User talk:NeilN

Saint Petersburg

Hi, I was surprised to see your closure here because the issue hasn't been resolved. Did you mean to just kick it to SPI, or did you not see my comment, or ...? This is an exceptional case of a crazy person edit-warring exceptionally crazy stuff into Wikipedia for at least six years. My favorite is "The redshiftedness of the Mongoloids and the blueshiftedness of the Jews imply that they are the broad Epimethean and narrow Promethean parts of the same funnel-shaped gravity well".[1] The range blocks have expired and need to be renewed. An SPI can linger for weeks until receives attention. If you'd rather not deal with the issue in the ANI thread, would you please reopen it? Manul ~ talk 21:52, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Manul, I thought I had dealt with it by blocking the current IP. It seems you are asking for a long term rangeblock of 91.122.0.0/22. You might want to approach HJ Mitchell directly and see if he thinks the collateral damage is acceptable. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:13, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Passing the issue to HJ is fine, but in that case the close should say something to the effect of, "Contacting HJ for renewing the two expired range blocks," and then he should be contacted. I spent some time gathering those links because I'm trying to help Wikipedia deal with this long-lasting problem. It doesn't help to close the thread and ignore it. Manul ~ talk 22:44, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

The IP ranges are now blocked again. It would have been easier to have an open ANI thread than to bounce around looking for an active admin. In an ideal world, you would acknowledge that you mishandled this and affirm to be careful not to close an ANI that you haven't read and resolved. Manul ~ talk 23:34, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Manul, if I thought I mishandled the case, I would have said something. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:43, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Per WP:ADMINACCT I would ask you to address the issues that I have raised. Manul ~ talk 00:01, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Manul, you asked for a long term wide rangeblock. I implicitly rejected it (attitudes like "Too bad for the people of Saint Petersberg using that Internet provider" don't sit well with me) but encouraged you to talk to HJ Mitchell, implying I would not see it as admin shopping. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:14, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

My reply is the same -- I haven't seen an answer to that. If you wish to question the judgment of HJ, Bishonen, or EdJohnston, all of whom have performed these blocks, then would you please do so directly rather than using me as a proxy for it? I think you're being critical without understanding the scope of the problem. The reason I spent time gathering those links for the ANI was to inform the patrolling admin about that scope. It appears that you didn't want to bother. Which is fine -- just leave it open for someone else. Manul ~ talk 01:22, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Manul, I was the patrolling admin and I did look at your diffs. Sometimes you're not going to get what you asked for from every admin. Some admins are quick to block/protect/delete and some will reject more requests than average. Neither type is wrong, they just view situations differently. As for scope, the case you brought up can be seen as minor compared to others. For example, this one could be handled by blocking "the people of Vancouver". And right now we have this. In both cases, wide long-term blocks have not been put in place by admins. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:41, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

You're still not understanding the issue and still not answering this. My concern is not that I didn't get what I asked for. My concern is the improper closing. If you dismiss a problem raised in an ANI then say so and why, something like, "I've examined the long-term disruption and I don't think the range blocks should be re-enacted." That's a perfect closing, and I would be fine with that. You might have won me over to your view, or if not then it might have opened a constructive and substantive dialogue; perhaps the three previous blocking admins would be involved. However the actual closing in which you silently ignore the issue is unhelpful -- even seemingly contemptuous, and your comments here add to that impression. If you had concerns about the range blocks then you should have explained them when you closed. If you have concerns about the range blocks now then you should take them up with EdJohnston -- don't shoot the messenger. Manul ~ talk 02:42, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Manul, I will endeavor to be more verbose in my closes if future situations warrant. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:09, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Good Articles, something odd going on

I found this morning that a new editor of about a month with 1,000 edits and no known GA contributions is trying to tackle 11 GA reviews simultaneously. I believe that they have only ever made a single GA nomination that quick-failed after being reviewed by Miyagawa here and which they hadn't actually contributed to. Of note the editor themselves acknowledges that they are new to Wikipedia. Rather importantly, they have completed a single GA review on the 2nd of August here (which they passed) which would have failed had I, for example, done the reviewing for lack of citations, just skim the article, Tycho Brahe and tell me it's GA worthy with at least four whole paragraphs that aren't attributed to any source. It's an article that could and should be GA, but, one that is far from it even with the 103 current citations. Not to mention, possible copyright violation here (I reckon its a false flag based on the source and wayback machine) but the editor didn't even comment on it when doing the review. I'm not sure how to proceed here, I want to assume good faith, but, the editor may need to attempt mentorship and be wary of taking on anything GA related until they have at a minimum one GA themselves. Mr rnddude (talk) 22:26, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Mr rnddude. Step 1: Talk to the editor, outline your concerns (which I share), and ask them to withdraw from reviewing GAs until they have more experience writing GAs (or at least limit themselves to reviewing one GA with a mentor). Step 2: If that fails, take your concerns to Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations to get community input and consensus. Step 3: Initiate a GA reassessment of Tycho Brahe. It's mostly well written but I could easily spot content that needed inline cites. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:40, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Cheers, I came to your first on account that two of the GA reviews that they have taken on-board to review are my own nominations. Hence, I consider myself an involved party. I'll start up a discussion on their page and request that they withdraw from the reviews. Which, I need to ask a second question, how precisely does one close a review without action that wouldn't automatically delist the nomination? or would they need to be resubmitted for review. Mr rnddude (talk) 22:45, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Mr rnddude, the second paragraph of Wikipedia:Good_article_nominations/Instructions#Step_4:_What_to_do_during_a_review has instructions on what to do if a new reviewer is needed. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:55, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Neil, I'd never needed it so hadn't even noticed it was there, I'm currently drafting up a comment for the Emir to look at on their talk page. Mr rnddude (talk) 22:58, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Mr rnddude, Neil, assuming that the reviewer withdraws (or is not capable of reviewing), it's actually cleaner, if the GA review page has been opened but the review hasn't been started, to put in a speedy delete request on that review page. We also do it when review pages have been opened but abandoned before the review was started. (Once the page is deleted, we then adjust the GA nominee template on the article talk page so its status is empty and remove the transclusion of the just-deleted review page.) This is not the first time a very new user has either nominated a huge number of articles at once (easier to explain to them and then to revert the nominations) or opened reviews on a huge number of articles. If it's a bunch opened without initial reviews, it's actually easier to deal with. Usually, however, you have a user who quickly fails or passes a handful before we realize what's been done, which is harder to unwind, but when the review clearly isn't competent, we just undo them and put the nominations back into the reviewing pool, since we discover it within the day. In the case of Tycho Brahe, since it's nearly four weeks ago, I'd like to suggest that an individual reassessment be done: there are already twenty-odd community reassessments mostly just sitting there, and an individual reassessment can be done in a far more timely manner. Let me know if you have any questions, or if I can help with this batch of review pages. Incidentally, if the review has been started in any significant way—if there are useful suggestions—then the page should probably not be deleted; rather, the changing of the page number and the rest is the way to go. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:37, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

BlueMoonset, thank you for the pointers! --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:43, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

NeilN, you're most welcome. I noticed that Emir of Wikipedia withdrew from six of the ten new reviews earlier; I've just tagged them with speedy deletion templates. Since you're an admin, I believe you could delete them right now if you wanted to. The six are:

• Talk:Flag of Southern Rhodesia/GA1‎
• Talk:Sigismund Báthory/GA1‎
• Talk:Bohemond III of Antioch/GA1‎
• Talk:Przemysł II/GA1
• Talk:Caracalla/GA1
• Talk:Martin Gilliat/GA1

Thank you very much, if you see these before some other admin does. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:17, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks again for doing the deletions so quickly, NeilN. I've adjusted the six article talk pages so all the nominations are ready to proceed again using page=1. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:15, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Hey Neil, odd and off-topic question not worth making a new section for, so I was just looking at my edit counter and noticed something odd. I have a single admin action of protecting a page, out of curiosity, which page have I supposedly put under protection (can this be checked)? and what a strange thing for me to have done. I picked Lugnuts at random, who has 500k edits, and note that they have not performed a single admin action ever, so I find it odd that I, with 2.6k edits, somehow have. I also looked at yours, and geez have you made some admin actions, about 9,000 total with 4.5k blocks. Sorry for the random question, but, if it's not a false flag and I am actually being attributed as having protected a page, probably best to either revert me or re-attribute it to the appropriate party. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:23, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

(watching) You are one of the chosen ones! You can see the entry in the protection log here. When you move a page, the protection gets carried over and it gets recorded in the log against your name, that's what happened here. If it's any consolation, non admins are deleting pages as well, be glad you didn't do that! - NQ (talk) 01:49, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Bahaha, that is hilarious, well, at least it's not because I did something stupid and that actually needs reverting. Carry on, Mr rnddude (talk) 01:51, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, as always, NQ. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:46, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

In the 450 days you've been an admin, you've topped the charts with over 2500 page protections. MusikAnimal comes second with just half of that. I'm sure someone, somewhere, quite possibly, is thankful for your shoddy admin work as well. - NQ (talk) 03:05, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

NQ, that's... kind of crazy considering I was away from mid-December to the first week of June. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:15, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Presuming that you weren't here for 6 months * 30days = 180 days out of your total 450 days as an admin. Thus, leaving 270 active admin days. That you have 4500 total blocks as an admin. Just blocking alone you're blocking ~17 people a day. Do you do anything besides enact blocks, protect pages, and delete pages while you're active? Also presuming I've done all the math here right as well. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:13, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Mr rnddude, participate in noticeboard discussions and RFCs, look at recent changes in articles on my watchlist, help other editors, and actually read articles :-) --NeilN ^{talk to me} 08:46, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

"Read articles" - I guess that's one way to spend time on Wikipedia. - NQ (talk) 21:17, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

@NQ: Reading things like Ealdgyth's amazing work on the Middle Ages justifies all the time I spend on here dealing with miscreants and often idiotic disruption. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:32, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm blushing! Ealdgyth - Talk 21:43, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Electricbassguy IPsocks/blockevade

Pretty sure these two are socks considering their edits to the master's page. Special:Contributions/2600:1:8A7C:1FBB:4506:8D58:535C:6023 & Special:Contributions/2600:1:8A5D:B464:E591:73BB:9D0B:AB1E. Posting here because you appear to be online, recently (21 August) blocked some of his evading-IPs, and per "not feeding trolls"/RBI. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 22:42, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

AddWittyNameHere, I enacted a short rangeblock and indefinitely protected the user page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:51, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! Let's hope they'll get bored and waste their time elsewhere now. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 22:57, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Proposed RFC

Hi NeilN,

I note on your closing marks you mentioned "This is not the proper venue for an RFC that would affect hundreds of articles. It needs to be held on a central discussion page and widely advertised." I entirely agree with this, could you kindly assist me by providing a proper venue, which would be widely advertised to tap into the talent of the many intelligent editors on Wikipedia. I feel that some rules to govern articles of this type to conform with WP Policy NPOV would give articles of this nature a consistent, and globally accepted view from an encyclopedic POV. --Eng. M.Bandara-Talk 08:50, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Eng.M.Bandara before you proceed further, the last two RFCs you've opened have been closed quickly. The first had a spectacularly poor premise and resulted in this apt comment, "...question sincerity and purpose of this patently foolish RFC. If serious, submitter should be required to carefully read WP:RS and be warned that further use of poor quality sources will result in a block". The second was marred by your trolling-like posts and also had editors bring up WP:RS issues. What are you going to do to curb your disruptive editing? Your proposal would affect articles of the recently deceased which are under discretionary sanctions so a repeat of Talk:Murder_of_Anita_Cobby#Consistency_with_Homicide_articles is likely going to get you topic banned or blocked. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:40, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Well propose a simple primary question, should Wikipedia endorse judgments of all jurisdictions globally? If the answer to that question is no, is the use of the term "murder" an endorsement of that judgment. --Eng. M.Bandara-Talk 14:02, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Eng.M.Bandara, you should frame your proposal based on our titling policy, WP:COMMONNAME. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:25, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

May I comment? Eng.M.Bandara, it is not an issue of "endorsing" a judgment. It is merely reporting what is now common knowledge. Could you please explain why you are so troubled by the use of the word murder? I don't know where in the world you are from, but as far as I know all English-speaking countries have a crime defined as murder. I'm further sure that most non-English countries would have a crime that would translate into murder. The definition varies slightly by country (and by state within countries), but the basic premise is the same all over the world; murder is killing with the intention to kill. In the case of Cobby, there is absolutely no doubt that it was a murder; one offender even plead guilty to the crime. I understand you want to see the use of neutral terms and that is admirable. But calling a murder a murder is not a biased point of view. In Cobby's case, it was proven in a court of law on the basis of expert evidence and eyewitness testimony. You cannot get more certain and more neutral than that.

