a calculator spits out. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:00, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Maybe we could combine forces and get the calculator / contribs gadget in the same interface. NativeForeigner if you are interested let me know. Also I'm not able to get WP:POPUPS to work with the gadget (so that I can quickly see the diffs by hovering over "diff"), are you? I think I know how to make that work... For me, having popups would eliminate any desire to use an external service like xtools — MusikAnimal ^talk 16:06, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

@MusikAnimal: On that note, the gadget supports ucstart and ucend parameters to help narrow down the results but you’d have to manually type it in every time which is quite tedious, any easy way to integrate it into the user interface? - NQ-Alt (talk) 16:11, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

MusikAnimal, that's strange. I was going to say popups work for me but then I went back to confirm and the diff popups didn't work. I then went back a second time and now they did... --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:14, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

The working/not-working behavior seems completely random. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:18, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Yep, so it's a timing issue. There's a "hook" available to ensure it always works, I'm looking into that now. NQ, we can look into specifying a date range. If you are comparing it with xtools, I thought that feature was mainly to avoid performance issues. That is if you choose a /16 IPv4 range of all contribs since January it's likely going to lock up the tool and possibly even kill the service. My guess is the gadget just goes off of recent ones, past month or so maybe? I prefer defaulting to recent contribs, but I can see use cases for needing to see only those within a date range — MusikAnimal ^talk 16:29, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

@MusikAnimal: The gadget returns edits from way back 2004 and is amazingly quick at that, see this for instance. Narrowing them down to just the most recent contribs is indeed what I am interested in as they tend to get buried in the mix. - NQ-Alt (talk) 16:44, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

In that case, yes, let's look into adding date range options! Also I just made the change to re-init popups (and other scripts listening to that hook) once everything has loaded. Popups should work every time now :) — MusikAnimal ^talk 16:45, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

So I guess the "From year/month (and earlier)" options are just being ignored by the script. It is semi-respecting other options, such as namespace, but not the "invert selection". Let's try to get it to work just like the normal interface and take into account all options. Hopefully this will be a fun project — MusikAnimal ^talk 16:50, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

@MusikAnimal: No the script works fine there. For Special:Contributions it’s always been results narrowed down to year/month and earlier and not later which would have been much much useful. See phab:T18866 - NQ-Alt (talk) 16:57, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

And it should go without saying how much we all appreciate you taking over these "fun projects". You, Writ Keeper and Mr. Stradivarius are among the very few I've seen around here going out of your way to create useful stuff for editors. NQ-Alt (talk) 17:18, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I think they enjoy it mostly, I know I do. It's only when our scripts/gadgets/tools break that we start to cry. Up until then we're pretty resilient. Anyway, I guess since the contribs are in descending order by time the "earlier" option can make sense, but less so with this gadget. This is a bit tricky. I want to say let's do away with the those date range options and put a "from" and "to" datepicker, but that's going to interfere when normally browsing to Special:Contributions. We'd have to make it work in all cases, not just range contribs — MusikAnimal ^talk 17:22, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I just don't have the time at present to work on integrating the tools. NativeForeigner ^Talk 22:34, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Also the tool is python3/django. I'll further develop it whenever I have time. If @NeilN: or yourself have any suggestions let me know and I'll try to implement them. I plan on moving it to toolserv at some point but it was a pain last time around and I haven't had the time to put it there recently. NativeForeigner ^Talk 10:27, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

More Trolls Vandalizing Tommy Sotomayor Article

Here's two more users that should probably be blocked from Wikipedia, you can see an example of the vandalism from one of them in the first link:

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Tommy_Sotomayor&diff=686834961&oldid=686771869

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2.30.15.148

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2607:FB90:2275:9A9D:0:48:1260:CD01

Thanks! Neptune's Trident (talk) 18:11, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Neptune's Trident, I blocked 2607:FB90:2275:9A9D:0:48:1260:CD01 for a month. No doubt they'll hop IPs again but if they do, just go to WP:AIV, cite block evasion, and point to this IP. 2.30.15.148 needs a full set of warnings before they can be blocked. If you find yourself reverting every day, let me know and I will upgrade the PC protection to a semi. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:23, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Please fully unprotect Template:retrieved

Your semi-protection is unwarranted. I am reading this: "Administrators may apply indefinite semi-protection to pages that are subject to heavy and persistent vandalism or violations of content policy (such as biographies of living persons, neutral point of view). Semi-protection should not be used as a preemptive measure against vandalism that has not yet occurred, nor should it be used to privilege registered users over unregistered users in (valid) content disputes." (WP:S-P). I removed emphasis and links from the quote. Which of the above is your justification for restricting editing? Considering that this is neither a high risk nor highly visible template. 72.43.99.130 (talk) 18:56, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

First, I reduced the existing template-editor protection to semi-protection. Second, WP:PTPROT reads: "Highly visible templates which are used on an extremely large number of pages or substituted with great frequency are particularly vulnerable to vandalism, as vandalism to the template may introduce vandalism to hundreds of other pages. Therefore, they are frequently semi- or template-protected based on the degree of visibility, type of use, content, and other factors" (emphasis mine). The template in question has 500+ transclusions. Semi-protecting it is not at all unusual. If you browse Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Rolling archive you'll see templates regularly being semi-protected. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:05, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

So you reduced a bad action to a semi-bad one. The excuse is dubious. In my previous comment, I used the section of the policy that specifically applies to semi-protection. This template does not fall under WP:HRT, and had no history of vandalism until an admin vandalized it (prior to protection). Call a spade a spade: this template should not have been protected, period. 72.43.99.130 (talk) 19:14, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

And if you look at most of the template protection requests, they're made not because of vandalism, but because of any potential disruption will affect hundreds of pages. If you want to tighten up WP:PTPROT, the place to suggest that is the policy's talk page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:20, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm sure your time is as valuable as mine. Nothing in WP:PTPROT justifies any kind of protection for this template. This is not a policy issue, therefore there is nothing to talk about at the policy's talk page. I'm in full agreement with the policy. This is a complaint over misapplication of policy. As a first step into resolving this, I will make the request at WP:RFUP. 72.43.99.130 (talk) 19:58, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I see the relevant section has been archived already. Not good. Your rationale is based entirely on the number of transclusions, an insufficient requirement as the pertinent policy shows. You are implying that after some arbitrary number of transclusions, bot-like semi-protection should be (auto-)applied, restricting editing without any other cause. This is facile. Your bringing up similar case history as support makes me think that there is a problem with the way template protection is administered in Wikipedia. It seems there is consistent misinterpretation of policy, possibly because it makes administration easier and lazier. I am looking at this therefore as a dispute, but not over policy. It is over the administration of policy, and I think a proper forum for review will have to be used. 208.87.234.201 (talk) 01:02, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

To paraphrase you, bot-like protection should be (auto-)applied. Well, yes. For example, bot-like template-editor protection is applied if a template is ~>2,500 transclusions. Please do let GiantSnowman and me know when you've posted your request for review. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:11, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

So there is a bot that, without any prior disruption or incident, auto-denies editing rights to the historical majority of users of the encyclopedia "that anyone can edit", in order to make life easier for clerks performing administrative functions. Interesting. It may be the only institution whose main reason for existence is openly contravened by "assistants", whose argument is, "well we've been doing this often". You will be notified of any further action.184.75.21.30 (talk) 22:54, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Moula Ali Hill

Sarvagyana guru proposed my article, Moula Ali hill, for merge. The reason he gave on talk page for merge is not correct. My article is new, only few months old, so it's obvious that people will write about it in another article before that. This hill is in Moula Ali, so people wrote about the hill in this article. Hill is notable and deserves a standalone article that's why I created it. I researched about this hill for two days and I gathered information about it from several sources. I think correct thing to do is to remove things about hill in Moula Ali aricle. Please tell me what to do. Thanks Supdiop (T🔹C) 01:32, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

@Supdiop: Can you expand Moula Ali hill with more information? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:30, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but the hill article is notable. I will certainly expand it and add more sources but is merge necessary? I didn't copy it from anything, but I did took some bits of info from Moula Ali article. I wrote it on my own on my sandbox. It even got a DYK. The reason for proposal is not correct. Thank you Supdiop (T🔹C) 02:49, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

@Supdiop: I agree it should not be merged. Expanding it is the easiest way to make that point really clear to everyone. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:54, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I will expand it in two days, maybe even before. Supdiop (T🔹C) 03:18, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

It's not very urgent, so I will expand it later. Thanks - Supdiop (T🔹C) 06:16, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

With this ever dramatic world and winter coming, here's a cup of tea to alleviate your day! This e-tea's remains have been e-composted SwisterTwister talk 04:53, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

User talk:Playnot

On behavioral ground, User talk:Playnot is clearly another sock of User:Simpleabd‎. See this. Thanks. -AsceticRosé 04:57, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

@AsceticRose: I thought so but can you expand a bit on behavior (email me if you want)? I'll open a SPI tomorrow and see if we can block the underlying IP range. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:02, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for prompt response. As for the user's behavior, I see that User:Playnot is advocating the same point and is deleting exactly the same text as did User:Simpleabd. This time the user slightly changed the wording of his arguments (in edit summaries) in an attempt to appear as a new user. Another point is that the account was created on 21 October 2015 at 22:34, and made the first edit at 22:37 which was a very contentious edit. It appears to be a simgle-purpose account. Even further, both User:Playnot and User:Simpleabd displayed the edit-warring tendency. These are unlikely for a good-faith brand-new user.

It might also be possible that it is a meat-puppet. But the first chance has a better claim, I think. -AsceticRosé 05:21, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

PC-protection expiring this month

Royal Brunei Armed Forces, Names of the days of the week, Irene Zisblatt, List of Beast Quest novels, The Island of Doctor Moreau and Natasha Lyonne? --George Ho (talk) 06:18, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Page protection request

Hello. I'm not an expert user, and I wish to request a page protection due to vandalism. Allianz Parque has been vandalized by an unregistered user for days. Can you help me in this lock application? Thanks. Montolive 20:21, 23 October 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Montolive (talk • contribs)

Hi Montolive. There's not quite enough disruption to merit protection of the article but I will keep an eye on it. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:30, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Europa Universalis IV

There's no vandalism in there m8 BenGarrison1488 (talk) 23:11, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Uh-huh. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:17, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Malaysia Super League

Please banned this guy(Drmies) from edit page club league malaysia this guy (Drmies) is vandalism tahap bangsat.tq — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.49.75.42 (talk) 23:12, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Hey Drmies, you've annoyed someone for the 5,986th time. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:26, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Please banned this guy (Drmies) from edit perlis FA this guy is vandalism tahap bangsat tq — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.49.75.42 (talk) 23:30, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

See WP:NOTVAND. And please write in English. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:27, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

More Trolls On Tommy Sotomayor Article

Here is another user, who appears to have registered with Wikipedia, who is blanking out information on the Tommy Sotomayor article, and then adding badly sourced rumors, you can see what they've been up to here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Tommy_Sotomayor&diff=687184905&oldid=687183891

Thanks. Neptune's Trident (talk) 05:40, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Sock-puppet

I think our friend, Smoore95GAGA, is back in full bloom action. Check out the investigation and the new account's edits. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 12:51, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Sock put away by the ever-efficient Bbb23. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:31, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

A brownie for you!

Have it ... Editor Master Abiyarajan77 (talk) 16:36, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Sofia

The issue about Sofia is escalating: the spin-off article was recreated, justified by bogus consensus (RfC still ongoing of course, so, no), the section from the main article removed, and I'm getting things like [4] and [5]. If I may express my personal suspicion, I believe these two people are actively trying to suppress any potentially negative information about their beautiful city - and that's not very encyclopedic in my book. LjL (talk) 17:49, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

LjL, I've warned the IP and joined the discussion on the talk page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:28, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. LjL (talk) 19:15, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

This user use absurd sources and present one ugly nationalistic view and censored the article. May be you must renamed wikipedia to fantasypedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.118.68.169 (talk)

I am not a nationalist and I wonder what nation I would be representing here if I were one. I also note that censorship is about the suppression of information, not the addition or inclusion. I am championing the latter, so I suspect you misunderstand the meaning of this word. LjL (talk) 19:15, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks

Take care Neil. Dr.K. (talk) 20:02, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Disruption on List of languages by number of native speakers

Hello. FYI Rajatbindalbly (talk · contribs · count) (AN-thread here) is continuing his disruption, both on that talk page and elsewhere on en-WP. Thomas.W ^talk 14:53, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Thomas.W, I cannot see anything that warrants a block. Did you have a specific diff in mind? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:58, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

It's his refusal to listen and constant abuse of the edit-request function that I see as disruptive. But I might overreact since I'm very upset by the desysop of Yngvadottir, one of the best editors and admins on en-WP, and the obvious abuse of the ArbCom and AE-system. I thought we were all here to build an encyclopaedia, but what I see is people who try to hijack the system to further off-wiki causes, and use imagined wrongs on Wikipedia to get off-wiki publicity for those causes. So disregard this if you wish. Rajatbindalbly isn't going to irritate me much for the foreseeable future even if he continues, since I intend to reduce my presence here. Thomas.W ^talk 15:15, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Thomas.W, I am keeping an eye on him. As for Yngvadottir, although brief, I made my thoughts known in the Arbcom case request. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:19, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection

I see that you're also filling in requests; I'll step down for now. Samsara 15:43, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Samsara. I'm done. There's one left I can't decide what to do with. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:46, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I'll take a look. Cheers. Samsara 15:46, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Return of a user you blocked

A user you blocked for 48 hours on October 15, User:Amazing to you, has returned as User:Karah kenze (began editing on the 17th), and today as User:Iloveyoooou after I filed this report about Kk on AN/I. They're very obviously the same editor: same suite of articles, same derogatory tone in the edit summaries. An SPI has been filed, but I haven't looked at it yet, going there now. BMK (talk) 00:05, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

A cup of matcha for you!

