User talk:NeilN/Archive 36

Archive 30

←

Archive 34

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

Archive 38

→

Archive 40

Thanks

Thanks Neil for the quick action at Chase Iron Eyes. I had just opened an ANI thread when I saw you had removed the summaries there; I therefore removed the ANI thread due to the nature of it. Home Lander (talk) 01:07, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

@Home Lander: You're welcome. I haven't been able to find any sources that verify the claim. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:18, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Neither have I. Needless to say things are contentious surrounding him at the moment though. I'm willing to leave out the bit about the wife, but who knows whether that IP/account really is her or not. Home Lander (talk) 01:27, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

@Home Lander: I agree. I've posted to the registered account's talk page. Let's see how they respond. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:30, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Something tells me at this point that the account was a WP:SPA and that a response will never arrive. Home Lander (talk) 03:12, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

@Home Lander: Hmmmm --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:06, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Oh my... what else could I say. Home Lander (talk) 05:17, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

I took a look and the IP that was first used was out of McLaughlin, South Dakota. Lookie here. I at this point don't doubt the account operator's identity. (Not that it changes much in terms of the article, anyway.) Home Lander (talk) 05:26, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

about Dokdo

of course,we have a discussion about liancourt..if u think u r right, Korea and Japan in East sea(sea of japan) dispute...so could u change the name of "sea of japan" to east sea(sea of japan) or sea of japan(east sea).,,like that..but we r in sea of japan dispute..but why did u dicide ONLY sea of japan?? Jang8962 (talk) 03:19, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Please read WP:COMMONNAME. Briefly: we go by how the subject is known in English; and in English, almost everybody calls it the Sea of Japan. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:27, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Just almost..not everybody..do u ignore 1 hundread people?? and disputing is FACT.. Jang8962 (talk) 03:53, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

@Jang8962: Well, yes. "Almost everybody" is the basis of WP:COMMONNAME. If you want to change the name saying "the name is disputed" won't get you anywhere. You need to show that "East Sea" is the most commonly used term in English language reliable sources. And yes, we ignore the opinions of Wikipedia editors - our opinions of what things should be named don't count. Only the sources we bring to the discussion count. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:03, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

but Dokdo usually use in the world..so I think change it... Jang8962 (talk) 04:14, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

@Jang8962: You've already been notified that discretionary sanctions apply to these set of articles so changing names without getting consensus will likely result in a quick block. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:19, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

@Jang8962: Please read the orange boxes at the top of Talk:Sea_of_Japan including the FAQ. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:50, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

i mean just example..its main subject is Dokdo..u dont change liancourt to dokdo..why?? because of disputaion..but sea of japan too.. having the disputaion..but why do u stick to sea of japan...because of japanese power?? i think u doesn't judge fairly..ummm.. just my opinion..i'm sorry if it offended u.. Jang8962 (talk) 04:02, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Nobody here is offended, Jang; and Japanese power has nothing to do with it. Tt's just that we have a system and principles, and we keep to them consistently. Until and unless the common name in English changes, the article title will not be changed. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:11, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2017

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

Administrator changes

Amortias • Deckiller • BU Rob13

Ronnotel • Islander • Chamal N • Isomorphic • Keeper76 • Lord Voldemort • Shereth • Bdesham • Pjacobi

Guideline and policy news

• A recent RfC has redefined how articles on schools are evaluated at AfD. Specifically, secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist.
• AfDs that receive little participation should now be closed like an expired proposed deletion, following a deletion process RfC.
• Defender, HakanIST, Matiia and Sjoerddebruin are our newest stewards, following the 2017 steward elections.
• The 2017 appointees for the Ombudsman commission are Góngora, Krd, Lankiveil, Richwales and Vogone. They will serve for approximately 1 year.

Technical news

• A recent query shows that only 16% of administrators on the English Wikipedia have enabled two-factor authentication. If you haven't already enabled it please consider doing so.
• Cookie blocks should be deployed to the English Wikipedia soon. This will extend the current autoblock system by setting a cookie for each block, which will then autoblock the user after they switch accounts under a new IP.
• A bot will now automatically place a protection template on protected pages when admins forget to do so.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:14, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

49.203.184.123

• 49.203.184.123 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

They're back... 208.54.5.159 (talk) 05:36, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

They're reverted... and reported... Home Lander (talk) 05:42, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

And blocked by Widr. Home Lander (talk) 05:42, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Alliance University