But to be clear, I do not want to continue the argument about the Cobby case. I want to understand why you are against the use of the word murder in articles where it has been proven that there was a murder. Neil, if you do not want this on your talk page I will move it to Eng.M.Bandara's page. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 02:30, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi AtHomeIn神戸. Discussion is fine here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:45, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your contribution NeilN and athomeinkobe, I have not forgotten about this discussion, I was very busy lately with my professional life. In my spare time, I do intend to review that policy, and make a proposal here, once the proposal has been properly formulated, I would appreciate if NeilN could assist me in placing it at the proper venue.
To answer your question athomeinkobe, it's not about legal proceedings in Australia, and their outcome. If you want to write that the "local court's claimed the homicide of cobby to be a murder, with the reference that is fine. But in say something in Wikipedia voice, there must be strict adherence to NPOV policy. Otherwise, we must also include other opinion evidence such as https://www.google.lk/search?q=murder%20as%20natural%20selections&rct=j And we can get into a big debate about the number of ways to classify cobby's homocide. --Eng. M.Bandara-Talk 11:38, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

(talk page watcher)No we don't. To ' also include other opinion evidence' would oft be to give WP:UNDUE. Unless they are backed by WP:RS, as the Court's judgements are, in which case they are also in wikivoice. _Muffled ^Pocketed 11:50, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Please read WP:SYNTHESIS which directly impacts your contention. "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." In essence, material not specifically about the article's subject cannot be used. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:16, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I tend to agree more with what NeilN has stated, what are your thoughts about the inclusion of a subheading in the Murder article with references to sources which claim that Murder is an example of a process of natural selection. With regards Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi I hardly consider comparing the claim from a single source, originating namely from a court localised in one jurisdiction and comparing that to the mountainous global evidence for evolution, or the evidence to say the earth is round. Theirs a big difference between claiming the earth to be flat as an opinion and to claim homicide to be a murder. I think it's just purely ridiculous to compare this to the flat earth theory and claim undue weight, they are on entirely two different levels 'mathematically'. --Eng. M.Bandara-Talk 12:55, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

You can do a bold edit to the Murder article or take it up on its talk page. I'd advise providing multiple high quality sources. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:22, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Did a bold edit on the page, and added a template for more information. As you seem like a competent individual, any further assistance in improving that section would be appreciated. section--Eng. M.Bandara-Talk 09:53, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

@Eng.M.Bandara: Your first source is hardly "high quality" and your first edit summary is misleading. If someone removes the section, you will have to justify your addition using the article's talk page. See WP:BRD. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 10:25, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

I connot dispute your assertion, however as you maybe aware I am quite busy with my personal life, I would grealy appreicate if you could help assit improve that section, as you are already familiar with the subject of dicussion. I will assit to improve in my spare time as much as posssible. --Eng. M.Bandara-Talk 14:45, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

If you think that fringe view of murder is important enough to be in the article, you're going to have to be the one defending it and finding proper sources. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:51, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Image Issues

Hi,

I have one question. Can i use the images from this http://www.rajyasabhatv.com/ website. Last time you have said me to ask someone before use of images from 3rd party websites. So i am asking. Can you please confirm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dawn richard1 (talk • contribs) 14:23, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Dawn richard1. Most of the images have credits like "Photo: AP/PTI" and so are copyrighted and cannot be used. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:03, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Refund

Could you (or any active admin who sees this) restore User:NQ/sandbox/temp please? - NQ (talk) 18:01, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @NQ: done. Doug Weller talk 18:10, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! - NQ (talk) 18:12, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Happy Wiki-Birthday!

Hey, NeilN. Just stopping by to wish you a Happy Wiki-Birthday from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Woodstop45 (talk) 18:04, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Cosby Black History

Hello NeilN This is a request for you to look, comment and possibly place an edit in the Bill Cosby biography about his contribution to the Black History anthology TV series from the 1960's (see talk page). Per your request more RS have been placed there and the TV series found significant coverage in the NEW York Times of the day. It was viewed by 22 million people and the producers credit Cosby's participation as what led to the Emmy for a history documentary. Sincerely 66.235.36.153 (talk) 18:43, 30 August 2016 (UTC) A Contributor

Um ... help

I dont do Twinkle, or warnings because I'm not competent!! I've spent thirty mins trying to warn a couple of users at Paul Fix (racing driver). Could you look, spend a minute perhaps. thx. Roxy the dog™ bark 19:06, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Of course, now a competent user has chipped in. -Roxy the dog™ bark 19:09, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

;) things are happening. -Roxy the dog™ bark 19:59, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Roxy the dog™, I'm hoping things are done. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:01, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Potential Vandal on the Sino-Vietnamese War Page.

Hello NielN

It seems someone is back vandalizing the page again. This user MaxPrem only made two edits and he removed reliable source. I reverted the article back to its original format where the result was agreed on the talk page.

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User:MaxPrem&action=edit&redlink=1
https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Sino-Vietnamese_War&action=history

--Jon Hydro Jets (talk) 16:25, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Not a mistake, buuuut...

Hi Neil, thanks for your email. It was not a mistake, but now that you mention it, I didn't know it was a problem! So I'm grateful to you for bringing it to my attention, and as I think about it more, I can see why it would be undesirable. I'll research some more for my own edification. Thanks for keeping me on the train tracks--it shan't be an issue going forward. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:55, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Edit-War at Yom Kippur article.

Please review his stubborn reversals & lack of logic & reason. Also see the associated Talk page. Txs. Purrhaps (talk) 03:55, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Purrhaps, please wait for Debresser or other editors to respond to your points. Also, is there a reason why you are placing your signature above your posts? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:06, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Innocent mistake Purrhaps (talk) 12:33, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Balloons (2016)

Did you look at the history? Looks like a sock. Doug Weller talk 15:18, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Ah, it's more complicated, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gubbaare and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gubbaare the deleted article which is the same as Balloons 2016. Doug Weller talk 15:20, 1 Se[ptember 2016 (UTC)

And that was created by a definite sock![2] CU coming. Doug Weller talk 15:23, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi Doug. There's probably a couple socks on the article but that makes it a G5 (if you think it was created by a blocked editor), not a G4. The AFD was cut short. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:27, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Yep, I know. Waiting to see if there's a plausible explanation from Preetiahluwalia. Doug Weller talk 15:47, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

List of Croatian inventions and discoveries

Based on your recent protection of this article, can you please also block Still minded (talk · contribs); as a sock of User:Filipz123, which was the account that edited the article prior to your protection. Thanks. MeowMoon (talk) 01:02, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Hey Sro23, do you think this is Filipz123 or Europefan? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:34, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

It's definitely Filipz123 (the Croatian/Balkans thing is a giveaway, whereas Europefan is more focused on Germany). Sro23 (talk) 01:37, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Looking at the edit history on the article, previous socks that were recently blocked were of Filipz123. An example was a CU confirmed account blocked not too long ago. MeowMoon (talk) 01:39, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Blocked. Thanks. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:47, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

They are now back with this IP: 24.114.52.48 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). An example sock account of this user editing the similar article can be seen here. Possibly a protection on Hair clipper too? Thanks again. MeowMoon (talk) 02:50, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

MeowMoon, blocked and protected. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:56, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Sigh... Also based on the editing history, do you think Skirt should be protected as well? MeowMoon (talk) 03:13, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, one month. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 09:11, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

My talk page.

Firstly, thank you for reverting the sock IP. He seems to have developed an interest in me/my edits/my talk page. Secondly, would it be ok to have my talk page & user page semi protected, please? Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:06, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

I stalked here and protected the pages. Widr (talk) 08:30, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

You stalked well. Thank you. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 08:31, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

--- out for Harambe editor

Not sure if you are following them but you may want to remove their talk page access. 331dot (talk) 09:46, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Need Your help to resolve the issue

Please help to resolve claims, provided by Winkelvi and Smartse in the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilias_Psinakis. Once, a year ago you already helped to solve. I have given all the relevant sources.LS 20:17, 2 September 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LanaSimba (talk • contribs)

obsessed

Special:Contributions/2607:FB90:5C8B:856F:FDF6:3076:9476:CB36 is obsessed with something -Roxy the dog™ bark 10:54, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Reverted. — RainFall^Hey! 11:00, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

RFC Bio

Hi Neil, this ongoing RFC was not listed under BLP bio, but only under BLP pol. Please advise how I can get it listed under both, at this point. I'm not sure how to do it. Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:05, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Anythingyouwant, I've modified the RFC. Supposedly the bot will pick up the change. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:57, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll keep an eye out to see if the bot picks up the change; that seems important since my understanding is that the bot sends out lots of notifications via feedback request system. Unless I'm mistaken, the bot picked up neither "BLP:pol" nor "BLP:bio" for the subsequent RFC (which I started); do you know if anything can be done about that? I don't think dispute resolution would work for the dispute between me and the bot. :)Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:14, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Anythingyouwant, I've asked Legoktm for input. Pointer to second RFC: Talk:Donald_Trump#RFC:_Should_the_lead_say_.22have_been_controversial_or_hyperbolic.22.3F --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:23, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

(Coming here from User talk:Legoktm#RFC listings) I believe that one reason that Legobot hasn't been picking up recent RfCs is because the sort order of Category:Wikipedia requests for comment is screwy; see Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment#RfC bot not working correctly? and Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Sorting in categories unreliable for a few days. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:27, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi User:Redrose64, do you know if there's any way (perhaps circumventing this bot problem) to get feedback request service for BLP:bio regarding the two RFCs at talk:Donald Trump?Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:37, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Legoktm, Category:Wikipedia requests for comment is now sorting correctly, but Legobot (talk · contribs) is still not handling RfCs, so I think that it may need restarting. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:27, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

@Anythingyouwant: I've been watching Legobot, and for the last two days it seems to have been handling RfCs as normal again, see for example these edits to WP:RFC/BIO and WP:RFC/POL.

I notice that you've used the term "BLP:bio" (or something similar) several times in this thread - to me that means "biography of living person: biography" - is that the sense that you were using it? It seems to have a redundant word. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:01, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

My mistake, I meant RFC:Bio and RFC:Pol.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:11, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Come vote (again)

Hi. I am sorry to bother you, and I really hate having to stoop to this level. But since they did, so am I. They even told me to do it. So here I am (I don't know how to 'ping' someone).

I noticed that you took part in one of the numerous times that Side to Side was voted on or redirected. Well, a 3 day old voting decision isn't enough for them. They are back, and wanting a page and have a vote going on. They have Side to Side (song) running and a name change request was sent back to the talk page for a vote.

If you care to voice your opinion (again), feel free to click. Your previous decision does not count towards the current vote. This one is primarily about changing the name, but I feel that since it was currently voted to redirect, that the primary voting reason should be about whether to have a page or not. Either way, voices need to be heard (again).

Kellymoat (talk) 20:40, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Kellymoat, I didn't vote on anything. I protected a couple of redirects per request. The participants interested in the subject can decide if the song is now notable and what title should be used. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:46, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Donald Trump again

Hi, Neil! Could you take a look at the Donald Trump article? There seems to be some revert warring going on, about what image to use in the infobox. That subject is currently under discussion at the talk page, but I find the following actions at the talk page today: new image introduced [3], reverted [4], new image restored [5], reverted [6]. I'm not pointing any fingers at any particular person, I'd just like some uninvolved eyes on the situation. I posted a generic warning on the talk page. --MelanieN (talk) 22:04, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:EEng

I was just about to add my reasoning to the discussion that you closed. This is what I was going to say:

While there is not particular blatant violation, I do believe that the content that is on the userpage does go against what is in the nutshell of the policy page: "They should be used to better participate in the community, and not used to excess for unrelated purposes nor to bring the project into disrepute."