With this ever dramatic world and winter coming, here's a cup of matcha to alleviate your day! Gizmocorot (talk) 10:51, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Block evasion

Hi, Neil. I thought you'd want to know that 42.115.140.239, whom you blocked yesterday for his extensive history of non-constructive edits at the Mission: Impossible film articles, is committing block evasion as 42.115.140.141.

Another editor has reverted him at Mission: Impossible – Rogue Nation today, and yet another editor has done so at Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol. After several warnings, his by-now vandal edits are taking up multiple editors' time. I'm sorry to ask you to take additional time as well, after you helped out so quickly yesterday; I'm wondering if, given his unrelenting pattern under those two "42.115" IP addresses and others (42.115.139.245, 42.115.140.131, 42.115.141.67, 42.115.141.34, 42.115.142.107) whether a range block might be in order? --Tenebrae (talk) 22:53, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Tenebrae. I looked at a rangeblock yesterday and concluded it had too much collateral damage. I've done a smaller two week rangeblock of 42.115.140.128/25. If other IPs show up, please let me know. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:52, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely. I didn't realize the potential for collateral damage, but I'll always keep that in mind going forward. Thank you for helping and, in retrospect, for proceeding in a properly cautions way. With regards, --Tenebrae (talk) 03:18, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Vandalism Being Ignored

Hello Neil. This is regarding the Andre Marin article, A living person. The article has been vandalized and verified content removed prior to my recent edits, in which I ADDED content which was valid, contributed by other editors and deliberately deleted. Interesting no other edits have been made. Many people are out campaigning on this page it has been an ongoing problem. I had to reinsert content and much of the content recently added belongs on the Ontario Ombudsman page, not this one. In addition someone is adding non-NPOV. . Please check the edit history and you will see the problem. The individual the article is about has been deliberatrly remade to ignore all of his achievements with the exception of one position which yet again has become a target for WP:ADVOCACY. I believe the article needs to be stubbed and the COI removal was not appropriate as the individuals in question were members of the man's PR team and government paid. Please get back to me whenever you can, I appreciate your time. CheckersBoard (talk) 00:03, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

No Conflict of Interest

Sorry Neil, forgot to add that the other admin passive aggressively accused me of COI. This was already resolved in the past when it came to light that it was in fact Andre Marin's PR team, a Bursy and Williams I believe. So no, the COI had nothing to do with me. From the history edits it's quite obvious it is the reverse going on now, and the other admin is COI as they have been eliminating non-NPOV, huge amounts of content, using spin and ruining the balance of the article. I will not be attacked by someone who is clearly WP:ADVOCACY and possibly more. Thank-you, and please don't become this person's bully. Heads up and cheers. Keeping this article neutral and organized has been challenging, I didn't think it would be like this. CheckersBoard (talk) 00:13, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

• André Marin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Here is a link to make it easier for you to check on this N. MarnetteD|Talk 00:14, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

CheckersBoard, rather than reverting vandalism, your edits left the article a mess. Also, your statement above is self-contradictory. "has been deliberatrly remade to ignore all of his achievements with the exception of one position" or "individuals in question were members of the man's PR team and government paid" - which is it? I pointed you to three places where you can ask for help from other editors. You can also post to WP:COIN if you think conflict of interest editing is going on but you will need to provide diffs to back up your claim. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:19, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

If I can chime in here, I recently came across the Andre Marin page and saw it was a mess of COI and POV editing. I tried removing some of the the COI content (and toning down the language to make it more appropriate for WP) and adding a significant amount of content to make it more balanced. It honestly took me hours to do. Unfortunately CheckerBoard over here has some sort of personal interest in this page and tried editing the page back to its previous non-NPOV status, while failing to use proper wiki formatting (as you saw yourself). NeilN, perhaps you can suggest what is the proper route here, because repeated warning on CB's talk page doesn't seem to prevent this person from editing the page in a non-neutral manner (and which appears to be straight vandalism). FuriouslySerene (talk) 14:29, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

FuriouslySerene, I think CheckersBoard is aware by now that they'll be blocked for disruptive editing if they continue this kind of behavior. I strongly urge them to use the article's talk page in order to avoid making a hash of the article itself. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:41, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Regarding confusion for article edits for living person, article A.M.

Hello again Neil. I apologize for the confusion, for some reason I am unable to scroll back/up in the comment box while using a mobile and this is the reason for the mix up, I couldn't delete it/fix it. The pop -up keyboard also covers half the screen and I am unable to scroll. This has happened to me many times and has also had a poor effect on editing for me. To clarify, the article previously stated the individuals positions without out givng prominence to any single one in particular. It has been changed now to ombudsman as a highlight. It is interesting that content added referred to a *specific* policy manual or such, a report of sorts, that was one among many put out by Mr. Marin and his office, which leads one to view the recent edits as influenced by advocacy. It also seems to make a point to highlight the names of media outletls, but only when unfavorable circumstances or coverage was involved. In addition, the editor has now madeit a point to subtley change the article by glossing over unfavourable facts or errors made by Mr. Marin, which turns the editor into a narrator or reporter and detracts from the role and purpose of editing. These additions were neither made by Mr. Marin or the authors of the articles involved. In other words, spin. They are inserting an opinion not based on availalbe evidence presented by these reputable media outlets. This does not meet wiki requirements and is creating an unbalanced article. CheckersBoard (talk) 04:41, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Thank you for continuing to challenge your fellow administrators when they make careless judgements. Burninthruthesky (talk) 08:47, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Burninthruthesky, I think this is either for the Cassianto block or the block/unblock of Eric Corbett? Thanks. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:36, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I happened to see your comments on Cassianto's page, and very much agreed with them. We seem to be losing a lot of established editors at the moment. Burninthruthesky (talk) 15:00, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

universe sandbox²

i was trying to create my article about this new software. how is that copyright infringement? the article seems perfectly fine to me. G-dac (talk) 19:26, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

G-dac, I would stay away from that article. Right now, I'm undecided as to whether or not to block you for sockpuppetry. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:29, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Last time I got banned and they blocked my talk page access, so I couldn't even defend myself or request another unblock request. I don't like to be treated like trash, like I've always been. My article is fine and I just wanted to keep in there. I'm not contagious or anything. I don't see why not leave the article there G-dac (talk) 19:33, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for making it easy. As a matter of fact, I do sympathize with your point of view but you really need to stop socking for about six months and then request an unblock from your original account. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:37, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi?

Do you still rest? This is not your job. This should be job of who develop this website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Usertofix (talk • contribs) 23:09, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

@Usertofix: Actually, you have that backwards. The Wikimedia Foundation only develops and maintains the software and hardware. They do not develop or maintain content in any official capacity - volunteers do. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:25, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Some link provided is not blue, may i revert? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Usertofix (talk • contribs) 23:24, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

@Usertofix: Every example in that list is a bluelink as far as I can see. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:27, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

no bluelink for expired domain, can i list one since i have added expired website in the category?

@Usertofix: Lots of items don't have examples. The ones that do, have bluelinked examples to show they're notable. NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:32, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

It is a request i have made. i have added a category, can i request to add expired domain in the category i have added? thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Usertofix (talk • contribs) 23:37, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

FYI, blocked as sock. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 00:24, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

AfD List of Pakistani photographers?

List of Pakistani photographers was nominated for deletion. I saw no comments other than one user who may have had a history of bias. The originator of the article then deleted the AfD tag, see https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=List_of_Pakistani_photographers&oldid=687593526, https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=List_of_Pakistani_phou. Would you explicate the rationale for the survival of the article, which is unsourced and is redundant with existing articles, as you have suggested that I not interact with the user. N0TABENE (talk) 00:04, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

N0TABENE, a few important corrections. The article was not put up for AFD. It was tagged for speedy deletion by the creator of the article. The tag was properly removed by another editor (an admin, in fact) because the speedy delete reason was invalid (there was more than one contributor to the article). To get the article deleted you will have to go through the WP:AFD process (detailed on the linked paged) keeping in mind WP:NLIST. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:22, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

The rational for deletion had nothing to do with a single contributor. The article was (a) redundant with a pre-existing list, (b)the entire article was unsourced, (c)in the 5 months since additional references were requested, only a directory of photographers was provided, not indicating WP:Notability, and (d)did not follow the WP:MOS for lists. The creator of the article changed the rationale for deletion and substituted the "single contributor" straw man argument. I used the XFD tab on my editorial page to nominate the article, not the WP:CSD. N0TABENE (talk) 23:42, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

N0TABENE, okay there was some confusion here. Musa Raza replaced your PROD tag (which is still not an AFD by the way) with a CSD tag, probably thinking it would get the article deleted quicker. The admin reviewing the speedy delete request properly declined it. Musa Raza do you have any objection to restoring the PROD tag? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:01, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

@NeilN: Hello!
I request you as the author of the article to delete it if you have the right or restore the tag. I don't have any objections. And please checkout Talk:Faisal Qureshi as well.
Thank You--Musa Talk  02:17, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

This user needs a block for disruptive editing

User:Tobibln

All this user does is remove content without references or anything, he's been doing it for the past 5 years and never stopped! Please deal with this user as soon as possible before he disrupts more articles. Thanks. 81.174.186.5 (talk) 05:16, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Looks like they're updating articles and their edits have not been reverted. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 11:20, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

On his talk page, he never responds to messages left by other users for his editing. The edit summary "update" is just a way to get out of his behaviour. Please stop him as soon as possible, thanks. 80.189.105.71 (talk) 20:38, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

User:TheFeralCat is back for more nonsense :/

Sorry to bother you again with this. After standing off for a couple weeks, User:TheFeralCat is resuming their attempts to get their obsession with cats being some kind of magic apex predator into articles - [6], [7]. Apparently they spent that time posing a leading question on Yahoo Answers so they could use it as a reference [8]... yeah. Previous appeals to reason having failed, might I suggest you impose a block right away to avoid another few days of edit-warring? The warning from last time would seem unambiguous enough. Cheers -- Elmidae (talk) 11:14, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Elmidae, blocked for three months. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 11:18, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely with talk page privileges removed. Mkdw^talk 13:56, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

@Mkdw: Yeah, I could see that coming. Thanks for the note. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:16, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Staffing

Hi! This is a part of my assignment in my university and i will be adding all the references today. Please don't make any changes for a week. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nimishabothra (talk • contribs) 11:19, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Nimishabothra, thank you for finally starting to communicate. I know this is part of your coursework. That's the only reason why you haven't been warned more severely. However even if you do add references, the tone of the article is still unencyclopedic. I pointed you towards WP:NOTESSAY and WP:NOTHOWTO four days ago. NeilN ^{talk to me} 11:27, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Okay. Do you want to suggest me a few changes in that case? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nimishabothra (talk • contribs) 13:50, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Nimishabothra, it's not just a few things - your entire change is problematic. It reads as if it should be in a business magazine, not an encyclopedia. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:35, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Quicky

Hi Neil, could I trouble you to take a look at this guy Sa95. The user has created a few "glorified plot summary" articles on individual Thomas & Friends episodes, with no indication that any of them are notable in any way. To save you time, I'll provide the narrative, picking one article as an example, though he has created several.

He creates Thomas and the Missing Christmas Tree, it is turned into a redirect by ACase0000. ACase0000 leaves a comment on Sa95's talk page asking him not to create unnecessary articles. Sa95 restores the article. SummerPhDv2.0 flags it for notability concerns. I turn it into a redirect. I open a talk page discussion to explain my redirect. Sa95 restores the article without discussion. I redirect and make contact on his talk page. He silently restores the article.