I come access a page with the name Alliance University there I found editwar with some IP users please look after the page and request to proctect the page Bullus 10:05, 1 March 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bullus (talk • contribs)

It's quiet now. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:35, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply NeilN but can you please help me in semi proctaction of this page Bullus 05:50, 2 March 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bullus (talk • contribs)

@Bullus: Sorry, no. There's no current need for protection. I will keep an eye on the article, however. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:55, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

NeilN please look after this two IP user 117.239.62.107 and 111.93.146.14 this two user are come to wikipedia only to edit this page and doing edit intentionally. Bullus 04:59, 3 March 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bullus (talk • contribs)

@Bullus: What's the difference between this and this? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:13, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

This two are different website the https://allianceuniversity.edu.in/index.php this may be a fake website one if you go to website and click any information they shows nothing no properinformation give there are no facultyinformation no clickable about. After some research I found that the website alliance.edu.in is fully function and hold by the university itself all the admition,notices about the collages in this website but not in this allianceuniversity.edu.in Bullus 05:55, 3 March 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bullus (talk • contribs)

@Bullus: Semi-protected for a month. The other site looks pretty real but this may explain the situation. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:10, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for helping me Regards Bullus 17:08, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Sockpuppet question

Many thanks for your help with the sockpuppet case [1]. I was wondering if there is anything else that could be done to stop them using other sockpuppets? Whether through IP or otherwise? Kzl55 (talk) 15:46, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Kzl55. The CU request is still open in the SPI case. Perhaps a checkuser will find sleeper accounts or an IP range to block. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:50, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

I see, many thanks again, they were very frustrating to deal with. Kzl55 (talk) 15:53, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi NeilN, they are back with a new account Special:Contributions/SethGoldman registered on the very same day of the indefinite block Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Zakariayps. Unfortunately the CU request was closed without running the check due to the block so we can not tell how many more sleeper accounts they have. Any advice? Many thanks. Kzl55 (talk) 20:23, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

@Kzl55: I've asked for a CU. [2] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:33, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Much appreciated, I have also asked Amanda in that page but thought she may not see it due to the case being closed. Kzl55 (talk) 20:42, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

@Kzl55: The SPI clerks should take more notice of a post in the admin section before archiving a case. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:54, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, many thanks once again, much appreciated! Kzl55 (talk) 20:59, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Alternative Medicine

Hi Neil, I wanted to start a discussion about this as it seems to be impossible to commit any chances, not to mention new articles about any alternative medicine, in my case Ayurveda, topic. Even though I make it clear in my chances that the claims for health benefits are not supported by Western medicine.

The basically get redirected or otherwise altered by some editors, claiming that it's all nonsense due to missing WP:MEDRS. This of course is notoriously difficult when it comes to alternative medicine methods. Ayurvedic medicine is a university study and more than 1 Billion people practice it and its methods daily. I would be interested to know what is your take on this? Is Wikipedia on purpose excluding any articles about alternative medicine methods?

Example. There is an article describing detoxification as an alternative medicine method, but I am not allowed to edit the article about infused water, which after some debate got nastily redirected to drinking water, due to the fact that this well known healing method of Ayurveda is nonsense? mira.peltomaki (talk) 16:47, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi mira.peltomaki. Echoing a common sentiment on Wikipedia, "Alternative medicine that has been proven to work is medicine". That is, all biomedical claims must be backed up with MEDRS-compliant sources. Wikipedia has lots of articles on alternative medicine but the content makes it clear that the medical claims have little or no scientific support. This is consistent with our WP:FRINGE guideline. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:59, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

I understand you point, however does this mean that they cannot be mentioned under the alternative medicine methods? Again I would like to understand what is the difference with the two articles I mention in my example? mira.peltomaki (talk) 17:15, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

@Mira.peltomaki: You are certainly allowed to edit Infused water. Alexbrn made a bold edit and turned it into a redirect but you can go back to an older version like this one and improve the content and sourcing. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:24, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

I am unsure how to do this, but will try to figure out how. I tried to reason with him, but he is stating Ayurveda, which recognises infused water as a healing method for balancing doshas, is nonsense. This doesn't seem to be your opinion if I understand correctly. I am unsure how to proceed against this attitude on Wikipedia. I would love to contribute to Ayurvedic medicine articles as this my profession. mira.peltomaki (talk) 17:29, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

@Mira.peltomaki: Ayurveda may recognize infused water as a healing method but ayurvedic medicine is currently deemed pseudoscientific. So if you want to say "infused water does this according to Ayurdeva" you also need to report on how the mainstream medical community views that claim (see WP:FRINGELEVEL). It can be difficult getting the right balance and sources. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:45, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