If you think that this is a good argument then please go ahead and reopen the discussion (if that can be done). --MorbidEntree - _{(Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)}(please reply using {{ping}}) 07:40, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

@MorbidEntree: That may be a case for modification (and you'll have to discuss with the editor what you find objectionable), not deletion. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 07:45, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

ANEW

Yo NeilN, how bout an hour or two's smi? Yon IP is back. Cheers! _Muffled ^Pocketed 08:56, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

He's editing anew, you might say. EEng 09:09, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

@EEng: Facepalm . Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 09:12, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

And with that, I'm out of here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 09:12, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

I do the best I can with the material available. EEng 14:48, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Target

As you recall there was an issue with an IP at the Universal Championship which caused me to look like the bad guy, anyways targeted by another IP tonight who removed content replaced content several times so I put the page back as it was written as there were no issues or anything unsourced as the IP claimed then I was reverted here with a snotty comment then a comment was left on my talk page conveniently the IP knew about last issue, geo locate shows both originated from Europe. Not getting suckered again like last time. New IP location,IP from before. I would like my talk and user page Semi please as clearly this isn't going to end. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 10:16, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi Chris "WarMachineWildThing". I've semi-protected your user page. We only semi-protect talk pages for short periods of time and the protection has to be triggered by recent sustained disruption. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:51, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Good enough thank you Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 21:24, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Debresser & MShabazz on Purrhaps' mental state

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Debresser#Some_advice_needed

What is your response?Purrhaps (talk) 12:30, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Purrhaps, posted here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:43, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Please repost ALL my deleted comments. Thank you. --Purrhaps (talk) 06:33, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Purrhaps, I have no idea what you're talking about. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 07:12, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

"Someone" removed your response. My subsequent comments. Your don't push it, & my response to you. --Purrhaps (talk) 17:29, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Purrhaps, I still have no idea what you're talking about. Please provide a diff or page name. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:38, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

I can't find the deleted messages. But just go back to my 1st post above & find your response. --Purrhaps (talk) 02:22, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Purrhaps, no. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:26, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Where is your response? --Purrhaps (talk) 02:49, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Sorry. I found the full conversation on his page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Purrhaps (talk • contribs) 04:11, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Admin's Barnstar
		For various and sundry, but most recently for protecting vandalized articles. Thank you. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:08, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Strong suggestion on re-opening the case against MShabazz

I have just read NOTHERE rule and I haven't noticed what could coincide with my behaviour. I am a honest reader who sometimes intervenes when I see a POV push. I call for reversal of speedy close. Have you even read that MShabazz verbally offended me for no reason? I DON'T believe this kind of incivility is tolerated in Wikipedia, so the case should be re-opened. Or I will call for arbitration. Wikipedia is not closed for users-only, anonymous users exist for a reason. -- 37.44.65.39 (talk) 23:40, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Your complaint was spurious and, to quote one of the closes, "[t]he odds of anyone believing that you are not an editor is slim to none". You've had your little fun but watch out for the WP:BOOMERANG if you continue to play this game of yours. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:08, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

You have to admit, though, his English is very impressive for someone from Belarus. Quite an accomplishment; it must have taken years of study. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:13, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

And another post...boomerang duck. -- Dane2007 ^talk 01:30, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

You've got mail

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

Dschslava ^Δx parlez moi 05:30, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

You may have drunk too much of the Wikipedia kool-aid if...

You see the headline Is Germany's AFD racist? pop up in your feed reader and wonder which nut nominated Germany for deletion. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:49, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

LOL. I totally clicked that expecting to see the AfD for Germany. The kool-aid just tastes so good. -- Dane2007 ^talk 18:57, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Damn it Neil!!! lol. ^{(talk page stalker)} CrashUnderride 19:22, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Should I?

Should I remove my minor warning from that IP page? Looks like you were posting your more severe one as I was composing mine. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 09:43, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi Chris "WarMachineWildThing". If it was me, I would have not used that warning as it's clear the IP is not removing info but changing it in a way that violates BLP (and breaks the infobox). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 09:48, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I shall remove then looks like they were doing it again as I was getting the warning together that you reverted anyways. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 09:52, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Chris "WarMachineWildThing", hey are you giving warnings manually? You can use Twinkle to do that. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 09:57, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes I am doing warnings manually, Having trouble with twinkle. I think it's just me I can't figure the stupid thing out, think I'm doing it wrong so I only use it for reverts until I get it figured out. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 10:03, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Chris "WarMachineWildThing", okay, I assume you've read Wikipedia:Twinkle/doc#Warn_.28user_talk_warnings.29. If you need further help, just let me know what you're having problems with. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 10:06, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

So yeah I'm an idiot, I was hitting the wrong thing I think I got it now, just issued a warning to an IP on Harry's Place for continuing to add Unsourced material. So yeah I wasn't doing it right. Thanks for offering help, if I screw up up you'll be the first to know lol Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 10:11, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Looks like I'm going to need assistance at Harry's Place IP provides no source for content, then gets mad and starts blanking sections because they can't add their Unsourced material. 2 warnings issued Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 10:20, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Chris "WarMachineWildThing", they do have a point. Much of the article is poorly sourced/unsourced. And not trivial things either. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 10:26, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Oh I'm not saying they don't have a point but this is what happened last time and it turned into a war of users and IPs. Two wrongs don't make a right. Personally I think the page should be deleted all together. It was up for deletion I believe once before. I'll gladly nominate it for deletion, tell me how. If I'm wrong then tell me I'm wrong I'm just trying to do what's right and follow the line. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 10:31, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Ok I give up, they blanked it again. Not getting into a war with another rude IP on an article that I frankly don't care about in the first place. I don't even remember why I added it to my watch list or how I found it, probably pending review. So let them fight and destroy it clearly no one can be neutral on that article the history alone shows that. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 10:54, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Question about Arbcom template on politics

Hi NeilN, does that warning apply to ALL political bios and articles post 1932 or just certain ones? I guess I need to be more carefull about reading all the headers and warnings. Thank you. --Malerooster (talk) 16:37, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Malerooster, per WP:ARBAPDS: "standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people." However in practice, you'll see the big scary "WARNING: ACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDIES" note on the talk page of articles where WP:1RR is strictly enforced (highly visible articles, as the text states). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:00, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for this, Neil. I had also posted an explanation on Malerooster's talk page, before I saw this. I wanted to let you know that in the course of that little revert war, there were also two potential violations involving the restoration of contentious material. The course of action was this: Material about a Saudi purchase from Trump was added to the article by Vesuvius Dogg; so far so good. It was deleted by Malerooster, so far so good; that removal identifies the material as contentious. However, it was re-added to the article by Jeppiz [7] (restoration of contentious material), removed again by Malerooster, restored again by Vesivius Dogg [8] (restoration of contentious material AND violation of 1RR), removed a third time by Malerooster, restored again by Volunteer Marek [9] (removal of contentious material), and removed by Anythingyouwant. You have warned Malerooster; you might want to see if anything needs to be done about the other violations. Thanks so much for your attention to this article! --MelanieN (talk) 18:08, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Request Block Extension and Talk Page Revocation

Hey,

I think a block extension and talk page access revocation for 85.74.31.101 are in order per the continuing WP:NOTHERE behavior reported at this AN/I. Could you take a look at this?

Thanks -- Dane2007 ^talk 01:43, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Replied here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:50, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Barnet FC pp

Please have another look, I only requested because I feel I will just end up Warring with the guy that is constantly saying the club is in Barnet even know they have moved out of the area. He even deletes the citation. Govvy (talk) 11:41, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Govvy, this is a content dispute (see also Chipping_Barnet#Sport_and_recreation) - you need to use the article's talk page to make your case please. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 11:44, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

It clearly states the club is in the London Borough of Harrow and not London Borough of Barnet. :/ I only wanted page protect for a week or two... Govvy (talk) 11:49, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Govvy, "Barnet FC[11] is the local football team..." I agree with what you're saying but by policy, I cannot shut out IPs from a content dispute. If you use the talk page to state what you have above, and they ignore your post, then that's a different story... --NeilN ^{talk to me} 11:57, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

You have mail

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

Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 18:57, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Thoughts

User weweremarshall continues to edit war across several WWE Articles which currently have talk page discussions pending. User has been reverted by several editors, User has now reverted edits calling them Vandalism, which they are not and filed false reports against another user all while edit warring. Thoughts? Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 00:06, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Replied here (and spent the last five minutes looking for a boomerang emoji). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:55, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Sorry you had to look for boomerang, I have another user vandalizing another admins page here removing another users question and replacing it with a car picture, they were reverted by other users and myself and warned twice which they keep deleting Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 01:03, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Already blocked by one of our two newest admins, Oshwah. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:05, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Edit conflict, I was just striking that part lol, I have no idea what boomerang is but I'm still sorry you had to look for it. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 01:09, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Chris "WarMachineWildThing", see WP:BOOMERANG. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:15, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Ugh I thought you were talking about something else,duh. I'm going back to the rafters. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 01:18, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

"Softlavender's standard close"

Facepalm LOL. Done. Softlavender (talk) 02:04, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Softlavender, it's true, right?! Thank you. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:06, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

haha "at least x times in the past 9 years." should make it x+1 for every subsequent close. - NQ (talk) 02:18, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, I'm referring to the actual WP:RMs, not the myriad additional ad-hoc threads. Softlavender (talk) 03:34, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Ah, the standard Softlavender clause close it is then. - NQ (talk) 04:10, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you...

...for protecting that article! I've just submitted another one to WP:RPP for the exact same reason! A User (contribs) 02:43, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

WWE 2k17

I restored it back to a more stable version for now using twinkle. After various content removals, Vandalism, and Unsourced material seen here can we get a semi protect on it. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 03:55, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I appreciated

your advice to my mentoree Monochrome Monitor with regard to her talk page and, by implication helping with editor retention. Its a long story, but MM and I have a long relationship on WP. You have helped to keep her on board with your timely questions about the wisdom of blanking material, which gives a better overview to outside observers in terms of her great efforts to change her editing patterns. The good, the bad and the ugly is there, which I think is for the best. I will be renogotiating a different mentoring model for MM, and I really appreciate your subtle advice to her as to the wisdom of blanking. It persuaded her I think to restore it, and in effect to keep her engaged. Thanks Neil. Simon. Irondome (talk) 02:34, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

@Irondome: You're welcome. Hopefully she can find less controversial areas to edit where she can be happy and productive. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:09, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

User:87.220.186.82

Hey, just a heads up, but the IP that you blocked a day ago straight out of the block has been edit warring again on the same page and shows no intentions of stopping. I really shouldn't be the one to do any further blocks as I'm involved but just wanted to drop you a line. Connormah (talk) 13:02, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Connormah, dropped a note on their talk page about what is not vandalism but they did post to the article's talk page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:16, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, I did notice that they did post to the talk page, but that was around 3 reverts ago and I really don't see them stopping (I fully expect to see another revert sometime in the next few hours). Could you keep a watch of the page as well? Connormah (talk) 13:19, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Already done. Talk page watchers, please weigh in. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:21, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Longhorns ≠ Fighting Irish

They're at it again. Longer protection, possibly indef? Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 01:15, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

@Corkythehornetfan: The types of things usually die down after a short period of time. I've semi-protected for two more weeks. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:57, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Donald Trump, edit warring, and DS (again)

Neil, if you would, please take a look at the talk page discussion I'm currently involved in at the Donald Trump article. Then please look at the latest reversion at the article, done by the photographer who has been pushing for his photos to be in as many political articles as possible. I think it's COI, but realize there is no policy on images and COI that can be quoted or enforced. The edit warring there has been slow, but definite. There are those pushing for specific photos who keep claiming consensus when there isn't one. Plenty of editors were fine with the photo that's been longstanding at the article, and stated as much at the article talk page several times over the last several months. The latest round of this ended up with no clear consensus, just a couple of !votes over those who wanted to keep the longstanding image. My point here is not in the way of the photo as much as it is the blatant disregard for the DS rule at the article and ignoring your previous warning about same. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:10, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Also pinging MelanieN since she commented there re: edit warring and DS as well. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:18, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

WV, I see no need to step in right now. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:20, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

That's fine. As long as you're aware that it started up again. It seems to have taken the right turn since I left this message, hopefully it will stay that way. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 14:09, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

I was

I was gonna come to you about that issue earlier today as it has gotten insane but Crash had already went to another admin so I just responded there. Thanks for the 4 days of some peace Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 03:18, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

AfD closures

I noticed that a user closed two AfDs where I recently commented [10] and [11]. He/she is not an admin and made the closures without any justification per arguments made during these AfDs. I also noticed this discussion on their talk page indicating that they should not do any closures on controversial subjects. Was it all right on the part of user who made these closures? I do not really care that much about these pages, but would like someone uninvolved (like you) to quickly look at this. If you think the closings were appropriate, then OK, I do not mind. Let's keep them. Thank you, My very best wishes (talk) 02:42, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

I just wanted to comment since these concerns are about my closures. I typically leave comments only if it seems like there is unclear consensus. I always welcome feedback and reviews of the closures I make though....NeilN has reviewed a few of mine in the past, as you've seen on my talk page. Thank you for bringing your concern My very best wishes, I think it's helpful to question motive or intent if something is unclear. -- Dane2007 ^talk 03:11, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

The closing should be done not per head count, but according to the arguments made on the AfD. You did not tell anything about this in your closing remarks. Hence my concern. But I am not telling that you are wrong. Maybe not. This is just asking for a 3rd opinion. My very best wishes (talk) 03:23, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

I understand the concern. I did not close per a head count (as it is about consensus, not voting), I read the arguments and weighed them against each other in determining to keep a page. Thank you again for bringing the concern, I am always looking to improve. -- Dane2007 ^talk 03:29, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

@My very best wishes and Dane2007: Ideally, the close should have noted that editors felt the article sourcing was improved during the AFD, enabling the subject to meet notability guidelines. My very best wishes, for future reference, it is assumed that your nomination serves as your delete !vote. If you wish to change your thinking, you would note that below your nom statement. I do thank you for raising your concerns in a drama-free manner. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:26, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Sure, let's keep them if you think that closings were reasonable. Thank you for advice. My very best wishes (talk) 15:44, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Snow caution

Special:diff/738546185 you cited WPSNOW as reason to delete a redirect.