Clearly disruptive, and I was going to block him myself, but I'm still a little sensitive about WP:INVOLVED, which is why I was hoping to get your input. Please note that for each redirect I initially performed, I left a message on each article's talk page. Something like eight in total. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:58, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Update: Looks like Electricburst reverted all the restorations. That makes four editors who don't think the article should be a standalone. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:38, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Cyphoidbomb, blocked 48 hours with a note to start communicating. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:28, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks boss. Opinion on whether this is or isn't "involved"? Seems like any reasonable admin would have come to the same conclusion. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:40, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Cyphoidbomb, I would see this as involved. If I have an opinion on content and editing the article, then I'm not using my tools. See the Staffing section above as an example. Clearly problematic changes but I'm not the one who'll be blocking if it comes down to that. There are narrow exceptions like BLP or reverting a mess like this. If I am asked about content, I will frame my answer in general terms about how Wikipedia's policies and guidelines could apply and encouraging the editor to engage with other editors (see User_talk:NeilN#dogs_again for an example). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:57, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:11, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Ghouta

Erlabeko is censoring free discussion on the bleeding talk page now. Why are you colluding with such a scumbag? Free discussion is to be welcomed and you are helping suppress it. Good work Neil — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.3.28.156 (talk)

Blocked for block evasion. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:30, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

an ad hominem - meanwhile what about the point of allowing free discussion on a talk page when the material is in good faith and has a point? is it just 'take the player out and ignore the football' kind of thing with you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.3.13.248 (talk) 20:00, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

As your master account has been blocked indefinitely, it should be clear that you are not welcome to post anywhere on Wikipedia. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:09, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

On Ed Johnson's counsel

See here. I always try to keep out of AE or Edit-warring complaints, hoping things can be worked out on a page. The problem here is chronic. Perhaps I have misread, I am not an 1R expert, but would appreciate if you could make a call on the issue outlined on Ed and Debresser's page. Sorry for the bother, but these things should be simple either way, and ironed out amicably, even if bad blood is in the air, by the looks of it. Thanks. Nishidani (talk) 17:50, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Nishidani, posted here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:13, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you.Nishidani (talk) 21:11, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Vested contributors arbitration case opened

You may opt-out of future notifications related to this case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Vested contributors/Notification list. You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Vested contributors. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Vested contributors/Evidence. Please add your evidence by November 5, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Vested contributors/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 01:19, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Involved again

Hi Neil, I risk that you will become annoyed with me, which is totally not my goal, but I'm an experiential learner, so the best way for me to learn appropriate usage of a rule is to get multiple examples of input so I can gauge what the absolute rule is, and what the not-so-absolute rule is and then find the workable middle ground. If I'm enforcing community consensus, is that "involved"? Case: here, the removal of "-gonist" labels per WP:ANTAGONIST. Here at the same article I remove it again, though I'm not conscious of having removed it before. Here a user resubmits it again.

I have no particular interest in this telenovela article or its contents, but where I see an edit against established consensus, would you consider it involved to protect the article or to issue sanctions? I did read your statement If I have an opinion on content and editing the article, then I'm not using my tools. I get that, and I don't particularly have an opinion on the content other than existing standards. In the earlier example of having an opinion about whether or not an article was notable, I can see that my opinion about "notable" is a factor, so avoiding sanctions there was the right call. This, however, isn't so much my opinion, rather the enforcement of existing standards. If, for instance, a user keeps submitting unsourced content to an article and I keep reverting them, am I prohibited from protecting the article or blocking the user? In the world of Indian cinema, when people submit fabricated box office values or unsourced this-and-thats, or promotional content, should I not admin in those cases?

These seem like things that would fall under the 'any admin would have arrived at the same conclusion' guideline. And it seems there needs to be some latitude, otherwise, what's the point of having the mop? So I can continue to report irritating crap to ANI? Again, I'm sorry to bug you, but I'm still an admin n00b and I want to be sure I'm doing shit correctly so as not to create headaches for the community. Thanks, and of course if you'd prefer I go elsewhere for advice, I'm happy to do that with no hard feelings. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:45, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Cyphoidbomb, I don't mind you coming here as long as you realize I may tend to be conservative when it comes to WP:INVOLVED. Another rule of thumb you can use is to ask yourself, "Would I be blocked for WP:3RR if I repeatedly made that edit?" In most MOS cases, yes you would, as enforcing MOS is not exempt from WP:3RR and so reverting is not an admin action. If you brought that "-gonist" case to AIV, I'm not blocking as editing against consensus is not vandalism. Saying that, I would block if the editor broke WP:3RR or is edit warring against multiple users over a period of time or is making the same edit across multiple articles without heeding the objections of multiple editors. You also need to use some common sense. If the user is disruptively editing against MOS (e.g., turning bold text red, using big tags, etc.), revert and block.

Moving to your telenovela example, if people are adding fabricated information, revert and block as that's vandalism. I did that here. Adding unsourced info is not so that requires a more detailed look. Blatant BLP violation? Revert and block. Not so blatant? Hold off. For example, actor X may be rumored to star in film Y. As long as film Y isn't a porno, I'm not reverting and blocking/protecting. A couple of exceptions to this. If I've protected the article because of a request, and unsourced info starts being added when protection expires, I will feel free to revert and take whatever admin action I deem appropriate. The same goes if another admin's protection has recently expired. I think there's a reason why there's only one exception explicitly listed for INVOLVED (blatant vandalism) and I respect that. I've seen admins and even arbs posting at RFPP and AIV because of this. Now, if push came to shove, I doubt the community would care if you reverted and blocked an IP for repeatedly adding an unsourced "Movie X was considered the superhit of 2014" but like I said at the beginning, I'm conservative when it comes to this and prefer that any INVOLVED accusations that might come up be easily dismissed, not relying on the sometimes shaky "any admin would have done the same". Hope this helps somewhat. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:50, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the thoughtfully detailed response, Neil, very much appreciated ¡ Cyphoidbomb (talk) 13:59, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Vested contributors retitled Arbitration enforcement 2

You may opt-out of future notifications related to this case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement 2/Notification list. You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement 2. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement 2/Evidence. Please add your evidence by November 5, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. For this case, there will be no Workshop phase. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 12:35, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Maria Gheorghiu page

Hey! I did everything the best I could and tried to respect the rules. I do not understand why everything is deleted page. Instead delete it all the time, you could help me to correct mistakes. Maybe not quite so big ... I reserved a lot of time to write page as well and it's bothering me all the time ... I'd rather faded a little help, a message of encouragement, not only "your page has been deleted." Especially as Maria Gheorghiu deserves a page in English. Thank you in advance! Anda — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndaVeronica29 (talk • contribs) 14:34, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi AndaVeronica29. I realize having your work deleted is discouraging and that's why I didn't delete it but moved it to Draft:Maria Gheorghiu. Did you read the note I left on your talk page? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:40, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi! Thank you! I read your message and I'll try to do my best... I hope my page will be ok... — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndaVeronica29 (talk • contribs) 14:45, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Help with submitting an article for a review

Hi, I couldn't find any entry on this, and since we spoke "recently" I thought maybe I should ask you. There's a specific article I would like to put up for review (namely, cryotherapy) as most of its content is well, dubious. A lot of it sounds like either pseudoscience or a sales pitch and the sources are less than appropriate. The issue here is that I know very little of the topic myself and so find myself unable to fix the article. Hence, I would like to know if there is a way to put the article up for some sort of review, as a way to bring attention to it and maybe have people more knowledgeable than I about the topic to fix it. Akesgeroth (talk) 14:44, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Akesgeroth. The folks at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine are excellent at this sort of thing. I've posted there a few times myself with the same type of query. Just list the article and your concerns. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:51, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Submitted it at the page you linked. Akesgeroth (talk) 14:59, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Sharabha/User:Correcterminator

Neil, thanks for blocking that editor. Was going to report the edit warring, and when I went to their talk page to post the notice, I saw you had already taken care of it. I hate reporting 3RR stuff. But his last comment in his revert "... we will correct it always be sure", made me feel like they were simply going to continue. One thing, I'm going to open an SPI on this editor, along with user:Devasdp and user:Sdpdev, who have all made similar edits. However, I noticed you declined the RPP, and I am simply concerned that this page will continue to be vandalised by newly minted SPA accounts. Just a thought. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:02, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi onel5969. If sock/meat puppets do show up just post here and I will protect the page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:05, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Paradox

As soon as the Johan Anderson and paradox interactive pages unlock on day 30, the same vandals are planning to vandalize again. Can't sign or stop it since I'm on a phone. Keep an eye out please — Preceding unsigned comment added by Podcat (talk • contribs) 17:30, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

@Podcat: Thanks for the note. As a precautionary measure I've added pending changes protection to Johan Andersson (game programmer) which will take over when semi protection expires. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:17, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Removal of message

Hello NeilN,

In the section of the article, proper citations have been added supporting the content. Since i am only a auto-confirmed user, not sure if i am authorized to remove the "clarification needed" messages, so please do the needful.

Thanks Work2win (talk) 18:11, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Work2win. If the issue is resolved, any type of editor can remove any tag. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:14, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

blocked IP socking

FYI, as you blocked 74.101.51.221 (talk), that person is back as 100.33.126.2 (talk). nableezy - 19:19, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

@Nableezy: Blocked, page protected. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:26, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

PP assist - Dedham, Massachusetts - Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles characters

Hi Neil, would you please consider 1-month semi-ing List of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2012 TV series) characters on my behalf? Drmies was my go-to for stuff related to this article, but I'm not sure what's going on with him.

Basically:

An IP-hopper from Dedham, Massachusetts continues to restore cruft walls with no effort to discuss. Some IPs: 108.49.185.106, 108.26.174.18, etc.

I raised questions a few years back about the suitability of the article because it was so frickin' long and overly-detailed. On editor in particular, Rtkat3, seemed incapable of distinguishing between useful facts and detailing every single plot detail for every single character, and numerous attempts to discuss felt like peeling off my eyelids. I think a WP:CIR situation. Fast forward to 2015, after continuously running into Rtkat3 adding walls of useless content (see this version of the article,) I bring this up to Drmies, who skeletalizes the article in August. Since then, if you check the edit history, you'll notice a slew of 108.* IPs adding back the content over and over like 108.49.185.106 here. Never an attempt to discuss, although Drmies and I have comments on the talk page. And, each time I made contact with the IP to say, "seek consensus" or "cruft walls may be considered 'derivative works'". No reply, so clearly disruptive POV shit.

Please note my talk page comment today and their silent reversion ten or so minutes later.

I'm starting to think this user is Rtkat3 editing while logged out, since 3 years ago when I was editing that article regularly, he was the only person I ever had to battle with about the ridiculous use of wikilinks for "rat" and other common words, and for speculation about certain characters' species, which I note here from an IP that geolocates to Connecticut, where Rtkat3 acknowledges he is from (see his user page). Connecticut and Massachusetts are next to each other. It's not unfathomable that this is Rtkat3 editing while logged out and using two different methods for editing.

Thanks, and sorry to bug you again. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:32, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Protected 1 month to force discussion. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:47, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks mate. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:50, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Mentoring

Hi NeilN, would you consider adopting me as a semi-experienced editor? I feel that although I have a firm grasp of the basics and a number of policies, I definitely have room for improvement. I understand you're pretty busy, so if not, is there another administrator you could recommend bothering asking? samtar ^{t} 22:26, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi samtar. Subject to availability, I answer all good-faith questions posted here to the best of my ability. If that's all you're looking for, ask away. If you're looking for something more formal, I think Swarm is accepting adoptees. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:37, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I'll drop Swarm a message in a mo - though I'm sure I'll keep pestering you in the future, you've always been very helpful. Thank you samtar ^{t} 22:40, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

samtar I'm happy to help answer questions as well, paying forward Neil's kind assistance to my n00b admin questions above. I'm not quite in the market for mentorship, because my mop-wielding is already very demanding and I don't think I have the best personality for it. But help I am happy to assist where I can. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:56, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you as well Cyphoidbomb, I'll have to remember to alternate my glaringly obvious questions between you.. samtar ^{t} 23:00, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Frozen

Trust me, it's not just my opinion. I've seen several opinions from people saying that it's not a good movie. I do hate the movie, but I also hate Wall-e (in fact, I hate it more than Frozen) and I didn't remove it because I know that almost everyone loves it to death. Try checking out some youtube videos and articles where Frozen gets TONS of hate and is considered to be overrated as hell! --DisneyFan3 (talk) 00:58, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

DisneyFan3, and you can say the same thing about almost any film. Citizen Kane? Called boring. Gone with the Wind? Too long and melodramatic. So please re-read the article's introduction, specifically: "Each film listed here has been mentioned in a notable survey, whether a popular poll, or a poll among film reviewers." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:17, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

List of cities with the most high-rise buildings

Why you protected Cities Most Highrise article ? This article based in Emporis sources which is neutral sources and in English. But somebody had edited the article and put Shanghai highrise more than 14.000 based on local sources which is not neutral sources. Its impossible Shanghai highrise : Hongkong highrise + New York highrise — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.246.61.213 (talk) 04:04, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Because you and the other IP were edit warring. Work out your dispute using the article's talk page, please. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:09, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Renew PC-protection for...