@NeilN:So we are back to the fact that Wikipedia only recognises the Western medicine as science. As someone who used 25 years to study ayurveda, which btw is university level study in India, I know this debate all too well. Because Ayurveda is based on Hindu religious texts Vedas and traditional medicine passed from generation to generation and not having extensive scientific studies to support it's methods. This article is dwelling on this concept. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4230501/ I will attempt to balance my article better, however I see this as a conflict which prevents some information from being fairly presented on Wikipedia, which is a real shame. mira.peltomaki (talk) 17:57, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

@Mira.peltomaki: Your addition will soon be reverted as it is largely unsourced and contains non-neutral language. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:29, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

@NeilN:Please explan what you mean with non-neutral language? Do you mean the term Western medicine? I am really trying to learn here, so please excuse my insistence. I am attempting to improve the existing content about Ayurvedic medicine on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mira.peltomaki (talk • contribs) 18:32, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

@Mira.peltomaki: That, and "making it a great alternative to stay hydrated for people who dislike the taste of water." By the way, you don't have to ping me on my own talk page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:37, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

OK, I will try to word it bit more neutral, although the second is actually the reason why a lot of people don't drink enough. I did add a credible source btw. I didn't realise about the ping, sorry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mira.peltomaki (talk • contribs) 18:47, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

AYURVEDA IS NOT NONSENSE! I FOLLOW AYURVEDA, STUDY AYURVEDA, PRACTICE AYURVEDA. AYURVEDA IS A WAY OF PREVENTING AILMENTS IN THE HUMAN BODY, NOT SAYING AILMENTS COULD NOT ARISE EVEN ON A PREVENTITIVE STATE. THERE ARE DIFFERENT FORMS/LEVELS OF AILMENTS AS WELL AS REASONS WHY AILMENTS ARISE. Ayurveda has been practiced for over five thousand years an to this day it is practiced around the world! We as human beings judge based on not knowing information. Pt0wN973b0iI (talk) 04:12, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

@Pt0wN973b0iI: From Ayurdeva: Ayurveda (Template:Lang-sa, Āyurveda, "life-knowledge"; English pronunciation /ˌaɪ.ərˈveɪdə/), or Ayurveda medicine, is a system of medicine with historical roots in the Indian subcontinent. Globalized and modernized practices derived from Ayurveda traditions are a type of complementary or alternative medicine. In the Western world, Ayurveda therapies and practices (which are manifold) have been integrated in general wellness applications and as well in some cases in medical use.

None of this says Ayurdeva is nonsense. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:19, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

References

Rejecting a reference from Brietbart

Since the boycott began Target has lost over $15 billion in value.

Explain to me why this factual reference from a vastly read news source is being rejected?

Miketucker 123 (talk) 02:11, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Miketucker 123, that is implying the stock drop is because of the boycott. Please find a reliable source (hint: not Breitbart or other alt-news sources) that makes that connection. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:14, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

hint: LOL its true, you guys really are just about censoring facts that you find uncomfortable. Ok what is YOUR list of news organizations that can be referenced AND what is YOUR criteria for deciding such extraordinary censorship? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miketucker 123 (talk • contribs) 02:18, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Our reliable sourcing standards favor professionally published mainstream academic or journalistic sources with a reputation for fact-checking and neutrality -- so we would not allow Der Stürmer or it's current American equivalent. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:24, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

@Miketucker 123: We prefer to use sources that don't have a reputation for publishing falsehoods, conspiracy theories, and intentionally misleading stories (see Breitbart News). You can try the WSJ, NY Times, the news section of Fortune, any reliable business magazine... --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:26, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

I found this article, which does not list the boycott as being the reason for the crash. Given that it's directly quoted from the CEO, it's not even "spin". Primefac (talk) 02:27, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Yup. Key sentence: "Target’s disappointing results were in contrast to better-than-expected earnings reported by rival Wal-Mart Stores Inc. WMT, -0.68% and Home Depot Inc. HD, +1.22% last week." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:30, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

I find it laughable that you espouse the NYT and WAPO as "neutral". Ah I see now, if a CEO does not admit fault for his disastrous policy and it fits your personal world view then that's the end of the story eh? A fact is a fact whether a noble prize winning professor states it or a child does. In this case the facts are available, published and subsequently censored by YOU. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miketucker 123 (talk • contribs) 02:42, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