I will quote Wikipedia:Snowball_clause#A_cautionary_note:

The snowball clause may not always be appropriate if a particular outcome is merely "likely" or "quite likely", and there is a genuine and reasoned basis for disagreement. This is because discussions are not votes; it is important to be reasonably sure that there is little or no chance of accidentally excluding significant input or perspectives, or changing the weight of different views, if closed early. Especially, closers should beware of interpreting "early pile on" as necessarily showing how a discussion will end up. This can sometimes happen when a topic attracts high levels of attention from those engaged (or having a specific view) but slower attention from other less involved editors, perhaps with other points of view.

I expressed a genuine and reasoned basis for disagreement which you ignored. You treated this like a vote and by closing it after a mere two days you did not give adequate time for uninvolved parties to express their views about this. This is exactly the type of thing this note was out there for. Please re-open the discussion and let it persist a couple weeks. Ranze (talk) 08:58, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

You do realize it came from an insult right? Not quite BLP standards. Racist bigot doesn't re-direct to any one specific person, but it's an insult that countless people have been called. See my point? ^{(talk page stalker)} CrashUnderride 10:19, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Agree w. Crash. In any case, User:Ranze failed to make any policy-based objections, merely conjectural. _Muffled ^Pocketed 10:33, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Like I just posted on the ANI, if Wiki and Ranze had been around during the Attitude Era, everyone would have like 20+ re-directs and "nicknames" because The Rock insulted so many people all the time. Mind you, this is all based on Ranze's "standard" or lack there of for nicknames. ^{(talk page stalker)} CrashUnderride 10:36, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

NeilN: @Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: made a claim above that I did not make policy-based objections. I attempted to contact FIM privately asking them to elaborate and got special:diff/738807839 as a reply. I believe that candor indicates a lack of good faith by Mundi and that they have fabricated this claim. I can see NeilN that you have posted on Mundi's talk page previously, in what seems to be an amicable manner. I must then ask: do you also make the assertion that none of my objections to deletion proposals at RFD were policy-based? Or do you disagree with Mundi's claim and affirm that I did make policy-based objections? Ranze (talk) 05:21, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi Ranze  :) _Muffled ^Pocketed 05:29, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

@Ranze: I cannot see where you quoted policy in that discussion. A policy is not an essay or a guideline. WP:R is a guideline. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:49, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Ranze, no. We don't keep poorly sourced derogatory redirects around. Experienced editors know this (like the admin who deleted your Man That Mother Nature Forgot To Make Good-Looking as an attack page), thus WP:SNOW. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 11:40, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Neil, it won't matter. Ranze will still get upity and mad about it and cry foul. It's their typical routine. ^{(talk page stalker)} CrashUnderride 12:08, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Neil I'm not sure what you mean by "poorly sourced", the quote is from Tyler Breeze, it is dialogue from the ongoing series WWE NXT. There isn't any better support for a nickname's existence than for it to be spoken by the cast of the show during the show. I'm in the process of appealing that deletion by elaborating on details they may not have been made aware of, due to resistance of including the nickname on the article itself.

If Crash can reliably source Rock's nicknames and if those names exclusively refer to a single wrestler I would support his redirecting those unique names to the wrestlers too. I think the WWE website was still around during the AE but I don't know if they quoted him. Given the PG era it might be hard to find WWE-approved clips of his worse insults now. Ranze (talk) 02:25, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

My comment was not to say every insult that The Rock uttered should be used as a nickname, it was to point out that every one-off insult can't be used as a nickname or re-direct. I'm sorry if you missed my intent with that one. ^{(talk page stalker)} CrashUnderride 15:00, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

@Crash Underride: we are in agreement that every one-off insult can't be used that way: some are common phrases which have been used to insult multiple people. "Jabroni" for example, wouldn't be appropriate to anyone in particular. I'm only arguing that insults uniquely crafted for an individual wrestler with clear reference to established nicknames (Man Gravity Forgot > Man Mother Nature Forgot) should be. Ranze (talk) 12:43, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Neil re special:diff/738813763 it's clear that Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines are a collective concept. We're told:

Policies are standards that all users should normally follow, while guidelines are meant to be best practices for following those standards in specific contexts.

Under the "Derivation" section:

Its policies and guidelines are intended to reflect the consensus of the community.

Thus guidelines are our instructions on how to apply policy and just as if not more important.

The (not a policy or guideline, but a supplement) essay Wikipedia:The difference between policies, guidelines and essays elaborates about this under Misconception 7:

A broadly worded policy page, intended to provide only the most general outline of the goals, is not necessarily a better source of advice than a guideline that directly and explicitly addresses the specific issue at hand.

This seems to be hair-splitting. WP:R may be "a guideline" rather than "a policy" but I posit to you that both of these fall under the umbrella term "Wikipedia policy" because guidelines are inherently part of the subject of policy (how we apply it) and so it is acceptable for me to consider WP:R to be a policy guideline. Ranze (talk) 12:43, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Ranze, no, it's not hair splitting. We make this distinction on purpose. For example, BLP policy trumps the WP:R guideline. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:15, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

I get the sense you mean 'guideline' to sound soft, kind of like how some people do with the word 'theory' even though "Theory" has a hard sense in Science and "Guideline" has a hard sense in policying.

Which portion of BLP applies here where the issue is a character calling another character something. A nickname applied to a character portrayed for an actor does not appear to be something that would fall under the BLP protections for that actor. For example "Worf is ugly" would not violate BLP concerns about Michael Dorn as an attack page, because there is a distinction between things expressed about a character and things expressed about an actor portraying the character.

Breeze insulted the appearance of Adrian Neville the fictional wrestling character not the living person portraying him, Ben Satterly. These guys do scripted arguments, Satterly consented to let the Breeze character call his Neville character whatever he called him, he's paid to do it, so it's not a BLP concern. Ranze (talk) 16:09, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

The redirect was to a BLP, not a fictional character so BLP applies. That supposed nickname doesn't appear anywhere in the BLP. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:18, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Block evasion?

Pretty positive after their edits and geolocate [this] is the same IP/person you blocked. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 08:07, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

@WarMachineWildThing: Blocked. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:27, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Ok, they jumped to [this] one after you blocked them, so apparently they really want on here lol Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 19:25, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

That's the older IP. Blocked the new one. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:28, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm losing track. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 19:32, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Mentorship

How and what is Mentorship? Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 21:12, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Mentorship. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:48, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 23:44, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Sam Harris Podcast on Effective Altruism

Hi there I'm relatively new and inexperienced at editing on Wikipedia but I am well-educated (BSc & MSc). Could you please inform me of the reasons for the deletions of my contributions to the Sam Harris page? Is it because his own blog is not a reliable source? I have only reported facts on what he has done and promised to do

I will appreciate your feedback

Cheers Matt Wegs (talk) 09:48, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi Matt Wegs. Did you go to the link I posted on your talk page? Talk:Sam_Harris#Repeated_addition --NeilN ^{talk to me} 09:50, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

I did thanks (after posting the last queries). I understand why one may class it as 'trivial' and 'spamish' but I believe the contribution helps to elaborate on his character, interests and philosophies. Additionally, the positive message, raising of awareness, and tangible effects on people's behaviour of Effective Altruism and Sam's pledges, seem relevant and important. Also, by linking in Effective altruism, GiveWell etc. it can help inform people of their existence in trying to improve the world, like in my opinion, Wikipedia does (e.g. I started to donate to Wikipedia once I knew it needed it to exist). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt Wegs (talk • contribs) 10:27, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

A bit o' bleach for you

	Drown it in bleach
	Some bleach for your mind brain for having to view that preview. I hope it can scrub some of the filth and shame off. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:21, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Don't we have filters stopping that sort of language...?! _Muffled ^Pocketed 17:41, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks!

Just wanted to say thanks for removing meat/sock puppet account I reported. I saw your message about it not being hoax or vandalism, but it all happened so quick I didn't get a chance to respond. Thanks about that!--Mr.hmm (talk) 17:39, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Mr.hmm, no problem. Thanks for reporting the issue. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:40, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

RFC closure at Trump BLP

Hi Neil. The RFC has been closed at the Trump article, regarding whether the lead will say in Wikipedia's voice that many of his statements are "false". The closer said there was a "rough consensus" to include, as compared to the "firm consensus" that would be needed per DS if the material is challenged and then reinserted. Following the RFC close, the material was inserted, then challenged, then reinserted. Would you please check whether the reinsertion was consistent with DS? Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:27, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

This is a rather astonishing attempt to subvert a consensus through WP:GAMING and WP:FORUMSHOPPING. There is consensus to add the material. That is the standard used on Wikipedia. The suggestion that there is yet another consensus hurdle to overcome is contrary the principles of WP:CONSENSUS, and not at all in the spirit or intent of WP:ARBAPDS.- MrX 20:42, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

The RFC close stated: "I find that there is rough consensus (the usual Wikipedia standard for consensus) to implement the proposal. As far as I can tell from the discussion, the proposed content hasn't been challenged through reverts yet, so it doesn't need the 'firm' consensus required by the applicable discretionary sanctions." Despite this RFC close, User:MrX, you twice put this disputed material into the lead today with a mere rough consensus, including once following challenge by reversion.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:00, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not have a "rough consensus" or "firm consensus" policy. How would you even delineate such a thing? The standard for resolving content disputes is consensus. With the exception of unanimity, consensus is rough by definition. By Wikipedia's standards, which approximate a supermajority, any RfC closed as having consensus can rightful be interpreted as having a firm consensus. It's ironic that the article is under discretionary sanctions under the aegis of an Arbcom case based largely on gaming, filibustering and Wikilawyering.- MrX 21:15, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Anythingyouwant, you have one of our most experienced admins in Sandstein giving a detailed close saying there is the usual standard of consensus. Unfortunately, he seemed to have missed the revert (referenced in the RFC open) that kicked off the discussion that led to the RFC. [12] I will ask Sandstein to comment in this discussion. Meanwhile, I take consensus coming out of RFC closes like this to be "enough" consensus to meet the spirit of the Arbcom ruling until Sandstein weighs in. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:36, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. The RFC close stated that rough consensus existed and that firm consensus was not needed. They are clearly different things, and have been different things since before the RFC close.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:51, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't see an actual problem. Sandstein's intended meaning is clear enough. He appears to be thinking that (1) the proposed content ought to get added per the soft consensus, (2) the added content will likely get reverted, (3) the revert will likely be discussed further at Talk, (4) some compromise text will likely come out of the discussion, and (5) the compromise text will likely achieve firm consensus.

The text proposed for this RfC was not a compromise text. Its contributor made no apparent effort to try to incorporate many other editors' legitimate concerns regarding this ideologically charged content. The closer merely acknowledged the RfC's foreseeable outcome: no firm consensus. --Dervorguilla (talk) 01:44, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Dervorguilla, do you see any actual problem with repeated reinsertion of the text proposed in this RFC, based upon a mere soft consensus? Because that's where we're headed right now, and NeilN seems to think it's appropriate, unless or until User:Sandstein says otherwise.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:11, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I've commented at Talk:Donald_Trump#RfC:_Clarification.  Sandstein  07:31, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Number of Charlotte135's topic bans

Regarding this, just in case you're keeping count, it's three. The latest is the third one. And then there was one interaction ban between the two of us. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:06, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Be easier to keep track if admins were good little janitors and logged the bans at WP:EDR. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:32, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Help

I need your help with @Bbundu:. They are disruptively editing List of WWE World Champions and have been warned, yet they keep doing so. I also think they may be violate WP:3RR soon. ^{(talk page stalker)} CrashUnderride 02:21, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I've ARV'd them, but I tend to get a faster response from going directly to an admin, so we'll see who gets it done faster. lol. ^{(talk page stalker)} CrashUnderride 02:22, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

They violated 3RR. ^{(talk page stalker)} CrashUnderride 02:25, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

They didn't listen, just did it again. I think I just used my last revert....if I broke 3RR, my apologizes. ^{(talk page stalker)} CrashUnderride 02:27, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your assistance. They've been a bit of a pain for the PW project. I appreciate the help. ^{(talk page stalker)} CrashUnderride 02:28, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes thank you Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 02:51, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm still kind of floored that they've been here for over a year, with more than 700 edits, without making a single talk page post or non-default edit summary. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:00, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Lol, skills baby, skills. HAHA!!! Again, thanks for your help. ^{(talk page stalker)} CrashUnderride 03:04, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Wait, they've NEVER made a single talk page post or non-default edit summary? Wow. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 03:12, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I just realized they never asked to be unblocked last time they were blocked. Is it possible even with the edits they have done its a language issue? I'm not condoning all they have done, it's just odd. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 06:00, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Persistent IP Vandalism

116.212.224.37 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This IP is pretty persistent tonight in their vandalism. I notice that it's probably a school based on the block log. I put it on AIV but they're still going pretty hardcore since I put the report there, could you issue a block? Thanks! -- Dane2007 ^talk 03:08, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Schoolblocked. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:12, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

66.87.121.65 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Feel like another one? They're after my user page now. -- Dane2007 ^talk 03:41, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Blocked. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:45, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

86.20.193.222 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Another sock of "Vote (X) for Change" it appears based on the same commentary on the reference desk. -- Dane2007 ^talk 02:26, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

@Dane2007: Yes, blocked. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:32, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

hello editor

You have responded to my unsourced edits on Jumla district and bullfighting. Thats good, but I did those editings because I am a local of the place where bullfighting is held in Nepal. and I have been to Jumla quite a lot. I acknowledge my lack of source, and will try to add one in my future posts. Thanks for your comments. Have a good day! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adhikaridhiraj (talk • contribs) 08:13, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Snff, sniff

They called me a bad name. :( lol. User talk:Crash Underride#Idiot. ^{(talk page stalker)} CrashUnderride 15:01, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Oh and apparently, His "...post on his page was on the content of his post....and was much more respectful than the name calling that he HE has done to to SEVERAL other editors on his talk page. If anyone needs reigning in it is that guy." lmao. So yeah, apparently I'm the one in the wrong, as usual. lol. ^{(talk page stalker)} CrashUnderride 15:21, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Arbitration propossed decision

Hi NeilN, in the open Michael Hardy arbitration case, a remedy or finding of fact has been proposed which relates to you.  Please review this decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Amortias (T)(C) 19:44, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

"Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page". Yeah... what a farce. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:05, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Humanities desk

I think I messed up what you were doing with my reply. Please feel free to remove my reply. I've copied it, and can post it again later. Sorry for interfering. (violation still visible in the diff of one my edits). ---Sluzzelin talk 23:53, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Sluzzelin, I think we're okay on Humanities. I hope. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:56, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Ok, thanks! And thanks in general, for caring about the desks and keeping the worst rubbish away, swiftly. The small bunch of admins who do that don't get enough credit, but your work is truly appreciated. ---Sluzzelin talk 23:57, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Sluzzelin, thanks, I appreciate you saying that. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:14, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

... so now I get to bother you :D ... WT:RD could use your skills. Revdel and all. ---Sluzzelin talk 23:42, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Sluzzelin, done. As as there was less than thirty minutes to go before protection expired on all the refdesks, I've extended each protect for two more days. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:56, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Assistance Please.