Mumbai, Greenwich, New South Wales, Rajdeep Sardesai, Nikki Reed, Firehouse Tales, Paulina Vega? --George Ho (talk) 00:09, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you - from Morinville Community High School

Thanks for protecting the page. I was trying to teach a group of students how to become editors / how to use Wikipedia and things got out of control! I didn't realize you could edit the page without having an account. - Neil Korotash (teacher) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nkorotash (talk • contribs) 16:22, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Nkorotash. I understand. 99% of Wikipedia pages can be edited without an account. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:26, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Aha, now I see what I did

Hello again Neil. It seems there was an update that has made notifications easier to find/access as well as messages on talk pages. I realize there has been a lot of valuable input and information I have missed. I should also always check all notifications before I edit. I can see now that failure to do so is bad practice. I went to backtrack and can now see how some important problems have developed and how some good direction was either forgotten or missed entirely. I've only been able tp locate tge sandbox once and have never been able to find it again, so I became impatient and careless. Also there seems to be no way to access edit history so I can't check anything or get a better sense of what direction the article is taking. I understand how editors new to wiki can be frustrating to admins but rest assured I am not incomptent (a tad impetulant at times but not incompetent).

I need two things the most: how to access my personal sandbox and how to access edit history. I once helped do a "reverse edit" but it was copy paste with no wiki-mark-up which is a big problem, and it's a needlessly lengthy process if I can't get the mark-up and no just the text. I keep losing links and references this way and it's frustrating.

I appreciate your time, thank-you in advance. I am working out how to do this via mobile. I apologize for the trouble, but in the future please avoid ad hominem attacks because it can the derail editing process. I have bad days too. CheckersBoard (talk) 17:35, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

CheckersBoard, here's a link to the article history: link. You can access history by clicking/tapping the "history" tab at the top of any page. Here is your sandbox: User:CheckersBoard/sandbox. You will have to click/tap the "create" tab. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:46, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Persistent IP vandalism of Foundation for Economic Education

Went to dispute resolution where it tells me to discuss with the other party. That is not possible with a bunch of random ip addresses with no talk pages. Abel (talk) 21:49, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

@Id4abel: You can use the article's talk page. Plus it looks to me as SPECIFICO also has issue with your changes. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:32, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Why would a vandal care in the slightest about an article's talk page? What would someone even put there? "Please stop vandalizing the page whoever you are?" This has noting in the slightest to do with SPECIFICO, it has to do with vandalism from random IP addresses. Abel (talk) 01:24, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

@Id4abel: It's one editor and it looks like they have an issue with your changes. Not vandalism. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:30, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

@NeilN:How on Earth are you able to declare 107.107.61.236, 166.171.186.88, 107.107.61.10, 107.107.63.201, 71.101.47.122, and 107.107.59.153 as one editor? How can you even do more than just assume that they are one person?Abel (talk) 01:55, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

@Id4abel: The IPs doing this edit are probably one editor because of the similar edit summaries. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:04, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

@NeilN:Maybe, yet so what? Even if that assumption is valid, that is one edit out of the plethora of vandalism edits over the past week and a half, hence "persistent IP vandalism."Abel (talk) 02:27, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

@Id4abel: Please read WP:NOTVAND. Disagreeing with your changes is not vandalism. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:30, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

@NeilN:Has nothing to do with my changes. 71.101.47.122 removed the Good article code and replaced it with TAKE A LOOK! then replaced TAKE A LOOK!with (lo-c5)89[]/:-+. 107.107.61.10 attempted to manually revert numerous edits by several editors and broke much of the code while doing that with the edit description "Conflict of interest editer blanking and fanboy." 166.171.186.88 did the same thing with the edit description "promoter fanbuoy." 107.107.61.236 decided that one of the locations of the organization should be erased from human memory according to the edit description "hillside doesnt matter." All of these edits changed large portions of the article and broke lots of the code far beyond what the edit description suggests. Each was a deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia, hence vandalism.Abel (talk) 02:51, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

@NeilN:Should I expect a reply?

@Id4abel: I took a second look. I won't be semi-protecting. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:29, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

@NeilN:The reason being?Abel (talk) 13:38, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

@Id4abel: There is disagreement, not persistent vandalism. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:19, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

@NeilN:Arbitrarily reverting many people's edits, breaking most of the code in the article while doing it, is not disagreement. It is intentional disruption. Disagreement would be editing a portion of an article that is disliked or starting a new talk page section. Abel (talk) 21:52, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

@NeilN:Now the problem, since you are convinced this is one person, they have more than violated the three revert rule. Using many different ip addresses, there is no way to place a warning on a talk page that does not exist, and they would not see anyway as they will just keep using new ip addresses. Abel (talk) 09:50, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

@Id4abel: I suggest you actually read WP:3RR: "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:09, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello. I saw this due to your ping, Neil. Thank you. I have walked away from that article because Abel has repeatedly denigrated me in the past and made wild exaggerated and unsupported attacks on me. More recently he threatened me by stating, falsely, that I am topic-banned from editing that FEE page. He's wrong, but I have no interest in defending myself against whatever accusations he might made at a spurious AE complaint. At any rate, my impression is that Abel seems to have "ownership" issues with that FEE article and that he has undone a lot of good, RS content that was added over an extended period of time by many editors. In particular, whereas the article was formerly an encylopedic presentation of the origin, history and program of this significant libertarian advocacy group, he's turned it into something much more limited. To be frank, I get the feeling he was a student there and has too limited and personal a perspective to edit the article objectively. I don't plan to re-engage there, so this is likely the last I'll have to say about that article. Sad to say, this is one of those articles that are not widely followed so that a single passionate editor such as Abel can do a lot of damage without any pushback or guidance from other editors. Thanks again for your ping. SPECIFICO talk 02:22, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Stating that you have a topic ban, which you do, is in no way a threat. My editing is a function of the project asking for more articles to reach good article status, which I was able to do with this article thanks to the organization being old enough to have plenty written about it over the years. Keep pushing that ownership idea, that will probably work out just as well as when you called me sexist. So for the I-don't-know-how-manyeth-time, this has nothing to do with SPECIFICO, it has to do with the multiple vandalism edits from random IP addresses, hence "persistent IP vandalism."Abel (talk) 02:35, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

User 96.255.79.37 has violated the 3-revert rule

Hello. I just wanted to let you know that the anonymous user 96.255.79.37 has violated the 3-revert rule on the page "Focus (song). If you could ask them to stop of ban them for a little while, it would be appreciated. TswiftARTPOP (talk) 23:00, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

TswiftARTPOP, editors cannot be blocked for WP:3RR without being first properly warned about it. I've done so now. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:37, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

They have been warned numerous times, but ok. TswiftARTPOP (talk) 02:41, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

TswiftARTPOP, at the time I looked into this, they had not reverted after being warned. They have now done so and earned a block. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:25, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Staffing

Hello, please give the student who's editing Staffing a chance. I have met with them and I anticipate that the changes to the article to follow will be encyclopaedic. --Raya 01:15, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

@Raya.sharbain: Your first sentence is a bit odd. If their changes are encyclopedic then of course I won't have a problem with that. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:21, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

@NeilN: Ok, but please give the student an opportunity to learn. Instead of reverting an edit, perhaps you can post on the article's talk page suggesting a possible "fix" (for lack of a better word)? I will keep in touch with the student to ensure that they work on the tone of voice used, but I simply don't want them to get discouraged.--Raya 01:53, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

@Raya.sharbain: Have you read the first "Staffing" section on this page? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:57, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

@NeilN: Yes I have. (edit: forgot to sign... but it's still Raya with a new username)

@Raya.sharbain: Another editor who I blocked after processing a report at WP:AIV. Whoever is running this course needs to keep better track of their students. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:50, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Another editor that needs guidance. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:58, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

@NeilN: Thank you for letting me know. I just want to say that I do in fact appreciate the work you're doing, it's just that the students are given little support in this assignment. But we will use your contributions as means to feedback into how the assignment is run. So, thank you :) --Flycatchr 16:40, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

NQ

Hi Neil, do you know anything about Nathan's absence? He hasn't edited since mid-August, and recently blanked his user and talk pages. I sent an email to the wiki-email I have for him, but got an auto-responder message that he is no longer monitoring that email. I don't know who he was close to on Wikipedia to ask, but I had noticed the two of you communicate occasionally. I just hope everything is OK with him; also it would be nice if he returned someday .... Softlavender (talk) 01:45, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

@Softlavender: Nathan is thankfully still around as NQ-Alt. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:59, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Actually he isn't. That account is blanked too and redirected to NQ, and he stopped editing from that account a day before he stopped editing from NQ. (So I'm guessing you have no info on his disappearance? That's too bad, I wish he had given some notice or explanation.... I hope he's OK.) Softlavender (talk) 02:05, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

@Softlavender: ???. That account was regularly editing up to a week ago, not mid-August. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:07, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I see what you're saying, but he's still clearly totally gone now and also inaccessible even via email. (His last message on his own talk page a week ago was "On an extended wiki-break", which he then blanked the next day when he cleared the pages of both accounts.) Unless you have an email address other than his standard wiki email. Do you? Softlavender (talk) 02:26, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

@Softlavender:, I don't, sorry. But I'll keep an eye out. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:34, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protecting List of current heads of state and government

Hi there; the IP has just been banned, although there is another user (Jerus82) who has vandalized additionally. My specific reasoning for the semi-protection is this article: List of current state leaders by date of assumption of office—which has been semi-protected since 2010. I honestly do not see any reason not to do the same with the requested article in question, with a similar subject. It would be tireless to warn every single IP / non-autoconfirmed user; the article is, I must repeat, regularly updated by autoconfirmed users. Thanks. Neve-selbert (talk) 02:00, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Neve-selbert, that indefinite semi-protection of List of current state leaders by date of assumption of office seems dubious at best, given the protecting admin was also heavily involved in editing the article. Also, sports-related articles (for example) are regularly updated by autoconfirmed editors. This does not mean we lock out IPs - they are not second-class editors. However, I have applied two months pending changes protection to the article - let's see what that does. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:40, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I totally understand where you are coming from. Neve-selbert (talk) 03:42, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

My correction is not a vandalism! The correct name of that Vatican office is GovernATorate, not Governorate! See President of the Pontifical Commission for Vatican City State --Jerus82 (talk) 05:16, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Neve-selbert? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:22, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Per the Vatican, "Governorate" is the correct term for that office. I've updated the article cited by Jerus82. General Ization ^Talk 05:29, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Ok. I updated Template:Politics of Vatican City. --Jerus82 (talk) 06:12, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Vandalism in Cities Most Highrise

Vandalism in Cities Most Highrise article. This article based in Emporis sources which is neutral sources and in English. But somebody had edited the article and put Shanghai highrise more than 14.000 based on local sources which is not neutral sources. Its impossible Shanghai highrise : Hongkong highrise + New York highrise

In this source Shanghai only had 1,232 building. Emporis data completed with list the name of the highrise so we can verified not just city claimed. There is a pattern for building more than 180 metre : Hongkong had 143, New York had 100, Chicago had 50, Shanghai only had 70. For the city without height restriction there is impossible Shanghai only had 70 buildings more than 180 metre but had more than 14.000 highrise building. New York had 100 building more than 180 metre but New York only had 6.000 highrise building. Except city with height restriction such as Sao Paulo. http://www.emporis.com/statistics/skyline-ranking — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mirandajovi (talk • contribs) 03:28, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Mirandajovi, as I told your IP, use the article's talk page to discuss. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:32, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Oke but please change the article its a vandalism Shanghai had 14.000 buildings. Shanghai is international city why no single foreigner report it to Emporis ?? For example in the year 2014 Emporis count the highrise in Moscow only 3000 buildings. But there is a report completed with the name of the building. So Emporis change highrise count for Moscow more than 10.000 highrise.--Mirandajovi (talk) 03:35, 31 October 2015 (UTC)--Mirandajovi (talk) 03:35, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Mirandajovi, I don't think you're listening to me. You were edit warring with another IP. Right now, you have three options to change the article. 1) Best option - Post to the talk page and get agreement for your edit. 2) Wait until protection expires and edit the article yourself. 3) Get autoconfirmed and edit the article yourself. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:45, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

'Dictionary' articles

Hi NeilN, quick question - came across Staffing as I have your talk page watched and sometimes stalk it. In my opinion the article is just a glorified dictionary definition, and although I'm not claiming any 'violation' of Wipedia is not a dictionary, I'm curious as to why it does exist samtar ^{t} 11:13, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) The talk page reveals all: Talk:Staffing. See the banner at the top; the article was created as a homework assignment, and was consequently bloated and non-encyclopedic. Now that it's been trimmed down it really is little more than a dictionary definition. Softlavender (talk) 11:40, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I did have a quick look at that Softlavender, unfortunately it makes me torn between AfDing it as almost solely a dictionary entry or leaving it be as someone's assignment... samtar ^{t} 12:44, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

samtar, you're right in that right now it's little more than a dicdef but a AFD probably would (and should) result in a keep or redirect. It would be redirected if the AFD participants decided to TNT it. However since it's going to be worked on, it would probably be kept. If done properly, the AFD should not only look at the current state, but also if the article has the potential to become more than a dicdef. If you nominated the article for deletion, you would be responsible for doing a WP:BEFORE. Do you think you could find sources that would allow you to expand the article beyond a dicdef? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:33, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

• I don't see any indication it's going to be worked on further. Right now it's a single sentence. I would AfD it for sure. (By the way, most homework assignments on Wikipedia cause more harm than good, in my observation.) Softlavender (talk) 03:28, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Halloween cheer!