@Miketucker 123: Trump has been president for about six weeks. There have been no foreign terrorist attacks on U.S. soil for six weeks. Both facts, but "Trump has solved the terrorist problem!" is only going to appear in alt-news outlets. Also, see correlation does not imply causation. BTW, WSJ is not WAPO. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:59, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Can you not see how incredibly biased you are NeilN? Your whole reasoning for rejecting Brietbart is some bizarre slap at Trump? I never mentioned Trump. Heck I didn't vote for him. That you are bringing him up is really strange, like some kind of psychological nemesis you carry in your head. Why else would you divert this discussion to him? NeilN this is just blatant political censorship based on your personal opinions and world view. You have lost all credibility by trying to inject your disfavorable opinion of President Trump into this matter. You are blind to yourself. You are tainting Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miketucker 123 (talk • contribs) 03:13, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

@Miketucker 123: Sigh. It's not a slap at Trump. It's a slap at alt-news outlets and their deliberate penchant for portraying correlation as causation. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:20, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

References

Oh now I am enlightened because NYT, WAPO and CNN would NEEEVER jump to conclusions would they? Why they NEEEVER editorialize their "journalism" do they? They always report everything fairly, flawlessly and perfectly neutral.

THIS IS THE MOST BOGUS PILE OF HYPOCRITAL BIASED CENSORSHIP I HAVE EVER HAD THE DISPLEASURE OF ENCOUNTERING. Can I get my contributions back? I am serious, I sorely regret aiding Wikipedia now that it clearly has devolved into NEWSPEAK.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Miketucker_123 (talk • contribs)

The only person keeping you logged in is you. Sorry we're not towing der Furher's propaganda enough for you. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:47, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

You see NeilN, you deliberately diverted this discussion to be about Trump (of whom I never mentioned nor voted for) so that people like Ian Thomson would start attacking me. And for the record Ian Thompson, the Nazi party was self described as "Socialist", its quite fitting for neo-libs, isn't it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miketucker 123 (talk • contribs) 03:59, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

@Miketucker 123: And now, you just tried to use a source that also reports, "I'm Sorry, But Caitlyn Jenner Is a Man Wearing a Dress", "Witches 'Casting Spell' on Trump Is Real, Jesus Himself Warned of Dark Spirits: AFA", and "Florida Democrat Invokes Blood of Jesus Against Witches, Warlocks Seeking to Harm Donald Trump". Come on. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:22, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

My talk page

Shut up and don't worry about what I do. You can block me I don't care. Col122 (talk) 02:50, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

That almost sounds like a request to be blocked... Primefac (talk) 02:53, 2 March 2017 (UTC) (talk page stalker)

Marvel: Contest of Champions

I am trying to add sources to verify my edit Cakedaddy75 (talk) 21:49, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

@Cakedaddy75: Okay. Please read what is a reliable source and how to write from a neutral point of view. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:54, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Pamela Geller

Maybe a short semi-protect could help? It looks like you're slowly building up a game of whack-a-mole... HalfShadow 01:50, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

@HalfShadow: I'm reluctant to protect myself because I've made some content changes to it. Covered by BLP I think but I've found some sources (not Wikipedia-quality) that confirm the daughters. If more disruption continues I'll ask at RFPP. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:57, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I've found solid sources for the daughters but you need to play connect the dots with three different sources to get there and we probably shouldn't do that, especially with a BLP. I don't know what the SPAs were on about. Pinging Orangemike so he's aware. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:22, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Your prerog; you're the admin here. HalfShadow 02:32, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

New range contributions tool

Hey NeilN! I know you were a big supporter of making an IPv6 range contribs tool happen. We're currently discussing where it should live, given the advanced features it will offer. Please feel free to chime in at phab:T159568. Many thanks :) — MusikAnimal ^talk 19:53, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

The Pinkprint & Feeling Myself

Hi, I wanted to bring this up to you, because it seems that a user named Kellymoat is vandalizing Wikipedia. So, on the page "Feeling Myself", it says it's a single, and it also says it's a single on "The Pinkprint" page. However, there is no singles chronology on "Feeling Myself". Also, the single that came before it was "The Night Is Still Young", and the single that comes after it is "Bitch I'm Madonna". However, on the page for "The Night Is Still Young", it claims that "Bitch I'm Madonna" comes after it, not "Feeling Myself." So that is incorrect if it is a single. Also, "Feeling Myself" is not listed as a single on Nicki's discography page. I know I'm saying a lot here, but what I'm basically saying is that Kellymoat is saying that "Feeling Myself" is both a single and not a single at the same time. It's a single because it's listed as one on "The Pinkprint" page, but it's also not a single because it's not on her discography page, and it's I tried to add the singles chronology to the page, and Kellymoat promptly deleted it, and kept deleting it every time I added it. So what I'm asking you is this: is it a single or not? Because it can't be both. 2600:387:3:805:0:0:0:61 (talk) 16:11, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