Hi,

I looked at the edits and agree with you 100% they are not acceptable. I have checked the desktop & laptop machines that use this internet connection and find no evidence in history and cache of visiting those pages. Cache had not been deleted either.

There is a serious issue here as my children are too young to have done this. In order to get to the bottom of this matter could you please help me with the following.

1. The times noted were between 8:23 & 8:42 AM UTC. Which would mean approximately September 12th 11:42 PM Australian Eastern Time?

2. Does "(Tags: Mobile edit, Mobile web edit)"'' mean the Operating system off the device was a mobile (either Android/Apple IOS) device?

3. Please provide any other information you have.

Thank You in advance for your help in getting to the bottom of this issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.190.131.45 (talk) 00:14, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi 124. 1) The times were between 6:23PM and 6:42 PM Sept 12, Sydney time. 2) The tags indicate the mobile Wikipedia interface was used. Mobile devices default to using this interface. 3) Keep in mind that if you have a dynamic IP address, it might have been assigned to a different user yesterday. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:31, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you I will check mobile devices later today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.190.131.45 (talk) 00:45, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Think I need some help

I don't think Chriscross619 is understanding what I am explaining to them about Unsourced and Sourced material on articles, either that or they are playing with me. Other editors have warned them about various other stuff on articles. I just want them to understand and I don't think I'm getting through judging from the responses I got [here] Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 02:59, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Replied here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:14, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I really want to help them understand, with all the edits and users warning them about the various edits I'm the only one they responded to I think. I just felt like I wasn't getting through or getting played. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 03:18, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Peter Joseph

Are you familiar with the sock activity at Talk:Peter Joseph (see today's history)? The same action is currently also at Talk:Jacque Fresco. The admin who dealt with it last time is not active, and my watchlist showed you near the top, so if you feel inclined, please have a look. Johnuniq (talk) 09:33, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Johnuniq, yes, I'm very familiar with this sock but was unaware they were disrupting those two talk pages. Blocked a dryer-full worth of socks and protected the talk pages. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 09:45, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppet

Another possible "97 IP" sock: Special:Contributions/97 IP 12. Linguist 111 If you reply here, please type {{ping|Linguist111}} before your message. 12:45, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Already blocked. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:53, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

someone you THINK is a sock [but can't be really sure of]

Did someone recently suggest a new "rollback all edits" function over at Village Pump? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:47, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Martinevans123, will email you. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:50, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks. And thanks for the protection. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:51, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Martinevans123, sent. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:01, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for that. All done. Awaiting trial! Martinevans123 (talk) 15:11, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

A little help

You seem to be actively participating at ANI, and you were the first recognizable admin username I saw there, so I figured I'd ask, do you think you could look at this thread at AN/I and possibly follow up on it? The IP editor I mentioned isn't the only one hurling accusations around, and they seem to have gotten worse since I first posted that. The article in question has been fully protected, but there's more disruption going on at the article talk page and in the thread linked at ANI. I'd really appreciate it. The discussion started off toxic and seems to have just gone downhill from there, despite the efforts of a few of us to calm things down.

I've watched your page, so you don't need to let me know if you reply here. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:10, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Yikes. Gamergate. Are there solid proposals floating around that could be turned into a RFC? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:31, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, there's the proposal that this info be included, but that's been shot down hard over BLP issues by editors and admins (the latter of whom have fully protected the page and removed the content). The content is not really what got me to ask for help though, rather it was the non-stop accusations of POV pushing and over-the-top, insulting hyperbole from the pro-inclusion side. It looks as if one or two editors have already been chased away from the thread. I think there have been a few accusations of POV pushing from the anti-inclusionist side as well, though the thread is such a mess I'm not sure who or when.

I could put in the 'legwork' to make a list of all the incivility in the thread if you like, but that strikes me as sort of gaming the system. I'd rather an admin be the one to judge what is or isn't a personal attack and how best to respond. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:25, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks for that! I'm unwatching your talk page now, so ping me if you have anything else to add. Hopefully, there will be no need. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:33, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Sorry to keep coming back here, but (IMHO, take it for what it's worth) I think it's time that IP got blocked from editing. See the following:

• I just assumed you would have already read what was written and didn't need it spoonfed, sorry my mistake. (that was directed at you, BTW)
• Make no mistake, this entire exchange is being watched.
• Where do the formal discussions happen where intelligent humans talk about reality, as opposed to circlejerking about their favorite websites?

All of those happened since the various warnings you posted. I think this IP editor is clearly not going to stop with the incivility or disruption. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:38, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Three day block to start. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:48, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Violation of discretionary sanctions

Greetings, I believe User: Volunteer Marek violated discretionary sanctions with this edit at Donald Trump. The edit restored content which had been removed following its recent addition ([13], [14]). The OP is aware of the requirements of discretionary sanctions. As an uninvolved admin, can you please intervene?CFredkin (talk) 17:03, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

I'll also note that there are discussions underway in Talk ([15], [16]) on these edits. There is currently no consensus to restore them, and the OP has made no contributions to the discussions (despite the fact that I referred to them in one of my edit summaries).CFredkin (talk) 17:06, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Simultaneous report

At 14 September at 13:53, the following sentence was added to the opening paragraph of the lead: "He is the founder of Trump University and the New Jersey Generals football team." This sentence was removed at 16:33 on 14 September Then User:Volunteer Marek edited this BLP by restoring that sentence at 16:47 on 14 September. At that point (16:47) there was already a talk page discussion with no consensus for including this material (three editors had commented and none of them supported reinclusion of the disputed sentence). User:Volunteer Marek has previously been informed about discretionary sanctions at this BLP.[17] What can be done?Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:12, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Asked for clarification here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:54, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

This brings to mind the very silent statues at Easter Island.🗿Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:18, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Reminder that WP:AE is available if you want to pursue another avenue for enforcement. Here's what you can expect from me:

• Blatant POV warriors - Quick warning and quick sanctions if behavior doesn't change.
• Editors experienced in this area - Chances to undo/explain violations up to a point. I will try to avoid blocking in favor of voluntary restrictions.
• Experienced editors just cruising by - Everything I can do to make sure they don't shoot themselves in the foot. If they do, use WP:AE to ask for enforcement.
• New editors - A silent prayer, making sure they know what they're getting into, and allowing for some missteps.

--NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:41, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is all yours, because I'm not in the mood for AE today. 😊 But Volunteer Marek's objection about the edit summary made no sense, especially in view of this more recent edit summary.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:22, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

• Neil, what about experienced editors exploiting the discretionary sanctions to filibuster and stonewall? As an observer and sometime-participant in these articles, it's pretty obvious what CFredkin is doing. He reflexively reverts any material that might reflect negatively on Donald Trump, typically with a vague or non-existent rationale, and then demands "firm consensus" before the material can be re-inserted. Any attempt to achieve consensus is then filibustered with further vague objections, most commonly some variation of "WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS-in-Hillary-Clinton's-article".

  The discretionary sanctions are intended to promote caution in inserting potentially contentious material, but he's realized that he can render any material "contentious" simply by reverting it. It's a pattern which, combined with his editing history, makes it clear what he's up to. He's gaming the discretionary sanctions, and I see other editors, including Marek, getting frustrated with it. More to the point, if the discretionary sanctions are giving editors like CFredkin or Anythingyouwant de facto veto power over content, then they're not being enforced in a productive way. MastCell ^Talk 19:27, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps unsurprisingly, I don't think User:MastCell has given a remotely accurate characterization. Take today, for example. An editor inserted a whole new section about the Trump Foundation. It makes clear that most of the money was not from Trump himself. And after some editing by myself and CFredkin, the new section still existed, and it still made clear that most of the money is not from Trump himself. Here's what it looked like before Volunteer Marek reverted all edits to that section, together with a blank edit summary. There was only one uncompromising party here, and it was not anyone identified by User:MastCell.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:42, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

• • MastCell, gaming editing restrictions is a problem. A case should be made at WP:AE with diffs and (ideally) showing how one editor behaves differently on the two articles. If you can make that case I will certainly support article or topic bans. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:04, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Neil, thanks for engaging. In lieu of a response from the OP, would it be reasonable to re-revert the edit without waiting for 24 hours?CFredkin (talk) 20:29, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

CFredkin, wait a couple more hours to see if VM responds. If not, go ahead, adding a link to this post in the edit summary. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:07, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Will do. Thank you.CFredkin (talk) 21:57, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi NeilN. The edit restored material which did indeed have consensus on talk. See the discussion here. User:Buster7 expressed his opinion and correctly observed that omitting the info and substituting a link to an almost empty article is "sending our readers to an empty closet". The material itself was added, proposed, and discussed by User:Somedifferentstuff. User:Muboshgu also appeared to agree with the inclusion. Note that EVEN (and yes, that "even" is very much applicable) User:Anythingyouwant agreed that some info needed to be present in the article, stating that the text removed by CFredkin was "enough for now". Hence, CFredkin is the only one objecting to the material, consensus is clearly against them, yet they are insinuating in their edit summary that their removal of the material is with consensus. It's not, just the opposite.

More generally, User:MastCell above is exactly right. CFredkin has repeatedly acted in a WP:TENDENTIOUS manner in a clear pattern of WP:GAMEing discretionary sanctions. On other articles related to the presidential race, just like this one, CFredkin automatically reverts any edit which they feel is insufficiently complimentary to Trump, or insufficiently critical of Clinton. Then they claim that discretionary sanctions give them some kind of Magical-Shield-Of-Protection-From-Being-Reverted, no matter how disruptive or obnoxiously POV their edit is. This case exemplifies it pretty well.

As to the Generals thing that is brought up by Anythingyouwant, yeah, that got caught up in the revision and I have no problem with that being removed from the lede. I did a partial self revert accordingly. However, I'm not clear why the mention of Trump University is being removed along with the obviously much less significant NY Generals. It seems like one reasoning is being used to make a different kind of edit.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:15, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Actually (as noted in my previous post) there are 2 Talk page discussions for the content VM restored: [18] and [19]. I don't see consensus, much less firm consensus, for restoring the content in either.

VM's has clearly violated discretionary sanctions in this case. Multiple editors have noted this here and on his Talk page. Instead of acknowledging that and self-reverting, he chooses to engage in personal attacks. The implication of his behavior is that he thinks discretionary sanctions don't apply to him.CFredkin (talk) 22:31, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

I carefully listed five editors, four from the talk page and one from here, who appear to agree that this material belongs in the article. On the other hand, there's you. If you're claiming that's not "consensus", well, that just shows your WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude. (I agree there's no consensus for the NJ Generals, but so what? Nobody's arguing about that - it's dishonest to bring it up here).

And no, I am not making "personal attacks". I'm criticizing your editing behavior. I'm not the only one, see MastCell's comment above, who's noticed that you appear to be WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia but rather to engage in political WP:ADVOCACY.