Happy Halloween!

---

Hello NeilN:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!
    – --I am k6ka ^{Talk to me!} _{See what I have done} 15:46, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Speedy deletion request by blocked user

Hello Neil, as I was going through speedy deletion requests, I found this one which was tagged by User:Supdiop 2. When I wanted to ask that user about it, I noticed that they were just blocked by you for disruptive editing. What was the nature of the disruption? Does it warrant checking this user's other speedy deletion requests? — Sebastian 08:09, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

@SebastianHelm: The main account Supdiop went off the rails for a bit after their unsuccessful RFA and had to be temporarily blocked for disruptive editing. They then switched to their alternate account which I also blocked for the same thing (basically refusing to drop the stick). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:08, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

OK, I checked, and saw no other recent CSD nominations from that user. Still, that might be something to look out for in cases like this. — Sebastian 06:18, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Chris Oyakhilome

Hi Neil, this is Glory (Life-Giving Spirit), I got a message to talk to you about edit-warring, which is what I never wanted.

I just thought that assuming Oyakhilome has the monetary value listed on his page, it doesn't add up. However, instead of causing a way, I won't make the correction again. I'll leave the page as it is.

Thanks for your time Life-giving Spirit (talk) 14:14, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Life-giving Spirit. If you think your change is correct, you should talk to the other editor (Edwardx) using their talk page or the article's talk page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:03, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Halloween cheer!

Happy Halloween!

---

Hello NeilN:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!
    – North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:04, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.
Sent to users on my mailing list. To opt-out forever, just remove your name.

• Happy (belated) Halloween! North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:04, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Block evasion

Hello. A couple of days ago you rangeblocked 2600:1005:b040::/42 and protected a couple of aircraft articles (F-16, UH-60 and possibly more) because of repeated disruptive editing by an IP-hopper (Verizon, NYC). Well, he's at it again, now using Special:Contributions/2600:1005:B027:8D8F:AC93:246E:D66D:89AB and Special:Contributions/2600:1005:B015:551B:D102:A5B9:8A01:370E, and several other IPs in those ranges too... Thomas.W ^talk 18:48, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

• This user has also created Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations/Bilcat, which is misplaced and lists the wrong username anyway. I've tagged it as G3 for speedy deletion, as that's the most appropriate DB I could find. Thanks for anything you can do in this situation. - BilCat (talk) 19:42, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

@Thomas.W: Blocked that IP range. A lot of articles were edited so holding off on protection unless the disruption resumes. @BilCat: Deleted as a WP:G5. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:55, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much. - BilCat (talk) 20:55, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Dankyhashpants

Hello Neil,

You warned this editor about their conduct at Bill Cosby last December. They just added a BLP violation to the article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:36, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

@Cullen328: And it's the same violation they were warned about. Blocked 72 hours. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:43, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. It seems they are adding unreferenced musical genres as well. Though far less serious, this does not bode well for their success as an editor. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:46, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

@Cullen328: And you were right. Their second attempt at an unblock request earned them an indefinite with talk page access removed. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:16, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Wowzers! No "Editor of the Month" award for them. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:25, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Which blocked or banned user previously created the Sexual aggression article?

Neil, the following log by MuZemike states: "19:08, 9 July 2012 MuZemike (talk | contribs) deleted page Sexual aggression (G5: Creation by a blocked or banned user in violation of block or ban)."

So which blocked or banned user previously created that article? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:58, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Leucosticte. It was just a redirect to Sexual assault. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:14, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

That is what I thought, and it aligns with this and this. Alison hasn't yet gotten back to me on the matter, but all evidence points to Beembly (talk · contribs) being User:Nathan Larson/User:Tisane/User:Leucosticte (etc.). Thanks, Neil. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:09, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi there, Flyer22. Spot-on as usual, unfortunately. Check my block logs for the dozen or so other Tisane accounts. You might want to review their edits and page creation for the usual POV - Alison ^❤ 09:03, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

By the way

Please reply to my message on my talk page. Was I like harassing? I am totally upset because my Packers were terrible. --74.130.133.1 (talk) 04:46, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I've already replied here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:49, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I wrote a long message on my talk page. See there --74.130.133.1 (talk) 04:55, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

regarding user 2602:306:B8BF:C0:9CE:5C94:E144:62DD (talk · contribs)

User 162.74.52.147 (talk · contribs) who has edit-warred Nuclear triad and INS Vishal few days ago is now back as 2602:306:B8BF:C0:9CE:5C94:E144:62DD (talk · contribs) and he is now back doing the same edits to the pages he repeated violating WP:NPOV on INS Vishal and now has done the same against consensus on Nuclear triad and . He appears to have disregard for consensus, NPOV and identifying reliable sources. I stopped reverting his edits so as not to violate 3RR. 162.74.52.147 (talk · contribs) was reported and blocked as being a sockpuppet of Shulinjiang (talk · contribs). He continuosly IP hops and comes back and does the same violative edits to the same pages. 2602:306:B8BF:C0:9CE:5C94:E144:62DD (talk · contribs) appears to be a sock of 162.74.52.147 (talk · contribs). I do not know what are required to open a sockpuppet investigation so can you please look into it. standardengineer (talk) 07:11, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

standardengineer, please see this. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 07:37, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Direct Democracy Ireland

Neil, you are welcome to mention my name, but I have not been the only one reverting this and other SPIs on the article. It is a minor party with neutrally put, an avid following. I list some party members who have edited the talkpage, article or both below.

• Cormac325
• Martinbyrne68
• Martinbyrne6
• Magicrat1961
• SaoirseBeag
• Jeff Rudd
• DDI
• Ecablt1
• Larrymccarthy

Now it is a piece that is on my watchlist, as I am sure you have on yours. I am not a supporter, and dont have any hard feelings against them, but constant views that they are being cast in a bad light on here, including the new page coming soon, with the article being rferenced over 40 times, which for the size means practically every line. While I try to maintain what is actually cited, which is what this encyclopeda is about, the frustration being born of out so many SPAs adding and removing without sources, or with primary on this artcile is why I have RPP. Any ideas, and dont say talk, because all that is talked back is about what they define themselves as, which is a 2 year broken record. Murry1975 (talk) 16:27, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

And Railsparks is WP:NOTHERE. Murry1975 (talk) 18:17, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Murry1975, sounds as if you'd like more watchers on the article. Perhaps post a neutral note on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland asking for editors to keep an eye on the page? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:40, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Revdel request

This revision should probably be hidden. Cheers. clpo13_(talk) 19:54, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Done. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:58, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

KKK List

Just wanted to let you know that we might be expecting some more fun BLP violations due to the Anonymous operation against the KKK: more details here and here. Thanks, GAB^Hello! 21:26, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

GAB, already experienced the fun :-) [9] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:28, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Everyone beats me to all of the good stuff these days! GAB^Hello! 21:30, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Edits by CounterTime

Have a look at the edits by the new user CounterTime in Apostasy in Islam and Al-Baqara 256 articles. The new user has engaged in personal attacks here, and has been advised against disruptive behavior by Iryna Harpy and I, here and here. In Apostasy in Islam, I have welcomed a talk page discussion but received no response. The new user continues to edit war. Best regards, RLoutfy (talk) 23:25, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Dear NeilN. Have a look at this version of the article on Q.2:256 after my improvements and see this version by RLoutfy (changes listed here and here) which he keeps popping up. Now please sir, why does he suppress all the improvements that I have made and was the first to engage in an edit war? Thanks. --CounterTime (talk) 23:33, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

@CounterTime: I pulled you up on your ignoring WP:BRD on the Jizya article. I am not well acquainted with the nuances of Islam, but I can identify POV-pushing and refusing to respond to another editor who is trying to discuss changes being made to an article's content. So far, you have not established that further sources you've introduced are reliable (not even verifiable for cite checking)... and particularly that Thomas Arnold is still considered to be reliable. Comments you have made on talk pages are WP:UNCIVIL and WP:BATTLEGROUND. Understand that I don't even care whether or not you are correct: you are breaching the WP:FIVEPILLARS that are the backbone of what it means to be a contributor here.

There are a number of articles surrounding the subject area that have been undergoing radical changes based on POV and an unjustifiable overuse of WP:PRIMARY sources. I'm sorry that I'm not able to assist further as a third party when it comes to theological doctrine, RLoutfy. This situation strikes me as being in need of another form of dispute resolution. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:16, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

@Iryna Harpy: Hello. Thanks for your comments, I hope that we'll -together- help this encyclopedia become better. I, personally, think that the main reason you think that Arnold's (author and co-founder of important institutions or undertakings in Islamic studies such as the Encyclopaedia of Islam and the School of Oriental [and African] Studies. He's a very prominent orientalist, whose legacy is admired by both orientalists and many Muslim scholars.) popular and monumental work 'The Preaching of Islam' is because you aren't familiar enough with that field, and I'm not attacking you or something, just saying a possible cause of misunderstanding. And while we're at it, @RLoutfy himself used very old works, such as the Geschichte des Qorâns (1860) of the german orientalist Theodore (see the history and talk page of Al-Baqara 256).

Can you be more specific when you state "POV-pushing"? I'm astonished that my edits sound as POV to you, when this radical edit by @RLoutfy doesn't.

You also say that "refusing to respond to another editor who is trying to discuss changes being made to an article's content", I have responded to all of @RLoutfy's comments, see here, here and here.

Yes, I violated WP:UNCIVIL one time in @RLoutfy's talk page. I'm sorry for that. But other than that I remained very patient with user @RLoutfy.

There's a reason why I used some WP:PRIMARY sources in the Q.2:256 article, first translations of known tafsirs such as the one of al-Tabari, ...etc or of works of scholars like Ibn Qayyim (e.g. Ahkam Ahl Al-Dhimma), one is thus in need of directly taking from them, but I agree that there should be a consensus on translation. I hope you get what I'm saying here.

Thanks in advance! Have a nice day! --CounterTime (talk) 12:23, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Dear @NeilN: and @Iryna Harpy:, It seems that @RLoutfy has been engaged in active misquoting, see here, please have a look at it. --CounterTime (talk) 20:11, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Dear @NeilN: and @Iryna Harpy:, I found again that @RLoutfy has unsurprisingly been engaged in active misquoting, see here, please have a look at it. --CounterTime (talk) 18:45, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

@CounterTime: My apologies, but I'm currently involved in other article disputes to the point of not knowing how to prioritise my time. More to the point, I am not in a position to engage in extensive reading in order to familiarise myself with the details of the subject matter in order to be able to give a reasonably qualified NPOV opinion. I can't speak for NeilN, but I think this is something for the WP:DRN where editors/admins will be in a position where they are prepared to dedicate time to the arguments and references under dispute. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:35, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

direct democracy ireland

user murry1975 is still persistant with its citable material if it suits him i am now asking for murry1975 to refrain from the DDI page E.G he said a wordpress could not be used and when i pointed out that the article was a wordpress he turned around and said it was a very good opinionated articles editors are supposed to unbiased and neutral and this clearly isnt the case,Railsparks (talk) 23:52, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Railsparks, have you carefully read through our reliable sources guideline? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:34, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Page of Mark Adair

Can you please send me an email. I am Marks agent and would like to put you through to have a conversation with him. (Redacted) John2732 (talk) 01:29, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

John2732, you can email me using the "email this user" link found in the sidebar to the left. Alternatively, have a look at Wikipedia:Contact us - Subjects. Emailing info-en-qwikimedia.org will put you in touch with a volunteer group specializing in dealing with confidential information. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:51, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	You are a great administrator, who solves problems quickly and easily. And you deal with vandalism really well and because of you, there vandal count is dropping every day. You are one of the greatest admins I've ever met.Spike789 Talk 01:54, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

high risk merchant account

Hello Neil, My article on High risk merchant account is removed no matter how many times I revise it. There is a huge importance for merchants to know the difference between a merchant account and a high risk merchant account. We have been in the industry for 10 years and everyday we deal with educating people on the differences. I wanted to create a qiki page that explained this. In short, just so you can understand. Typical banks like " Chase bank, Bank of America, wells fargo, ect" will only set up merchant accounts for retial stores that "physically can touch" a persons credit/debit card. Places like, dry cleaners, clothing stores, restaurants, jewelry, ect. They WILL NOT set up merchant accounts for industries such as: Call centers, Diet Pills online, MLM, Hotel discount websites, Coupon sites, Debt collection agencies, credit repair agencies, tech support companies, ect. These companies need a "high risk merchant account" because all of their customers are not face to face with the merchant and there is a higher probability for chargebacks or stolen credit cards. Their rates will be higher and there will be more rules and regulations with these "high risk merchant accounts" That being said, I really would like to create the page to educate the public on the vast differences but it seems that due to the lack of awareness of wiki editors they think it is advertising, so if you could help me better understand I would really appreciate it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bmp17 (talk • contribs) 14:20, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Bmp17 The version of the article that I saw had no references. Articles need to be written about notable subjects, and notability is determined when a subject receives significant coverage from reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Without references, that cannot be determined. Frankly, based on what I saw, the entire contents could be included as a paragraph in another existing article—not sure which, but I'll leave that up to you. Maybe Credit card fraud? Looks like "card not present transaction" is already mentioned there. There is also an article about Card not present transaction I don't know that the content you wish to submit requires its own article, though. We could create a redirect from High risk merchant account to wherever the paragraph you submit winds up, so that anyone searching for that term gets the information they need. The content, though, would have to be well sourced. Hope that helps. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:08, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Bmp17, I see you've once again recreated the article with the same issues. I have prodded it. Please read what Cyphoidbomb wrote above as it contains very useful advice. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:58, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Millennials