As I semi-protected at least one of the articles, I'm not allowed to get involved in the content dispute. I will say that Kellymoat is not vandalizing and you should use that article's talk page to work this out. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:16, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

How is she not vandalizing? She is adding incorrect information to pages. I feel like she's getting backed up here simply because she's been on Wikipedia for awhile. However, her edits are not being done to edit Wikipedia constructively. She likes to find people that she suspects of being sockpuppets and then revert their edits under the assumption that they are indeed a sock. And you're telling me that's not vandalism? Seriously, get real. 2600:387:3:805:0:0:0:61 (talk) 16:25, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Tell me how it makes sense that "Feeling Myself" is a single, but it doesn't have a singles chronology. Find me any single that doesn't have a singles chronology. There isn't one, because a single needs it. It's also not on Nicki's discography page, so again, I'll ask you, ia it a single, or is it not? Because right now, according to a Wikipedia, it is both a single and not a single. Quite a paradox this is. 2600:387:3:805:0:0:0:61 (talk) 16:27, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Vandalism is a malicious edit, not an edit which an editor (perhaps incorrectly) thinks is right. Again, it's no use discussing content details here. Use the article's talk page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:32, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

No, it is worth it, because Kellymoat needs to be blocked for a certain period of time, as I was for 24 hours. Also, I was accused of vandalism, when my edits weren't malicious. Clearly there are double standards for users who have been on Wikipedia for awhile, and users that just joined. This isn't right. As an administrator, you have the power to message Kellymoat and ask her to stop adding incorrect information to pages. I asked her to stop, but she wouldn't talk to me at all. She has been unreasonable the whole time. 2600:387:3:805:0:0:0:61 (talk) 16:36, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Please stop siding with her simply because she's been on Wikipedia for awhile. That's not a good enough reason to believe she must be right. She is adding INCORRECT information to pages. That IS vandalism. 2600:387:3:805:0:0:0:61 (talk) 16:37, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

And, she reverted my edits supporting "Feeling Myself" as a single, and then she reverted my edits supporting it NOT being a single. Tell me how that makes any logical sense. 2600:387:3:805:0:0:0:61 (talk) 16:38, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

156.12.250.236 was rightfully blocked for personal attacks and harassment, not vandalism. For the third time, use the talk page to discuss content issues. Whatever admin action you're looking for, you're not going to get it from me. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:49, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Oh, so Kellymoat, who was adding incorrect info to multiple pages got exactly what she wanted, but I'm asking for you to just ask her to stop, and you won't even do that? Well it's a good thing you don't have any favoritism here... not. 2600:387:3:805:0:0:0:61 (talk) 16:52, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

And yes, I'm aware that I was blocked for harassment, however, because I harassed Kellymoat, you're not even going to consider that she was possibly adding incorrect information? Because I harassed her and she didn't harass me, her information must be correct? That makes no logical sense. 2600:387:3:805:0:0:0:61 (talk) 16:53, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

She is now reverting my edit on "Bitch I'm Madonna" claiming that I'm trying to evade my block, even though it ended. Once again, she knows that I'm adding correct information, but she doesn't care, she just wants to annoy me and revert my edits. She is a troll. 2600:387:3:805:0:0:0:61 (talk) 16:56, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Repeating what I said on Kellymoat's talk page, come back in a few days, post to my talk page, and we'll take it from there. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:05, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Here's something interesting that Kellymoat pointed out. The 73.81 IP editor is probably block evasion by PeopleEater143 (talk · contribs), who was previously brought to SPI in this case. Note the the personal attacks on Kellymoat and this admission of edit warring using 73.81 IP addresses. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:39, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Okay, 2600:387:3:805:0:0:0:61 admits to being 156.12.250.236 which geolocates to Pennsylvania. 73.81.156.42 also geolocates to Pennsylvania so there's some technical evidence tying 2600 and 73.81 together. The behavioral evidence is there too, looking through the comments. Are you comfortable saying 2600:387:3:805:0:0:0:61 and 73.81.156.42 is the same person (and thus likely PeopleEater143)? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:14, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, it seems very likely to me. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:51, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