This recent revert [20] is typical. First you follow me to that article to make "revenge reverts". Then you don't even bother looking at the substance of my edits but just mindlessly revert. You top it off with a nonsensical edit summary which claims that this is "reliably sourced content" when even a very brief look at the source easily reveals that the source actually has nothing to do with the topic. I'm surprised you didn't claim that your edit warring was magically protected by discretionary sanctions in this instance, as you usually do.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:43, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Since I've been misquoted above, I'd like to correct the record. At the Trump talk page, I did not say that the material VM supports was "enough for now". What I said was "That seems like plenty for now, and it ought to be more concise in view of WP:Summary style." I subsequently edited the section in question, and here is what it looked like at the time of my last edit, before VM greatly expanded the section without consensus.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:54, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Based on the Inquiry sub-section of the Donald J. Trump Foundation section in Talk, the consensus regarding the content that should be included is not formed. I don't see anyone arguing for including Trump University in the lede in that section of Talk.CFredkin (talk) 22:56, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

If Volunteer Marek deserves sanctioning then so do half the editors at Donald Trump, in particular CFredkin for consistently gaming the system in regards to discretionary sanctions with his drive-by deletions. I know this is silly season but enough already. I can't even get started on Anythingyouwant (I was in awe of the descriptive response here) --- and low and behold, he strikes again [21] even though he knows he doesn't have consensus to remove the material. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 23:03, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

If DS's are not going to be enforced when blatantly violated, then they should be removed. And by the way, if we remove them from Donald Trump, we should remove them from Hillary Clinton. If you haven't noticed, there's not a peep in her bio about all the shenanigans with the Clinton Foundation when she was at the State Department. (Has that been mentioned in reliable sources?) The scrum of editors who vigilantly protect her bio from being besmirched by anything negative have blocked any mention of it. But, unlike VM, I didn't try to force inclusion of the content in violation of DS.CFredkin (talk) 23:22, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I think is beyond the remit of a single admin and any sanctions for gaming the system need to be discussed at WP:AE. Even if I were to levy sanctions, they'd be appealed and we'd wind up there anyways. CFredkin, you'll have to wait 24 hours for the revert. Also, as I said before, you can get DS enforced at WP:AE. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:26, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Apparently now, someone created an WP:SPA account with the main purpose of going around and reverting my edits on articles which may be subject to discretionary sanctions [22] [23]. This is obvious gaming and goading. Let me guess - if I revert this I might violate discretionary sanctions and CFredkin or Anythingyouwant will file yet another WP:AE report against me. This is precisely why a mindless application - without looking at the pattern of edits, like with CFredkin's tendentious behavior - of discretionary sanctions is so idiotic. It only takes a very small amount of cynicism and bad faith to game the hell out of them. Like it's being done here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:16, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek, let me know if they revert again. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:11, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Comma vandal/CIR returns

I think it was you who recently temp-blocked an IP-hopping vandal or CIR, who was inserting commas before Jr.'s and Sr.'s, in the wrong position. Warnings on multiple user talk pages were ignored or never read. Back at it again, see Obadiah Bush for two of the IPs. I've spent the past 20 minutes fixing some of the damage in this round. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:50, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Mandruss, I looked at the contribs for the 41.137.59.0/25 range for the last few months and they all seem to be the same type of fiddly, unconstructive edits. Blocked three months. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:07, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Yeah they're definitely fiddly with the basic bio details, no refs of course. I'm not inclined to verify all that, and I don't have much confidence in them. Would be nice to mass-revert (rollback?) all of the IPs, but if that's even possible I lack the tools for it. Maddening, I tell ya, maddening. STAMP OUT UNREGISTERED EDITING. WRITE YOUR CONGRESSMAN TODAY! ―Mandruss ☎ 19:15, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Got mail. It will be a little while before I can check it out, I assume it will be self-explanatory how to roll back the entire IP range. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:15, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Can't do a range, only one account at a time. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:17, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Ok, so 254 IPs, one at a time. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:48, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

He wasn't hopping that fast I hope!! --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:52, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Well I don't know which of the 254 he hopped to, or even how many. It was only by chance that I ran across those two and happened to see the comma thing in one of the edits. Should I check out the contribs for each of the 254? STAMP OUT UNREGISTERED EDITING. WRITE YOUR CONGRESSMAN TODAY! ―Mandruss ☎ 00:03, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Mandruss Doesn't look too bad. [24] You might want to check a few for your satisfaction. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:09, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Heads up

Hey Neil. Given your block of LackofMeNecktar, I thought you might want to be kept apprised of apparent socks. See my block here. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:29, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Fuhghettaboutit, but we need an article on the Golf Clubber Thingamajigger! --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:36, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

You know, I was just looking at the article and I agree – jumped the gun on that one; really does fill a gap. Also, the user really is quite eloquent, so I'm going to go create Category:Hybrid golf weapons of indeterminate provenance and unblock.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:53, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

IP sock

Hi Neil, It looks like Nangparbat is once again railing against me [25]. Can you please take care of it? Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 10:39, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Kautilya3, blocked two socks so far. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 11:51, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks you so much Neil! Hopefully he gets the message. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:18, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

I guess not. He seems to have opened an account [26]. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:58, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Social media marketing

Thanks for the semi-protection. Mind you, ~all pages about advertising seem to be ghastly messes of bafflegab. :-/ Pinkbeast (talk) 15:55, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Pinkbeast, I think there's some kind of poorly run class project going on as two other similar articles are having the same issue - all with editors with Indian names (I think). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:13, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I've been checking contribs on those and watchlisting affected articles; I just feel it's a bit futile when the affected articles are already incomprehensible masses of synergese.

I'm just moaning, this isn't a request for you to do anything. :-/ Pinkbeast (talk) 16:23, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

HI

hi the info on the babur thread is from a propaganda site/blog the site is well know to publish anti Pakistani material and should not be classed as a reliable srouce for pakistan/chinese material.

i added info on the air india thread too will 3 sources with pictures and he took them down because he claimed the sources were not reliable. since when did one of the world largest avation sites are not reliable? i feel he removed it because it portrayed the airline negatively.

but infact go look back at my sources and you will find them to be fine and heck there pictures too and that's proof in its self.

if you paint something positively then people will think that it good but people need to know the bad side to.

i thought this site is balanced but im starting to have doubts now

regards blue — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blue fishy (talk • contribs) 15:55, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi Blue fishy. As I mentioned on your talk page, please use article talk pages to discuss your changes. You can also go to WP:RSN to discuss reliability of sources. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:17, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Saul Alinsky

Saul Alinsky was self described as a 'small seed communist.' Thanks for editing my alteration to his article; we wouldn't want the truth to get out there, would we? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Polymarkos (talk • contribs) 19:02, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Polymarkos, you might want to read the article you're editing. Saul_Alinsky#Community_organizing_and_politics --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:14, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Possible further block evasion

Just saw you blocks at Talk:Crash Override Network. You might be interested in this Requests for permissions/Confirmed. Mlpearc (open channel) 20:44, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

@Mlpearc: Thanks, I've declined the request. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:59, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

first time article submitted

Hi, Neil. I'm still learning the ways of the Wikipedia editorship. I'm not as HTML savvy as I need to me. I appreciate the attention you have given to Petplan Australia. I'm a mom to a 3 legged chihuahua and I use petplan north america. There are two, existing wikipedia pages for Petplan: Petplan North America and Petplan UK. I am working hard to learn this system. I added a third wikipedia page for Petplan Australia with objective, factual information that links to legitimate external sources and internal wikipedia pages. What do you recommend I incorporate into my articles for future submissions so that I am not flagged for deletion? I'm not sure if we can ask for "wiki mentors" here, but I could sure use one. Thanks, again. Arzade (talk) 00:51, 16 September 2016 (UTC)arzade

Hi Arzade. Please read our notability guidelines for businesses. Most important: "A company, corporation, organization, school, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject." I did do a search before nominating for deletion but came up empty. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:56, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

@NeilN Do news sources count as secondary sources? There's this from ABC http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-11-08/campaign-to-end-pet-insurer's-'cruel'-post-death-premiums/5876356 or The Sydney Herald http://www.smh.com.au/business/consumer-affairs/choice-reviews-what-pet-insurance-really-covers-and-if-it-is-worth-it-20160415-go7d0o.html? I really appreciate your help on this. I'm trying to build up my credibility because I LOVE writing and Wikipedia especially. Thank you! Arzade (talk) 01:22, 16 September 2016 (UTC)arzade

Arzade, yes, newspapers are secondary sources. But these two only have incidental mentions. What we need is a company profile in a secondary source. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:29, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

I semi'd your talk page

Because trolls. Feel free to undo my protection at anytime and without need to consult me, yadda yadda yadda, first. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:01, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

I'd revdel those revisions RD3 too. Adam9007 (talk) 01:04, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Good point, thanks. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:07, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Whoa - you guys are way over my head. Thank you for semi-protecting ~Oshwah~ Also, may I ask what revdel those revisions RD3 means? @Neil...thanks again for all your guidance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arzade (talk • contribs) 01:25, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

@Arzade: Revdel means deleting a revision of a page. WP:CRD describes the criteria. Adam9007 (talk) 01:45, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank You

Very helpful information, Adam9007 Thank you and NeilN with the resources and guidance. Arzade (talk) 01:57, 16 September 2016 (UTC)Arzade

Thanks

Figured they'd be back sooner or later. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 01:57, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Comma vandal again

[27] TimothyJosephWood 13:33, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Blocked. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:40, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Sorry to pile on, but 88.251.9.133 (block evading) is mass-undoing my reverts. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 14:15, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

And perhaps to have the pages the IP is editing protected? Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 14:16, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Dat Guy, blocked. If they return with another IP, I'll semi. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:21, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Dat Guy, did I get all the pages? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:28, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. Seems like Widr got Tughril, Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 14:46, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Another IP user

Hi Neil, In my sandbox [28], I have documented another problematic IP user that you have dealt with in the past. I see two landline IPs and several wireless IPs, all of which are likely to belong to the same individual. Can we force him to open an account so that we have a proper record of activity? Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 13:35, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Kautilya3, I will look at this but it might take a few days. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:09, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Ok, but please note that I am not asking him/her to be penalised. The socking could have been inadvertant, but I just need them to be off IPs. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:14, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Understood. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:16, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Aquatic Ape POV

Neil, apologies for troubling you but editor Cmeiqnj has added a POV to the article. I amoungst others may well argue that the article has POV difficulties but IMO that is in tone not misleading information. Starting any work towards fulfilling the criteria needed to remove the label may well end up with an article that creates more POV problems than solves! This ramble based upon past experience but that was with religion and witchcraft, this may be far simplier. Thoughts? Thanks Edmund Patrick – confer 14:22, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Posted here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:34, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Mail

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

--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 15:28, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

I'll just...

Leave this here. You, being the all wise and powerful admin can do as you see fit. lol. ^{(talk page stalker)} CrashUnderride 19:47, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Wise and powerful. Snort. Dealt with. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:59, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

I thought you'd get a laugh. Thanks for the help. Have a look at their contribs and see how they wildly over reacted. lol ^{(talk page stalker)} CrashUnderride 20:14, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Shouldn't that be The great, almighty, and all powerful? lol Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 00:36, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Ah, no. Just have a mop, remember? Plus, there might be a couple of interesting posts made here in the next few days that will definitely contradict this. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:41, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Your still real to us!! lol, You mean like the ones that will probably be posted on mine in a few days? Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 00:47, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Honestly, I didn't even think it was bad enough to warrant a Revdel. lol. If people get so offended when they are told to follow guidlines and they don't want too, that's their problem. They can all me anything they want, it doesn't bother me. lol. ^{(talk page stalker)} CrashUnderride 00:50, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

No, see Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Michael_Hardy/Proposed_decision#NeilN.27s_section. If you're thinking of posting there after you've read it please, please don't. I'd appreciate the support but Arbcom cases can be nasty places and that case has seen some really lousy judgement and work by many Arbcom members. You do not want to be caught up in that. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:00, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Ummmmmm ok thats total bs......I'm just gonna shut up, no I'm not gonna post to it. You will always have my support. By the way

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

Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 01:09, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Not sure what the IPs thought they were gaining from any of it, but clearly y'all's were worse than mine, both of yours got revdel lol Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 00:56, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Lol, Neil can attest, my attack involved being called a sucker of male sexual fluids. And all I did was correct them, when they changed Ryback's birth name to Ryback Allen Reeves. I explained that no matter what, his birth name wouldn't be changed. He will have always been Ryan. lol. Then, well, if you see their contribs, you'll see how childishly they behaved. ^{(talk page stalker)} CrashUnderride 01:00, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

F1 Challenge 99-02

Hello, NeilN

I really respect what you did with the article. The user who self-promotes F1 Challenge 1988-2014 in Wikipedia (EA Sports F1 Series page) is doing that since 2013.