Hi, when you have a moment could you ask the admin who locked the Millennials page to unlock it? We were talking it out on the talk page and MusikAnimal decided to lock the page during the talk session. The action wasn't needed and seems biased. Thank you. 2606:6000:610A:9000:6879:44D5:DB6D:A53A (talk) 19:22, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

That's the precise reason it was semi-protected. Let the talk page discussion play out, reach a consensus, and the changes will be implemented. You are free to make an edit request at any time — MusikAnimal ^talk 21:19, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. 2606:6000:610A:9000:6879:44D5:DB6D:A53A (talk) 21:49, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Combination Lock hoax inserter

I'm sure you remember Stewartvinrese123, who kept insisting on making up this show, creating articles on it, and inserting it into Grey DeLisle. Take a look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Stewartvinrese123 and Combination Lock (Game Show). Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:33, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Looks to be taken care of. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:30, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Generation Z

Hi, could you take a look at the direct quote from Stats Canada on Generation Z please? See the talk page. The opposing editor want to paraphrase instead of using a direct quote from the source. Paraphrasing twists the meaning and a direct quote is actually what the source says. Isn't that the definition of OR? 2606:6000:610A:9000:6879:44D5:DB6D:A53A (talk) 21:05, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Maybe you can answer this: what is the Wikipedia policy when an news article misquotes the original source? And that can be easily proved on their website. Thank you. 2606:6000:610A:9000:40A5:2C2:AE1B:2669 (talk) 19:45, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Replied here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:23, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Stats Canada should be left out of the generations articles. They have a very confusing and convoluted explaination of a cultural generation. For example, they claim that there is a generation who were born during a five year period of time -- that is ridiculous. See page 6 of this document [10] We should leave them out. Do you agree? 2606:6000:610A:9000:40A5:2C2:AE1B:2669 (talk) 02:30, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Also, could you weigh in on unlocking the page? The requesting editor McGeddon has an apparent conflict of interest. He/she requested the lock then continues to edit the page at-will. The lock is until Nov. 11 which is unreasonable amount of time since the disputed content is being discussed on the talk page for a few days now. 2606:6000:610A:9000:BD14:DEDA:EF05:DFC4 (talk) 16:21, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I realize you are busy but could you respond about this issue. It's a apparent conflict for an editor to request a lock on a page and then continue to edit the page at-will. Do you see that? 2606:6000:610A:9000:8547:5B6E:711:E5E2 (talk) 20:26, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

The protecting admin, CambridgeBayWeather, would take that into account when evaluating page protection. Since you jump IPs (not your fault), page protection is a better option than blocking one of your IPs to stop the edit warring. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:55, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Well the locking admin just said this to my request to unlock the page: "Looks like dispute to me. Use the talk page and discuss it". 2606:6000:610A:9000:8547:5B6E:711:E5E2 (talk) 21:04, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Which is good advice. I can't actually do anything here. Registered editors are not prohibited from editing semi-protected articles they've requested protection on and you've just been reported to WP:ANEW which undercuts any argument that you've stopped edit warring on articles. My advice: either register an account or live with the fact that if you revert multiple editors, the article will be protected to stop that. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:15, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, but you could ask the Gen Z locker to unlock right? 2606:6000:610A:9000:8547:5B6E:711:E5E2 (talk) 22:12, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

DOY deletions

I support your removing crap from the already overburdened DOY pages, but the editor who undid your prior edits may have MOS on his side. I mean you can claim BOLD but he can revert, .... My point is that maybe those which are non-notable or stubs which haven't been improved since they were created should be PRODded or AFDed. Yours, Quis separabit? 03:32, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Quis separabit?, I opened a discussion here. I can see it adding it to one article, but sixteen? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:38, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

OK, I see I made a mistake in thinking these were non-notable individuals, not the 16 Days of Activism against Gender-based Violence, which I would still agree is insufficiently notable to merit 16 references; perhaps one as you suggest. Just to clear that up. Quis separabit? 03:45, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Got your message

I have heard of "Vote X for change", however, Elockid didn't state this was the reason why he reverted, he just reverted a report made about him. Like I said in the edit summary, it generally doesn't look good when you revert something about yourself, and yes I looked at the post he was talking about. Thanks for the heads up on that post, I won't touch it again if it's reverted. (I was writing on that board and got edit conflicted with that IP's post the first time :) ) KoshVorlon 18:36, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Randomness

Hi What u doing Tonight

Eating dinner, I expect. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:55, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

:) GAB^Hello! 01:28, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

What an odd conversation to be having on Wikipedia... 156.12.251.17 (talk) 04:23, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Do you come here often? Bishonen | talk 04:26, 5 November 2015 (UTC).

You know on Wikipedia, it's a complete crapshoot. I bet Drmies never thought their answer to the original question would be, "Getting RSI while removing licking breasts redirects". --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:54, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Just a sec--almost done. Drmies (talk) 04:01, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

How YOU doin'? Phew, that section is done. God knows how much more. I wonder about his RSI on 20 September. I'm glad he wasn't interested (AFAIK) in other parts of the female anatomy. Drmies (talk) 04:08, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Oh shit. And I thought I covered that topic already. Drmies (talk) 04:09, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

@Drmies: A while ago, I realized that Wikipedia is the 21st century equivalent of sausages. This situation certainly lends some credence to that observation. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:22, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Yeah. I'm done--I can't even see straight anymore. And there's a lot more shit that needs to be shoveled. Later, Drmies (talk) 04:28, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

• Utterly SERIOUS question: I would like to know what sign everyone on this thread is. I'm serious. Softlavender (talk) 05:16, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

• I'm seriously partial to this one. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:36, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

  

Borcker

There's been a lot of bizarre activity over at Footjob, and I strongly suspect that it is connected to blocked sockmaster Borcker, who pulled a lot of similar shenanigans. This occurs the very day your kind protection of the article expired. I think that we're dealing with a very persistent and devoted vandal here. Glad I'm not dealing with this at work, otherwise my browsing history would seem rather disturbing. Thanks, GAB^Hello! 00:06, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

GAB, thanks for the heads up. Re-protected 6 months. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:26, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Wonderful, thanks! I think I might pull together an SPI tomorrow on these guys. GAB^Hello! 01:30, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the timely block. I have never seen a more aggressive vandal. Perhaps someone with previous experience? GAB^Hello! 00:04, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

GAB, they know about AIV so probably. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:12, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

88.144.241.175

Neil, since I see you online would you take a look at 88.144.241.175, an IP jumper ranting about the same POV c.f. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lucyintheskywithdada, and put your foot down if you feel fit. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:43, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Sam Sailor, blocked. If more socks show up, please let me know. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:10, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:59, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Bird Set Free (Sia song)

Hello, I just wanted to let you know that a user has been adding Adele as a writer for the song "Bird Set Free" by Adele on both the song's page and the album's page (This Is Acting). If you could let them know that they're edit warring, since they've done it a few times now in the same day, I would appreciate it. 156.12.251.17 (talk) 04:22, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Warned for adding unsourced material. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:27, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Case regarding User:Nathan Larson/User:Tisane/User:Leucosticte's articles

Neil, per this, will you add the latest post from this editor at User:Flyer22 Reborn/Leucosticte's commentary? I'm not asking you to restore the diff-links so that they are no longer revision deleted; I'm only asking for the post. Administrators will obviously be able to see what the diff-links reveal. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:38, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Done. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:50, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Neil; taken to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#WP:ArbCom-banned Leucosticte's articles. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:48, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Shaun King (activist)

Neil, the issue is certainly a BLP one. The reliable sources cited treat the issue as a statement of fact. The rewrite ignored what those sources said and, in fact, intentionally misrepresented and lied about what the sources said. The sources do not attribute the matter of his racial heritage to "King says." This is not only a violation of BLP, but a violation of the even more foundational WP:V, as the new text was not supported by the sources supplied. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:54, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

@NorthBySouthBaranof: "however, King says he is the son of a Caucasian mother and an African-American father" is derived from "prominent social justice activist Shaun King told The Washington Post Thursday that he is biracial because he is the son of his white mother and a black man whose identity he does not know." This is not an obvious BLP violation. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:59, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Neil, you missed the sources that are in-line cited to support the specific statement. King is the son of a Caucasian mother and an African-American father[6][15]. Those sources are this article and this article. The former specifically states, as fact, The son of a Caucasian mother and an African-American father. The latter specifically states, as fact, TwitChange, the winner of the most creative social good campaign in 2010, was a Black-owned company. Neither reliable source treats his racial heritage as a matter of POV or attributes it to King. It is an obvious BLP violation to misrepresent what those sources say about a living person's racial heritage. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:04, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

@NorthBySouthBaranof: And you can discuss what sources to use on the talk page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:10, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

And those sources are there, and have never not been there, and what they have said has not changed. The edits by Winklevi and then by the IP, who took up the cudgel, changed the text in a manner not supported by the sources but left the sources intact, as if they supported what was being said. Changing the text of a biographical article to say something not supported by the sources is a BLP violation, and a verifiability violation. I'm not sure what part of this you're missing. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:12, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

@NorthBySouthBaranof: As I stated initially, "King says" is not a misrepresentation of "Shaun King told The Washington Post". --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:17, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

The section in question is not and never was cited to The Washington Post. It was, and is, cited to two reliable sources which state his racial heritage as a matter of unquestioned fact. The text was changed; the sources cited were not. If there was an intent to change the sources cited, one would think the "experienced editor" would have done so. They did not — they simply changed the text of a living person's biography in a manner that misrepresented the cited sources and expected to walk away. If they believe that other sourcing should be used, that's a discussion worth having on the talk page, and I've opened a discussion to that end. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:19, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

@NorthBySouthBaranof: Sorry, yes, you're right. I was looking at the sources in the Questions regarding race section. So I'll semi-protect the article. However, if Winkelvi puts in proper sourcing then it becomes a matter for discussion and reverts may be seen as edit warring. Winkelvi, I do not recommend you change the text without discussing first. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:35, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate you taking the time to take a second look at this issue, Neil. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:43, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

No worries about me doing anything to the article in the near future, NeilN. The editors who have been guarding the article for months now have successfully chased away another editor there. Not much unlike the Ahmed Mohammed/clock boy article. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:02, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

@NorthBySouthBaranof: Thank you for your persistence. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:45, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

The current pp template is inappropriate and should be removed or replaced. Artw (talk) 04:56, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Artw, full protection is appropriate in a content dispute. And despite NorthBySouthBaranof's RFPP report, the text was originally written by an experienced editor. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:03, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Muslim conquests on the Indian subcontinent

Hi Neil, the Muslim conquests on the Indian subcontinent page is undergoing a slow edit war, and the 1RR discretionary sanctions might help. Can you take a look? Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 10:34, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Page Protection

Hi NeilN, Please protect Israelis article for 1 month. — Preceding unsigned comment added by דאמיזרצס (talk • contribs) 12:38, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi דאמיזרצס. Please read our protection policy. There's not enough recent disruption to merit protection. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:10, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

hi

could you comment at wikiproject med talk page, last section [11](I had pinged you about a possible SPA) thanks--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:24, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

@Ozzie10aaaa: Yes, I got the notification. Just working through the list :-) Replied here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:37, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

note:

I do understand what you're saying; and I appreciate the feedback. Thank you. — Ched :  ?  17:59, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Mudar Zahran

Hello, you blocked ip address @82.3.238.241: for a week. I kindly request an indefinite period of time, per Wikipedia:Blocking IP addresses#Indefinite blocks. Considering the fact that he posted 4 highly aggressive toned legal threats in less than 15 minutes.--Makeandtoss (talk) 23:37, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Makeandtoss, we don't indefinitely block IP addresses per WP:IPBLENGTH: "IP addresses used by blatant vandals, sockpuppets and people issuing legal threats should never be blocked for long periods unless there is evidence that the IP address has been used by the same user for a long time." If the editor comes back with that IP or another one without retracting the threat then we will reblock again. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:56, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

@NeilN: "Unless there is evidence that the IP address has been used by the same user for a long time"... which is the case here. IP contribution explicitly shows that the same person has been exclusively using this IP address for about 368 days, which I guess is more than enough.--Makeandtoss (talk) 00:18, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Makeandtoss, what I find in these cases is that one of three things happens. 1) They retract the threat. 2) They switch IPs and start socking. 3) They stop editing altogether and disappear. If they start editing with the same IP without retracting then the next block will be much longer (but still not indefinite). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:26, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

@NeilN: Uhm why still not indefinite? (Regardless of the fact that they have several other options to escape the indefinite block on the IP). --Makeandtoss (talk) 00:33, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Makeandtoss, because that's straight policy: "IP addresses should rarely, if ever, be blocked indefinitely." We block for one year, two years, three years... but not indefinitely. We assume at some point in time, another person will get that IP. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:44, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I believe 1 week is too insignificant, anyway, thank you for your time.--Makeandtoss (talk) 00:47, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Makeandtoss, you realize the editor is de facto indef blocked, right? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:50, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

@NeilN: Unless he retracts, no?--Makeandtoss (talk) 00:51, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Makeandtoss, correct. He was blocked for making legal threats. He can be unblocked if he retracts those threats. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:54, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

@NeilN: Which is sort of the problem here.. He will probably retract, and his stance becomes as if no abusive legal threats were ever made.--Makeandtoss (talk) 01:01, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Makeandtoss, if he was reported for making legal threats and blocked for making legal threats that block can't suddenly be for something else. If he retracts and then continues editing disruptively then he'll be blocked again for that behavior. BTW, no need to ping editors on their own talk page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:11, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Suspected tampering of information on Agoda.com to provide misleading info on wikipedia

Hi,

Please compare information on (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agoda.com) on the number of employees. It is written by Asheshong (an employee of Agoda) that the the company has over 2,000 employees worldwide. On 22 Oct, I had left an message to him that the Agoda.com show 1300 instead.

This is the google cache version on 3 Nov, showing 1300. http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://www.agoda.com/info/about-agoda.html?asq=jGXBHFvRg5Z51Emf%2fbXG4w%3d%3d

However, the information had been changed to 2000 in the "Live" version (http://www.agoda.com/en-sg/info/about-agoda.html?asq=aDXiC8E8RTUAwy3fLvyxI6ZwabNakf%2fQIq3PImRy%2bt6pks4y%2b437qH2ICjErBu0VHTS7uuP9x4PNjhfAlPM4Yv3lkvQoQ27oSvHJHQjqE9rCREf7MehOqWBRcpHGJjwQP12kFnRKRI0YEWacb5qD11XwByl4sGhSgkTH4aHFI24%3d&cid=1651632&tag=ad91fe07-6cf6-4571-99c2-ce65ad3206b6)

It seem to be a case of tampering of own website's information to provide misleading information on wikipedia. Please look into this.

Boonchong chua (talk) 01:37, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @Boonchong chua: Have you considered the possibility that the ongoing discussion on the article's talk page led someone at the company to check the employment stats from the company's website and compare those to personnel records? Finding a discrepancy of 700 employees may have motivated that person to request that the person responsible for the website fix the issue. The company is part of Priceline (verified independently) and it seems unlikely that they would publish incorrect info about employment numbers just to trick Wikipedia.  Etamni ^mobile | ✉ | ✓ 20:48, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Etamni Hi, prior to 22 Oct, the figure show 2000 and it was updated to 1300 and it stay there at least till 3 Nov. Coincidentally, the figure was reverted back to 2000 AFTER I left a message with a employee who had written the page. It look like a case of update of company's profile according to wikipedia instead of the other way around. Updating the company's profile page is not like updating one's blog, surely there had to be approval and confirmation before doing so. If I am totally wrong, it would seem like there is someone in the company (with certain level of permission) who change information carelessly? Also, there are no other ref to support the company profile. Would this ref be acceptable as reliable source?

Boonchong chua (talk) 02:18, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @Boonchong chua: I apologize for the delay. As mentioned on my own talk page, I've been without internet for a few days. I cannot speak for the company we are talking about, but I've worked for large corporations before and sometimes out-of-date information continues to be displayed on company websites, internal sites, etc. until someone figures out who is responsible for the information and gets them to change it. This is especially likely to happen if there have been personnel changes in the department that is responsible, and nobody is quite sure who is actually in charge of updating some minor trivial bit of information. In my opinion, a company's own website can be considered reliable for non-controversial information about the company, and for determining a company's official position regarding certain controversial issues. If there is no specific reason to distrust the employment numbers, then go ahead and use them and cite the source. Do keep in mind that employment numbers may be different depending on what department is reporting them and how they are calculated. This may seem counter-intuitive, but different numbers might result if, for instance, one person is just counting how many people get pay checks each pay period, while another person may include employees at subsidiaries, and someone else may count independent agents or contractors or temps as employees based on the fact that the company is essentially employing them, even if they are not technically "employees" of the company. I would be happy to discuss this further, but it should probably be on my talk page instead of here. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  02:10, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Sa925 again

So, recently off a 48 hour block for disruptive submission of post-credits content at The SpongeBob Movie: Sponge Out of Water, Sa925 has resumed the disruptive submission of blah blah blah. I'll get your bright yellow bucket ready. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:18, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Langah (caste) and Langah (tribe)

Hello. I made a mistake by moving Langah (caste) page to Langah (tribe) as that page already existed and was redirected to Langah (clan). It was a honest mistake and I did not know that those page existed. Can you please revert them and I will try to merge them. WikiBulova (talk) 19:54, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

WikiBulova, the article is back at Langha caste. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:07, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Please stop!

I don't know what your fixation is with me and I don't care. You have been needlessly rude, I am doing my best. I don't care who this guy is I just know that the article started off very badly, my lack of experience didn't help, and as I've discovered recently mobile and web options are different. History is not available on mobile. In addition there have been other contributors and editors whose additions have been valuable. I have helped with other articles and intend to do so when I can and with more caution. I recently had a discussion with another editor GB and their proposal to help the article was a good one, but a lack of co-operation on the part of the other individual is a roadblock. I'm sorry you are finding this difficult, but I prefer to work with people like GB because middle ground is a good route. I don't own the article and neither does anyone else. I shouldn't have started with a living person article, they are trickier than I thought. Hope you take time to consider what other editors have had to offer, I'd rather work as a team. If you feel anything I have said here is evidence that I need to be blocked from this topic, I'm sorry you feel that way. Thank-you for your efforts as well, I have noticed them. CheckersBoard (talk) 20:05, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

@CheckersBoard: Given your editing history, edits, and multitude of warnings you've received from various editors your assertion that you "don't care who this guy is" falls completely flat. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:12, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Guss what? I explained most of that already so someone here has tunnel vision and a mission and it's not me. You want a flame war pick someone else. You're obviously more interested in a fight than editing and quite frankly I don't care what you think because you've just come in to do battle. Don't talk to me anymore. Go bother someone else. Talking to you achieves nothing. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CheckersBoard (talk • contribs) 03:36, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Pervert barn star guy

Hey, can a hard block that will take out this dude's IP be applied? This is the second instance of this as you know, plus a very ducky set of pornographic block templates that were done by an IP6 in between. John from Idegon (talk) 21:07, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

John from Idegon, I did do an autoblock (hardblock). Did you mean something else? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:11, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	For dealing quickly with a troll at the Reference Desk. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:51, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

removal of Pashtuns by the (now protected) punjabi wiki page

so there are multiple reasons why not to include them here are some: pashtuns have a different culture ,totally different clothing ,history and origin than punjabis

same goes for balochs and balochs are like pashtuns iranic people and aren't closely related to punjabis and they weren't added before and pashtuns also lived extremly isolated due to them living in the mountains

Pashtuns are an iranian ethnic group originating from afghanistan

pashtuns in afghanistan didn't have a lot of contact with punjabis

pashtuns rarely married punjabis since it was against the pashtunwali (f.e. in afghanistan is a small punjabi minority who live extremly isolated)

pashtuns live on the iranian plateau and punjabis on the Indian subcontinent

pashtuns are waaay closer related to the iranians

if punjabis and pashtuns are related it's distand and definitely not as close as punjabis and sindhis are related to each other

pashtuns lived extremly isolated , punjabis were great merchants all over india

pashtuns also have different phenotypes than punjabis

pashtuns weren't added before one user Filpro keeps on adding them although a lot of people removed it , he keeps on adding them which I don't understand, we have talked about this in the punjabi talk Vikingswarri (talk) 00:47, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Vikingswarri, and you can discuss this on the article's talk page. Not here, please. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:50, 8 November 2015 (UTC

i did aand pashtuns and balochs were removed but filpro added pashtuns and balochs and you protected it then , meaning it can't be reveresed by m so i ask you kindly to remove balochs and pashtuns like before  :)

Vikingswarri, protection means the edit warring must stop and discussion must start or continue. If consensus does not emerge then please look at WP:DRR for other options. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:34, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, he already agreed and , more than one people keeps on removing pashtuns,he said his reasoning why he added them , is because they are neighbouring each other not because they are related which doesnt make any sense since that tab is abot related ethnic groups not neighbouring — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vikingswarri (talk • contribs) 10:28, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

me

Ill stop, but the reggie wayne one was pretty funny though lol — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redskinsfan2001 (talk • contribs) 03:16, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

note

There are people here on wiki that I have a huge amount of respect for. You are one of them. I tend to be insecure by nature, and when I get questioned I tend to back-off. I really appreciate your note. I'm an old man searching for the right things to do, let me get back to ya. — Ched :  ?  06:05, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Grey DeLisle protection duration

I see you just protected the article until May 2016 from sockpuppets, but quickly reduced it to just January. Out if curiosity, was there any particular reason for reducing the time length? Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:30, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

@SNUGGUMS: That's not what I meant to do. I meant to apply 6 months PC, 2 months semi. Fixed now - thanks for alerting me. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:39, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Sure thing. It just seemed odd to reduce semi-protection length so abruptly. Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:41, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Potential superpowers

Hello NeilN. Wondering how to proceed here. It is clear to see from this discussion that while myself and Iryna want to see the "Other contenders" section restored, Jirka.h23 unfortunately just wont accept fact. A case of Wikipedia:I just don't like it perhaps?Antiochus the Great (talk) 16:59, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

User talk:Kulwant Ladhar

I'm not sure who this is directed at, and I don't care, but I thought I should let you know. Thanks, --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 18:49, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

note

I reverted pure vandalism. Which is page blanking, which is exempt from 1RRMakeandtoss (talk) 21:35, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

@Makeandtoss: Content dispute, not "pure vandalism" and you're very lucky you weren't blocked. Continue the same behavior when protection expires and you will be blocked. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:42, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Don't worry, it was by mistake anyways.Makeandtoss (talk) 21:43, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Tommy Sotomayor

Renew PC? --George Ho (talk) 00:24, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Done. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:25, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

		Happy Diwali!!!
		Sky full of fireworks, Mouth full of sweets, Home full of lamps, And festival full of sweet memories... Wishing You a Very Happy and Prosperous Diwali. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:16, 10 November 2015 (UTC) Send Diwali wishings by adding {{subst:Happy Diwali}} to people's talk pages with a friendly message.

Saraiki dialect

Hi Neil, would you please watchlist Saraiki dialect for a while? The article has been periodically disrupted by a sock operator called LanguageXpert. Their usual MO is to promote a POV about their nation's languages and then act really attitude-y about their perspective over others. There's been some attitude-y edits as of late from a 39.* IP. LanguageXpert was suspected to be using this range. Thanks, my good sir. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:20, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Self-published source added to Millennials

Could you give your expert opinion on this please: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Dale_Carnegie_Training_Center_.2F_Millennials — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:6000:610A:9000:ACEF:1314:2DCF:1044 (talk) 19:25, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

58.187.163.215

Thanks. Anything I should be doing to monitor him? SireWonton (talk) 23:48, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

SireWonton, no need. He hasn't edited since you first warned him so my guess is that he's gone away. I'll keep an eye out to see if he resumes. Basically, admins usually won't block unless an editor vandalizes after a final warning. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:56, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Ok. Is what I gave him (Template:uw-vandalism1) appropriate, and should I give it to other users who haven't been warned about vandalism but should be? Also, what are my rights to give out warnings (I know I can't block or ban), but is there a level reserved for admins? SireWonton (talk) 00:55, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

SireWonton, I would have given a uw-disruption1 because I wouldn't be sure what the intent was there. The level was appropriate and you can read more about them here: WP:UWLEVELS. There are no levels reserved for admins. If you come across a bit of vandalism an editor wasn't warned for consider how long ago the vandalism took place. If it's more than 3-4 hours for IPs or a few days for registered users then I usually won't bother warning because it's likely they've moved on. I also won't warn if they've received a warning for vandalism they've done after the vandalism I've spotted (sometimes editors don't check the vandal's history after they've caught the latest bit). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:14, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Neelix

Neil,

I think you know how much I respect you but oh my gosh, this Neelix situation is a catastrophe. When I read your comments defending him, I am just amazed. He is clearly a net negative to the project, clearly a person with serious problems incompatible with our project to build an NPOV free encyclopedia, and clearly someone who needs to be desysopped and blocked promptly. Please take another look at this and see what a disaster it is to avoid acting promptly and decisively in this matter. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:48, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

@Cullen328: Let's see what I've actually said so far:

• Blocking and desysopping need discussion [12]
• A call to desysop in a discussion. I believe I was the third support. [13]
• Frustration at the Arbcom bureaucracy and wishing they would get on with it. [14]

I don't see how this is "defending Neelix". What I am poking holes in, however, is the notion that there's some grand conspiracy to keep Neelix unblocked and with his bit. No, it's just Wikipedia's usual plodding pace (which I expressed frustration at). Remember there were at least two admins ready to block Neelix at a drop of a hat (and at least one of them is rather an activist admin) but that didn't happen. I doubt their inaction was to defend Neelix or part of a conspiracy but rather waiting to see where the community stood. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:42, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I am one of the very last ones to posit a conspiracy, and I have not looked at everything you have said. I am confident that most of it makes sense. But I am really deeply disappointed by the inaction of our administrator/arb corps in this matter, which seems crystal clear to me as just a low level, rank and file editor.