Thanks, --CristianLuisCLX (talk) 21:01, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi CristianLuisCLX. Actually you can thank DH85868993. He's the one who requested protection, saying almost the same thing you have. [29] I just checked he was right and protected the page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:23, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

IPv6 range contribs tool

See phab:T145912. Time to make this happen, in native MediaWiki :) Feel free to weigh in with your thoughts. Also pinging those I know have asked about this before: @Edgar181, Bishonen, and NativeForeigner:. Best — MusikAnimal ^talk 23:11, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) finally! While you're at it, see if you can do something about phab:T18866 - NQ (talk) 23:17, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

@NQ: This one is closer to being done: phab:T120733. That should help those who were hoping for a reverse order option — MusikAnimal ^talk 23:59, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Ah, good to see progress on that one. - NQ (talk) 00:19, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

• That would be very lovely, Musik. Bishonen | talk 23:18, 16 September 2016 (UTC).
• @MusikAnimal: Awesome! If I read the task description correctly, the new tool would handle both IPv4 and IPv6 ranges? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:31, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

  That's the idea. To be clear, creating a phab task is not confirmation it will happen any time soon :( so don't get too excited! To my surprise, no one had created a task yet, so I just wanted you all to know about it in case you had something to add. Sorry if I misled you... We still need to triage and do an investigation on how we're supposed to make this happen, it's a long process. I don't think it will be easy, but if we're going to do it, it should be built right into core or a MediaWiki extension. This seems very handy for admins and non-admins alike. A Tool Labs effort might be quicker but you have to deal with stability, replication lag, etc — MusikAnimal ^talk 23:51, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

  @Johnuniq: may have something to add, too. Bishonen | talk 23:56, 16 September 2016 (UTC).

  A tool to show both IPv4 and IPv6 contribution is required, and it is ridiculous that the WMF does not allocate resources towards basic administration of the site. However, IPv6 is so crazily large that supporting prefix indexing might be tricky. Further, what's really wanted is the ability to show recent contributions, say in the last month or last two months, because that is most relevant when considering a range block. I thought about a plan for a tool to make a reasonably efficient database of recent IPv6 edits and it would be feasible, but unfortunately there is no chance I could find time for a project like that at the moment. Johnuniq (talk) 00:14, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

  Yeah, I don't recall how the tables are set up but the DB structure is probably the most crucial thing in making this work. NativeForeigner ^Talk 19:38, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

E-mail

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

^{(talk page stalker)} CrashUnderride 02:21, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

I need a duck to be shot

Special:Contributions/100.37.136.56 looks a lot like Special:Contributions/68.132.32.203. --Izno (talk) 03:21, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Izno, wings clipped. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:30, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

83.143.245.5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Matches Contribs and Sockpuppetry Styles of Paulydee:

C'estpaspossible! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Ohbuttheywill (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

 Looks like a duck to me - @C.Fred: This might be of interest to you as well. Do these pages need protection possibly? -- Dane2007 ^talk 00:53, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

@Dane2007: Blocked. If they come back yet again let me know. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:02, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Neil! I will let you know! -- Dane2007 ^talk 01:03, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

79.141.163.13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) -- Dane2007 ^talk 01:11, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

162.244.80.233 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) -- Dane2007 ^talk 23:44, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Off topic but "Quack, quack" bang!...splash....you jerks!!!! :D ^{(talk page stalker)} CrashUnderride 23:49, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

@Crash Underride: Blocked. I wish the person would stop socking and just request an unblock as their edits look okay. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:07, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

You pinged the wrong person. lol ^{(talk page stalker)} CrashUnderride 00:12, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Pretty certain Neil know's i'd see it and figure it out haha. I'm a regular at this talk page. -- Dane2007 ^talk 04:12, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

He's baaaack....77.243.183.89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) -- Dane2007 ^talk 02:38, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Neil's nooooottt....:D ^{(talk page stalker)} CrashUnderride 02:44, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Uh oh, I just realized he's on holiday, thanks Crash Underride. Oshwah, could you take a look at our fun IP friend above? All the history related to the sock puppetry is basically under this section and the SPI is linked above. -- Dane2007 ^talk 05:32, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

OOH! Duck hunt! I wanna play! QUACK!. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:27, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Meh, IP hasn't edited in 4 hours now. There's a troll out there, yes. But he appears to no longer be using this IP. No point in blocking, so I'm going to call it Stale. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:00, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Jon_Hydro_Jets

[30] NeilN, this editor keeps stalking and targeting my edits [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] despite many warnings Spartacus! ^t@lk 04:45, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

@Spartacus!: It seems that you and Jon Hydro Jets are interested in editing in the same areas. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:01, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Abdollah Movahed

Neil, could you please take another look at this article and decide whether semi-protection is appropriate. You blocked one of the IPs who is adding unsourced ethnicity to the article for edit warring, but, as you can see, the person doing this is hopping and a block is unfortunately of limited value. I'm WP:INVOLVED, having reverted more than once, and can't do this myself. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:35, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Ismail I is another article in which they are interested, also currently not protected. This seems to be a recent and currently unblocked IP. MPS1992 (talk) 12:25, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Abdollah Movahed has now been semi-protected until sometime in October. MPS1992 (talk) 13:11, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

MPS1992, Ismail I protected. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:34, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Question

Could we possibly get University of Louisiana at Lafayette protected from I.P. and new users until a consensus is built at the talk page? We're trying (emphasis because it may be a while with a couple of them...) to get a consensus on an abbreviation for the school, but new users/IPs keep changing it and not waiting to get a consensus. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 21:52, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

@Corkythehornetfan: Protected one week for now. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:57, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 21:59, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Sam Mizrahi

Hi I see you got involved in the past on this Article about a week ago i stumbled on this article and did a bunch of changes to improve it. I saw this past week a new edit war breakout on this page and while user Truthseekr67 seems to be doing the correct thing by leaving comments and discussing the changes on the talk page the second user ( Masterofthename ) just reverted the changes. I stepped in and reverted his change but at the same time i have left him explanation on his talk page to explain that 1) he should leave comments on edits 2) he should join the conversation on the page talk page to discuss the changes and arrive at consensus. I don't want to "feed the fire", by doing another edit but after thorough review i don't think the sentence he is trying to maintain on the article should be there as its not sourced anywhere. Would you mind to step in as admin? Ntb613 (talk) 01:37, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi Ntb613. I am watching that article and rebuked Masterofthename earlier. [36] We'll see if behavior changes. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:42, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for quick reply. Can i reinstitute the change made by user Truthseekr67 ? Ntb613 (talk) 01:48, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Ntb613, yes that's fine. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:50, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi, i know you said you have added this page to your watchlist i just wanted to alert you to the fact that the user Masterofthename has just tried again to insert potentially libellous info on this page, i have reverted his edit, and left him a level 2 warning, but based on past experience i doubt that it will help. Could this particular user be blocked from auto-accept feature on this article so that any edits he makes should first require approval like anon user? Thank you for your help! Ntb613 (talk) 07:21, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

While the edits may place undue weight on the relationship I cannot see how they are potentially libelous or vandalism. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 10:06, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

thanks for your input, i really appreciate it. Since this is biography of a living person the rules state that you have to be more careful about the things being included in the article. What i am referring to, is the fact that the other editor is trying to put claim that the person is known for this lawsuit, and his association with this criminal, it is a known and reported fact and is mentioned below in a dedicated section on the page. But he is not known for it. Mizrahi is not known as "one of Canada's best-known property developers". Or "Mizrahi is known for its posh residential developments, like penthouses on Davenport and pricey town homes in Lytton Park." . The sentance he is including in the first paragraph is damaging as it sounds that's what "he is all about" and doesn't cite this sentance from any source... He is citing five different links in Iranian Newspapers in Persian (can we cite sources from other languages?). I used google translate and checked if there is anything like this sentance and couldn't find it. How would you suggest i deal with this? Thanks in advance for your time and guidance. Ntb613 (talk) 19:44, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

References

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	We like your admin service, and this barnstar will work it out for you. Dog8923 (talk) 03:03, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

editwar

Dear editwar board admin, can you look at this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Njdeda_Rlase_reported_by_User:TouristerMan_.28Result:_.29 Editor touristerman has reverted 4 times in one day. After my warning of brightline three revert rule and three reverts made by editor touristerman he stop and put tags in 4th edit. Then on edge of 24 hrs he made full revert. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Njdeda Rlase (talk • contribs) 18:38, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Ranze

Is there a way they can be given a hard topic ban? When I say that, you know when someone's banned, they can log in, but not edit. Well, do that, except for articles, re-directs, etc. that are in pro wrestling related categories? That way we don't have to worry about them violating the ban. ^{(talk page stalker)} CrashUnderride 23:39, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

@Crash Underride:, no, there's no software functionality that allows us to stop an editor from editing certain topics. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:04, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, maybe they could make it. lol. ^{(talk page stalker)} CrashUnderride 00:12, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

@Crash Underride: Too easy to game. You could in theory write code that looks at categories but that doesn't stop them from posting on user talk pages or articles where wrestling is just incidentally mentioned. Plus, it's helpful to the banned editor to show they have some self-control. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:18, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, as you can see, Ranze, does not. lol. ^{(talk page stalker)} CrashUnderride 00:19, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks

For dealing with the person spamming the ref desks. Between you and GorillaWarfare the disruption, though fast and furious, was short lived. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 00:44, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

MarnetteD, I've staggered the protection times so that only one desk at a time can be disrupted in the future. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:46, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Great idea. That is why you get paid the big, volunteer (non-existant) bucks. Even more thanks for that. MarnetteD|Talk 02:23, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Science desk

Science desk needs help — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.19.245.153 (talk) 09:09, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Widr got it. Will probably need to apply a longer protect at some point as this has been an ongoing issue (see above section). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 10:00, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi, NeilN! I think that keeping Refdesks Math and Science protected for IP editors in the past weeks is not a viable option. If there some problematic editors, I suggest they be blocked instead of keeping Refdesks protected. Thanks.--82.137.14.150 (talk) 19:37, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

The person in question cannot be blocked via the means available to us so we use protection. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:43, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

How so? I'm very surprised to hear that! Isn't there some blocking reason like Refedesk disruption? Who is the person and what are the disruptions caused?(I haven't understood very clearly from the edit history of Refdesks.)--82.137.14.150 (talk) 19:53, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

The person in question can easily switch IPs. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:20, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Interesting! Is it obvious that a single same person is involved? Or perhaps a group of different users? Is WP:CHECKUSER useful in this situation? Could an IP-range block be aplied? Is it obvious vandalism? These are some questions that need some answers before requesting unprotection of Refdesks!--82.137.14.150 (talk) 21:22, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

It is a really annoying situation!--82.137.14.150 (talk) 21:29, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

You were mentioned at ANI

Just a quick message to let you know you were mentioned in this thread -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 14:54, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

I knew he'd end up at ANI one of these days. It was only a matter of time. _Muffled ^Pocketed 14:57, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

We all do. Bogus ANIs come with the title. If it isn't headlined "Abuse by administrator (your name here)" you pretty much don't bother to respond. And sometimes not even then. --MelanieN (talk) 15:35, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Meh. The first time, years back, got my heart going (I think the report was swiftly closed). Nowadays it's more "what sock has posted now?". At least this time I'm pretty much a bystander. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:21, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Admin's Barnstar
		For your constructive presence. Thank you, 2601:188:1:AEA0:30F8:873F:7608:6364 (talk) 04:56, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks 2601! --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:58, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

• Thank you! Made me laugh. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:08, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

AE

Hi Neil, I mentioned you at arbitration enforcement (here), though I'm not sure if the ping worked given that I signed the comment and then inserted your name (instead of vice versa).Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:07, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Barnstar!

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Huge appreciation for your actions against blatant vandalism. The Ink Daddy! (talk) 02:59, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:06, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

{{yo}}!