A few weeks ago, I noticed an unusual lesion on my ear and went to see my dermatologist. She immediately recognized it as a likely skin cancer and cut it away with a razor blade, and sent the tissue for biopsy. I will have a Mohs procedure soon. Why can't the administrators do the same with the malignant Neelix? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:53, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Wishing you very well with your health, Cullen! That's a bit of a near miss or scare! Meanwhile, one good effect of the delay is that we're seeing more and more of the Neelix and Neelix-related iceberg appear every day. I think it's actually going to take years to undo his POV empire entirely, and even it (the walled empire of advocacy articles and the side-articles created to prop them up) is itself often rotten with bad sourcing, unfounded claims, and bizarre errors, not to mention absurd bloat, POV, and lack of notability. It's disheartening to say the least, and the number of man-hours that in the end will be spent on this cleanup will probably unprecedented, at least in my experience here. And I'm not even talking about the 80,000 redirects. Softlavender (talk) 07:47, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict):::::Neil, I couldn't agree with Cullen328 more. I am mortified that this wasn't handled swiftly, and embarrassed to be part of an organization that can in any way condone this behavior. I keep hearing what a toxic place for women Wikipedia is, but really hadn't seen it first hand. Until now. In 2015, a man cannot commit actions in ANY social setting that reduces women to a list of parts. A man cannot engage in creepy stalker like behavior. (Robert John Bardo comes to mind, frankly. It's creepy.) I realize that being sexist and creepy are not in and of themselves policy violations, but one of our pillars is IAR. Pretty sure Jimbo put that in to cover situations like this, where obvious common sense is not codified in policy. Prayers for you, Cullen. Prayers for Wikipedia too. Any takers for bets on which news magazine puts this on their cover next week? John from Idegon (talk) 08:03, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your supportive remarks, Softlavender. Yes, I will be fine with the proven treatments of modern medical technology, though it would be much worse if I relied on naturopathy or homeopathy. Figuratively, those seem to be the Wikipedia treatments. The "good effect" that you mention is, in effect, the result of the pathology reports being done by editors motivated to excise the cancerous pus that Neelix has deposited throughout this encyclopedia. I do not have the appetite for such work, but commend those that do. The failure, though, is that he has not yet been desysopped or blocked, though I see that he has finally been topic banned from creating redirects. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:08, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you also, John from Idegon. I truly appreciate your remarks. I am a guy who has defended this encyclopedia during several controversies, or remained silent during many, under the theory that the project as a whole was outstanding and transcended petty little controversies. But this case (unless I am blind to something) illustrates the utter failure of our current team of administrators and arbs to deal in the most simple way with something deeply loathesome and disruptive. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:17, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

@Cullen328 and John from Idegon: Before you put further blame on admins, you should recall that admins are supposed to carry out community consensus and not act as self-appointed moral stewards. Failure to remember this in the past on the part of some admins has resulted in admonishments and desysoppings. By my quick count, the indef blocking discussion at ANI had these results: 11 for indef block, 2 for 1 year block, 2 neutral, 14 opposing blocking. So obviously the situation isn't "crystal clear" to many editors. If it had been, you'd get 70% to 80% supporting and Neelix would be blocked right now. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:01, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Your point is very valid, Neil. I guess that I am as disappointed with the editors who tolerate this type of behavior as much as anything else. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:37, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

One of the perks of being a boss is you get to listen to the underlings whine.  :) My disappointment is with the community. My hope, albeit fleeting is that the arbs realize that their job is to look out for the community, not just rubber stamp it. This cannot be tolerated. John from Idegon (talk) 18:44, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I see that Neelix has resigned as an adinistrator and is under a topic ban on redirects. Various editors are trying to clean up his walled garden of obsession. So that's all good. There must be a better way, though. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:34, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

@Cullen328: Desysops by quick-motion that are initiated by an arbitrator. In other words, this should not have failed because of bureaucracy. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:11, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

White people#Ever-expanding infobox

In the article Ancient Egyptian race controversy we can see as treat the racial issue of people who are so ancient that no one has artistic source as they were physically, and yet exist this article argumenting each group hypothesis to give by truth certain beliefs about the Egyptians. As you see them, this article should Not exist, because in that age not is not written that nobody classified to other groups as whites, blacks, or asians--Vvven (talk) 16:51, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

@Vvven: I am confused as to what exactly you want done. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:57, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

i try to mean this article is saying an ancient egyptian was white, or ancient egyptian were black, and their article is valid, i said Da vinci was white because f.e. all his pictures confirm this, as they say the unrecognizable color of ancient egyptians, they affirm was black or white, for example in that article is it that a scholar say "When I visited the sphinx ... on seeing that head, typically Negro in all its features" i mean just for seeing the little damage shynx of gyza, he saw that It looked like a black face, i affirm in my case that da vinci was white because in his pictures he completelly see as white, and his descendants were europeans--Vvven (talk) 17:14, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)(talk page stalker) Academic consensus says that Cleopatra was white and Greek, and thousands of years old Egyptian funeral art clearly shows that the ancient Egyptian ordinary people where white/Mediterranean, and looked exactly like the people who live there now. Thomas.W ^talk 17:22, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

@Vvven:, okay, I have no idea why you brought this to my talk page as I'm not involved in that particular dispute. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:29, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

@Thomas.W: Thanks. for show that you said is true and thats beliefs are definite, you need go to a debate about Ancient Egyptian race controversy, we are debating here if my edits are valids in the White people article (are the article images) althought you can contribute in the debate--Vvven (talk) 17:35, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Vvven, pings won't work if you add them after you post. I suggest you go to Thomas.W's talk page and engage him there. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:05, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

No, please don't. I have no intention of joining that discussion since I engage plenty of fringe-pushers elsewhere on en-WP, and have no desire to also engage the "Cleopatra was black"-crowd. Thomas.W ^talk 18:10, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

@Vvven: No, we're not debating that here. Please use the article's talk page and engage Carwil who is the one who removed Da Vinci. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:39, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

@NeilN: this is difficult to understand man? no. i talking about is why in Da vinci image you has different rethoric than in Ancient Egyptian race controversy if are differents articles with the same stated problem (just your argument)--Vvven (talk) 17:51, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

@Vvven: Yes, this is difficult to understand because I wasn't the one who specifically removed Da Vinci. [15] I have no interest in this debate. Please take it elsewhere. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:56, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

sorry, very sorry, i dont know i was debating to you, a little confusion, sorryfor quit your time--Vvven (talk) 17:58, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Warning to your disruptive editing and 3RR in November 2015

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

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
--178.73.210.113 (talk)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Very strange how you show up after the editor adding that cruft to Kim Yuna has been indef blocked for edit warring. Ignoring talk page consensus as well. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:32, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

A Sahgal

Hi Neil, I have pointed out the COI policy to this user [16], but it has fallen on deaf ears. All the edits are unsourced. - Kautilya3 (talk) 18:04, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: Editors with a COI can still edit articles (although they are obviously discouraged from doing so). I've added some referencing info to their talk page. Some of the content should be added back in if a source can be found. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:12, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Ibisevic height issue

It is becoming obvious that we won't settle our differences on the matter, so I think that a third unbiased party should be involved, for example you. Someone with authority, who will read both sides' arguments and make a final ruling, which both David and I must respect and not change it anymore. HankMoodyTZ (talk) 18:42, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

HankMoodyTZ, I suggest using WP:3O. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:44, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

How does that work and has it proven to be efficient? Sorry, I'm quite new around here.

HankMoodyTZ, did you read the introduction and instructions? It's effective if both editors agree to listen to the neutral third party. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:17, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

A look at at the Cecil situation

Hi. While you're under allegations of supporting an administrator cabal... but much more to the point, since I think you have some judgement based on past interactions... can you keep a tab on what's going on at here (and related places, which is a handful) please? I'm not asking you to do anything, just to keep an eye, since I have the sensation of something escalating, given I think the admin in question isn't acting very admin-like, although MusikAnimal just protected the page following a request. LjL (talk) 18:51, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

@LjL: I actually edit conflicted with MusikAnimal writing a response to you. Although an admin can edit the article, all hell would break loose if they did so. I've seen an admin immediately blocked for doing that a few months ago even though it wasn't their fault (their edit went through a few seconds after full protection was applied so they didn't get a warning message). As to the protection itself, I came close to fully protecting it myself about an hour ago and would have if one more revert had been made. Implementing protection often sucks in these types of cases because someone is going to be unhappy and you're going to hear about it, even though you have no personal opinion on the content. If there are complaints, I will sometimes lift protection if the involved editors can show they've achieved consensus. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:07, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, we have not achieved consensus, but it looked to me like we had all stopped edit warring (only one editor ever went close to WP:3RR anyway I think, there were just a few involved) and were discussing, albeit heatedly (I'm really not fond of the concept of WP:BLP being used to shut down discussion of sources, and I actually care about that much more than about the specific instance of Cecil the poor lion). But if you assure me that no shady deals are likely going to happen... this is actually all I'm asking you, to keep an eye in case. LjL (talk) 19:11, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I have restored the protection level back to semi, under the condition edit warriors will be subject to blocks (which goes without saying, really). Hope this can be taken as a peaceful compromise, and that you understand why I felt full-protection was warranted — MusikAnimal ^talk 19:15, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, it's appreciated - although hopefully of no practical impact, since we will be discussing well after the original protection expiry date instead of edit warring.

(edit conflict) LjL, I'll keep an eye out. And I've said, "BLP invocation is not magic fairy spell" on more than one occasion :-) --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:16, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

WP:BLP is taken very (too?) seriously by some, sometimes as a license to WP:CENSOR. That's why I find it a particularly worrisome issue. Unfortunately, I feel the full extent of that policy is justified more by legal concerns of the WMF than encyclopedic concerns. LjL (talk) 20:36, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

About Reagan (given name)

Why is the page protected? --74.131.36.145 (talk) 21:45, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Kids messing about. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:32, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

What do you mean? Tell mewhy the page is protected? --166.170.52.35 (talk) 20:56, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, you have 31 hours to click on the link above and see for yourself. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:01, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Another Troll Messing with the Tommy Sotomayor article

Here is the latest troll as you can see from their history:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2.25.102.133

Thank you for dealing with them quickly earlier today. This may be the same person again under a different IP who is trying to vandalize the page again so maybe they should be blocked for a period of time, your call though. Thanks again. Neptune's Trident (talk) 02:32, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I posted to the talk page earlier with clear instructions that the article must be nominated at AFD to be considered for deletion. If the disruptive CSD and PROD tagging continues I will consider upgrading the PC protection to a semi. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:31, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Zude Nomination for deletion

I would like to nominate Zude for deletion but that article is locked and I can't add the tag. Tomtasget (talk) 11:35, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Tomtasget, please read WP:BEFORE. If, after doing so, you still feel the article should be deleted then please write up a policy-based reason for deletion and I will make the nomination on your behalf. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:39, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

OK. thanks for your patience and guidance. It's appreciated. Would you please nominate this as a Db-g11. The article is primarily promotes a service and would need to be substantially and fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Tomtasget (talk) 14:56, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

@Tomtasget: You know that's a speedy delete reason (and a speedy delete was rejected) and editors participating in the AFD are going to say a rewrite is not a reason for deletion, right? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:31, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

NeilN thanks. The other valid policy based reason is Db-web since the zude service never importance or significance (other than to the article owner). I'd still argue that Db-g11 applies Is there a way to add that as a kicker reason?

Tomtasget (talk) 16:06, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Spliff Joint Blunt/Archive

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Spliff Joint Blunt/Archive

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Spliff_Joint_Blunt/Archive

I believe that this is the same https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Portal:Current_events/2015_November_10&diff=690261720&oldid=690248990 sock who then continued under this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/94.187.27.194 today after receiving an indefinite block.--68.231.26.111 (talk) 22:22, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Looks like it. Blocked. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:28, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Craigslist/Daniel Leivick

Re: "Protecting admin last edited in July" [17] He was active in late October.[18] Samsara 23:29, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

@Samsara: Ah, okay. I just looked at the contribs. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:32, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Hinduism in Iceland

Hi, could you please take a look at 197.225.195.92 contributions? He seems to be related to Nikhil1234567 (talk · contribs) and his IP farm (see ([19]). Most of his edits add circular "see also" links or empty Hinduism sections to "Religion in Country x" articles. Thanks JimRenge (talk) 15:09, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

JimRenge, yes, same behavior. Blocked. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:24, 13 November 2015 (UTC)