#Should I? - That's a whole lot of red! You could really use User:Theopolisme/Scripts/autocompleter, makes replying to comments a whole lot easier. - NQ (talk) 12:41, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

NQ Awesome! You know you should really set up a page listing your recommended scripts. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:43, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

yes. will do - NQ (talk) 15:00, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

NQ Is there a way to move the button area (containing the Save changes, Show preview, etc. buttons) from the bottom of the edit interface to above the icon toolbar? Or assign shortcut keys to them? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:11, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm sure there is a way. Do you mean something like https://i.imgur.com/3xW4PER.png ? - NQ (talk) 15:30, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

NQ, yes, shortcut keys might be easier though. Or can the autocomplete be assigned to a different key like `? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:46, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Or, can there be a shortcut to pop the cursor into the edit summary input box? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:49, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Ah, I get it now. Have you checked out Wikipedia:Keyboard shortcuts? It has access keys for all scenarios. - NQ (talk) 15:54, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

With just a minor tweak in the script, you can change the shortcut key. See User:NQ-test/script1.js, I assigned ` instead of Tab ↹ so you can still use tab key to jump to the edit summary like before. - NQ (talk) 16:04, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) NQ Cool. I'm lazy so I'll probably whip up an Autohotkey script to map Alt-shift-b to ~ in Firefox (or do as you suggest). The autocomplete can be kind of flaky but shows promise. Example: Type :, hit tab, and it figures out how many more : to add for proper indentation. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:08, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

There is also User:ערן/autocomplete. (btw you can't assign the ` key, it wont let you sign posts anymore. Better map it to something like insert.) - NQ (talk) 16:24, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Thanks for locking down my talk page (again). Fun to wake up to a number of notices about my talk page. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:58, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

IP 194.176.222.229

Please see their contributions They have Vandalized here twice and warned and now posted this using hate speech. The IP appears to be a school IP. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 13:53, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

WarMachineWildThing, blocked for six months. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:05, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

They switched IPs it appears, page may need semied. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 14:07, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you sir, hopefully they don't switch again. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me}

Spoke to soon they're back Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 14:19, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Higher level of protection needed

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torben_S%C3%B8ndergaard needs a higher level of protection. There is planned an organized attempt to delete the page by followers of the subject. Read the last comment here: https://www.facebook.com/torbenksondergaard/posts/294975194206883 — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohannesSve (talk • contribs) 15:30, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

@JohannesSve: The page is already semi-protected but it expires in about seven hours. I'm going to put pending changes on as a safeguard and see if sustained disruption occurs again. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:41, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

@NeilN: Sounds good. Just wanted to let you know, that in the link provided above a follower already has made a guide for others on how to 1) create autoconfirmed user 2) then try "Proposed deletion", 3) move on to "Discussed deletion". — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohannesSve (talk • contribs) 16:15, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

happy peace day

Hi dear, it's International Day of Peace and i wanted to say happy peace day to you, so you may be interested in this association to join it , as you wish . happy editing. The Stray Dog Talk Page 18:27, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) International Peace Day? Somebody needs to tell ANI ;) _Muffled ^Pocketed 18:42, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

IP vandal

IP 50.51.80.15 literally just got off a vandalism ban and has started again. ^{(talk page stalker)} CrashUnderride 22:47, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Regarding Rudraksh Cap-Tech: socking

Should I create a SPI for User:Gunchuma and User:Aarushiyas? Both users had a hand in repeatedly recreating the dbed article. Also, anons 223.231.60.224 and 223.231.63.82 removing temps. Messaging you as the deleting admin directly as I have no experience reopening the AN/I discussion. Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 08:08, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Optakeover, if they edit again it's probably worth opening a SPI and asking for a checkuser. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:48, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

ygm

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

Keri (talk) 13:04, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

IP range contribs tool II

Did you get a chance to draft up a discussion? If not no worries... I can help, or we can rope in the liaison folks. We might even consider opening a thread directly on WP:AN, that way we get a lot of feedback quickly. From there we can shape the requirements and I'll communicate back with my team. Thank you very much for your assistance! — MusikAnimal ^talk 18:04, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

@MusikAnimal: Getting ready for my mini-holiday this week (starting today - writing this from the airport). Was going to organize my thoughts and launch the page next week. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:15, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

That works, there's no particular rush :) I have a few new ideas of my own that I'll have prepared to share as well. Enjoy your vacation! — MusikAnimal ^talk 18:19, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Arley1998

User:Arley1998 has made no constructive edits. The only edits they've made are vandalism edits adding themselves to articles and templates, as well as creating articles about them-self and relatives. User has already been warned numerous times, MusikAnimal even blocked them for 31 hours, yet the behavior persists. I think this pattern of behavior is a clear sign that they are WP:NOTHERE and need to be gone. ^{(talk page stalker)} CrashUnderride 22:57, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

@MusikAnimal: just saw Neil was on holiday, maybe you can help. ^{(talk page stalker)} CrashUnderride 22:58, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

@Crash Underride: You do know about Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism ? Vandals should be reported there. Mlpearc (open channel) 23:03, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

@Mlpearc: yes I do, however, I can't pick just one link to show in the template. Plus I've worked with these admins before and they tend to get things done faster. ^{(talk page stalker)} CrashUnderride 23:14, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

@Crash Underride: Remember this is a community, it's unfair to always impose on only two. Cheers, Mlpearc (open channel) 23:18, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Fine, I'll only impose on one then. :D </sarcasm> lol ^{(talk page stalker)} CrashUnderride 23:26, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

@Crash Underride: Not that I don't mind helping, but I think you'll find better results reporting to AIV. Admins you contact directly may not be around to do anything about it. You can use Twinkle to make reports, if that's what you meant by the "template", just let Twinkle do it for you. For the record, both NeilN and I frequent AIV. Best — MusikAnimal ^talk 01:35, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

@MusikAnimal: done. ^{(talk page stalker)} CrashUnderride 02:45, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Not sure whether this warrants SPI

But Krimuk90 clearly came back as User:Smaro sex. Same 'contribution' of plastering user pages with xrap. Just FYI. _Muffled ^Pocketed 10:47, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, blocked. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 11:36, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection

Hello, NeilN. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

• Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
• A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.

Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:48, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

IP sock again

Hi Neil, it appears that Nangparbat is back to his tricks: 31.192.111.202, 31.192.111.236. Perhaps a range block? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:54, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: (talk page stalker) The long-term abuse page for this user tells users to NOT rangeblock this user. Hmm.. WikiPancake ^{✉ 📖} 13:11, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Whack-a-mole

Our buddy Masai Giraffe may be back. See User talk:FrIeDaDawSen. Same pattern of editing to create bizarre inaccuracies that look plausible on the surface. I may have overstepped to do a single-issue warning, but I think it's the same editor. I suppose an SPI and requesting a rangeblock might be next. Montanabw^(talk) 23:48, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

@Montanabw: Tagged as Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jaredgk2008 --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:50, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Torah28

Hello. User:Torah28 continues doing what they want on the page Saoirse Ronan (see [37]). Should I be filing a new report? Thanks. Wolfdog (talk) 14:09, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Um, that edit seems fine. She is Irish-American. She has a) dual citizenship and b) was born in New York City...last time I check that was in American. In other words, the definition of Irish-American. Sorry 'bout that. ^{(talk page stalker)} CrashUnderride 14:16, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Crash Underride, the edit may be acceptable but Torah28 has to actually participate in the ongoing discussion - they've been warned about this. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:48, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Alanpopo123

Has been blocked three times in their brief wiki career. Twice for disruptive editing, and once for block evasion. Each time the block expires, they simply continue editing disruptively, ignoring warnings. In my opinion, it's time for an indefinite block. Thoughts? Sro23 (talk) 18:54, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Multi Level Marketing edit

Hi Neil: Not sure if this is the right place to put this, but here goes.

Thank you for the invitation to discuss my contributions with you. I can see that you have a great deal of experience with Wikipedia, this is my first attempt to contribute.

My concern with Wikipedia's content regarding MLM is that is is very one-sided, biased against any positive descriptions at all. It dwells on the so-called "controversial" nature of the business, without any attempt to explain why some 17 million Americans and 50 million individuals worldwide have chosen this "controversial" industry to participate in.

There is no real attempt to portray the successes of the industry, the fact that some of these companies have a track record stretching back more than 30 years. The fact that, leaving aside the top income earners and the lowest income earners, there are thousands of 'average" people who have earned more than $1,000,000 in their MLM career. NuSkin for instance has a "Million-dollar-earner" wall in their new head office in Provo, Utah that has more than 1200 names on it.

Companies such as Avon and Mary Kay are household names, trusted by two generations or more as a source of quality products at fair prices. Amway is approaching $10 Billion in annual sales, and has survived scrutiny from more than 60 countries.

Key note speakers at MLM companies include some of America's most notable individuals, including former presidents, Pentagon Generals, business leaders. Reputable companies are highly rated by the Better Business Bureau. Some have high Dun & Bradstreet ratings. The latest ones are now publicly traded, and meet the quarterly scrutiny of the SEC.

The criticism of the industry on the other hand, largely comes from a fringe group of commentators with very little credibility. I can't speak to why these people feel the necessity to constantly attack the industry and the people in it, but it does no service to Wikipedia to promote these people and their biases.

My suggestion to Wikipedia is to separate the attacks from the industry page if you feel the need to include them, and put them in their own category. I think you would be hard pressed to find another industry page that has such a biased and negative view. Search Auto Industry, Oil Industry or Arms Industry for instance and despite the constant attacks on these industries Wikipedia make no mention. These pages area full of industry facts. The MLM page on the other hand , is full of references to criticism, legality, lawsuits, price fixing, cults, and so on. This is a completely false reflection of the industry itself, but rather a compendium of those who have chosen to attack the industry.

And most of the info there is very dated. Kind of like using Ralph Nader's criticism of the auto industry in the 1960s as a focal point when discussing the auto industry. The criticism of MLM is - and should be on Wikipedia - a footnote to the evolution of the industry, not the defining characteristic of it.

If I might ask a personal question, do you have a personal bias to MLM? Have you had any (perhaps negative) personal experience which is colouring your view?

LeeFairbanks (talk) 15:25, 26 September 2016 (UTC)Lee Fairbanks

(talk page stalker)Have watchlisted the article based on this. -Roxy the dog™ bark 15:41, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

LeeFairbanks, I think you have it backwards. Let's look at the sources you used:

• A blog shilling for MLM events with a grand total of 82 posts
• A law firm whose livelihood depends on MLM clients
• A MLM association
• A blog for a law firm whose livelihood depends on MLM clients
• A blog post by a MLM lawyer
• A site shilling for MLM
• Another site shilling for MLM

These are "the fringe group of commentators with very little credibility." Let's see what independent sources have to say: [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43] There's probably content in these sources that could be incorporated into the article. As for your personal question, I think the last two paragraphs you tried to add here shows who's editing with a personal bias. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:02, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Protect Notre Dame page

Hey! Some time ago oyu put a temporary protection on University of Notre Dame because of vandalism. That protection expired on the 23rd, but vandals have come back. Could you put protection once again? Thanks! Eccekevin (talk) 22:23, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Protection for the Notre Dame page? Hey, can't the Fighting Irish protect themselves? 0;-D --MelanieN (talk) 00:03, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

P.S. I protected it. Two months this time. --MelanieN (talk) 00:05, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Sock of John Daker

Kader_Tree is clearly a sock of John Daker and wreaking havoc...-- Dane2007 ^talk 04:36, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! And welcome back from vacation! -- Dane2007 ^talk 04:49, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Dane2007, you're welcome and thanks. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:56, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Re: Yaysmay15

As for your comment "Socks don't get to dispute content", Yaysmay, the sock master, embroiled himself in a content dispute. Any sort of advice or warnings like WP:NOTNEWS or WP:ROUTINE often fall on deaf ears and thus why admins were forced to block his initial account, but we never expected him to be that relentless through that sock farm of his. Blake Gripling (talk) 05:12, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi Blakegripling ph. I was commenting on the fact you requested full protection because of a content dispute/edit war. Sockpuppets don't get to dispute content via reverts or discussion. They just get blocked and the article semi or PC protected. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:35, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Figures, though it's still seems to be a dispute as Yaysmay insists on his revision(s), albeit in a rather underhanded way since he resorted through sockpuppetry and thus made a complete nuisance of himself. Blake Gripling (talk) 05:43, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Housekeeping

Hi Neil, Thanks for deleting User talk:Pyfan/Barnstars and awards and helping HowDoesThisEvenwork's message find its way to the right place! Cheers, — Oli ^OR Pyfan! 14:27, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Deleting material?

Tried to remove text only having sources written by Torben Søndergaard's himself from the Torben_Søndergaard article. And more should go according to the Wiki-standard. The article is simply not written according to the Wikipedia standard as hardly any of the sources verifiable, have no translations of sources in other languages, or are accessible. They are self-published, biased and the whole article is based on a claim of a movement that's non-existent.

There are hardly multiple reliable sources. The main sources are some tabloid newspapers and then Torben Søndergaard's own books, own website, own YouTube channel, and own opinion pieces in a minor Christian Danish newspaper. There is no movement. It's simply grandiose words from an upcoming YouTuber and conference speaker. When the critical stuff is gone from the article, this Wiki article is at best advertisement for a minor Danish ministry edited it's followers, fx RobbertDam, and the HMX-something guy who made a tutorial to other followers how to edit this page. The reason this page is getting attention is because Torben Søndergaard posted a link to it on his Facebook-page asking for help to make it positive - which is just as bad as negative - and then angry followers shared it.

And the Last Reformation is not really a worldwide movement. Writing a book, buying a website, making a Facebook-page, uploading videos to Youtube while stating something a hundred times does not make something real. This idea of a worldwide movement is simply an unfounded claim by Torben Søndergaard who simply hopes for a worldwide movement. There's maybe a few thousand active supporters worldwide and they, of course, vigorously all claim to have a movement, but - let's stay objective here - in fact, it's simply a claim.

In reality Søndergaard

• has established three minor housechurches in Denmark with less than 100 members in total. None of them are existing today.
• has 10-15 seminars a year with between 100 to about 1.000 people attending
• no other established ministry anywhere else in the world than Denmark, where he for the most part seems to be unknown.
• only a few thousands more or less active supports worldwide at best

Is he controversial? Probably. Does this make him noteworthy enough for a Wikipedia page? No.

Just look at the very modest activity on his Facebook page. This can in no way be a worldwide movement or a wiki-noteworthy person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HowDoesThisEvenwork (talk • contribs) 14:30, 28 September 2016 (UTC)