You asked me to message you the other day

Hey Neil, I'm the same person who messaged you about Kellymoat. I saw you ask me to message you back here, so that's what I'm doing. I also saw Kellymoat offer no explanation to her reverts, which supports my claim that she's not reverting something she sees as vandalism or even incorrect, she is reverting someone she has a personal vendetta against. That revert that you brought up for example; I said that "Feeling Myself serves as the seventh single from 'The Pinkprint'", which, according to the album page, is a correct statement. However, she reverted that and said that she "Didn't remember why." She reverted it one day before you asked her why, and I guarantee you she remembers who she did it, she just doesn't want to admit that she simply will revert any and every edit I make, and I have no idea why. So, my question for you is why hasn't she been blocked? She violated the 3RR rule the first time I got blocked for 24 hours, but only I got blocked. And yes, I know it was for personal attacks, but she still violated the 3RR rule. As a matter of fact, all of the edits I made were correct statements, and none of them were vandalism. I understand that I shouldn't have insulted her, but I also messaged her on her talk page when she first started reverting my edits, and she chose to ignore me. So, not only did she fail to provide any edit summaries, she also didn't talk to me at all. So do you really think she was making the reverts for good reason, or does it seem more likely that she's out to get me, for some reason. She's even asked to prolong the block, so she's definitely only interested in getting me blocked, and doesn't give a crap about editing Wikipedia constructively. Sorry, I know that was a lot, but Kellymoat has really pissed me off on numerous occasions. 156.12.252.171 (talk) 23:56, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Also, I know NinjaPirate blocked me for a week, however the original block was for 24 hours for my personal insults, and that block ended two days ago, so could I please start fresh? I feel like my block was unfair because no one knew that Kellymoat was reverting my edits for no good reason. I mean, wouldn't anyone get a little mad if someone did that to them? Also, and again, if we want to be completely fair, why wasn't she banned for violating the 3RR rule? I wasn't a sock when she reverted my edits at first, and I wasn't vandalizing anything, so she clearly violated that rule. Does she get special treatment or something? 156.12.252.171 (talk) 00:04, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately circumstances have changed and it looks very much like you're PeopleEater143 (see section above). I suggest you log into that account, request an unblock, and I'll see what I can do. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:37, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Ok yes, I am them. Would you please look at that account's edit summary? If you do, you'll notice that the same thing that's going on with Kellymoat right now happened with that account. I got banned indefinitely for personal attacks, while Kellymoat got away Scott-free for violating the 3RR rule. This can't possible be allowed. Also, I can't edit on that account, it's been banned indefinitely. 156.12.252.171 (talk) 00:52, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

So let me get this straight: because I'm the same person who insulted Kellymoat before, I can't make beneficial edits to Wikipedia, and Kellymoat can revert my edits as many times as she pleases? Why? I even apologized to her for insulting her. It's just, wouldn't you get mad if someone continually reverted your factual edits without giving any reasoning? 156.12.252.171 (talk) 00:54, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

I tried logging in to that account, but I can't even make an unblock request. 156.12.252.171 (talk) 00:56, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

If you're evading your block, any editor can revert any edit of yours for any (or no) reason. If you were using multiple accounts/IPs before you were blocked then admins are generally unsympathetic to any 3RR claims you might have. PeopleEater143 was not indefinitely banned, you were indefinitely blocked for disruptive editing. You can be unblocked if you convince an admin you're going to change your behavior. You can log in, right? That's the first step. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:03, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

PeopleEater143 WAS indefinitely banned, why else would I have made more accounts? I can log in, but I can't edit anything, including my talk page. Also, I've been keeping a watch on a lot of the pages Kellymoat and I were edit-warring each other on, and it looks like someone asked about the "Feeling Myself" dispute. Just figured I'd mention, maybe now we can work this out once and for all. I know you're going to think that user is me, but it's not. I haven't created an actual account with a username since PeopleEater143. 156.12.252.171 (talk) 01:07, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

There's a difference between indefinitely blocked and indefinitely banned. It's semantics to you, but in practice indefinitely blocked means it's easier to get unblocked (a single admin can do it). You were indefinitely blocked. See this. What message do you get when trying to edit your talk page after logging in? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:15, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

It says "Your IP address is blocked from editing. Are you going to respond to the user who brought up the issue on the talk page? 156.12.252.171 (talk) 01:18, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Which page, please? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:26, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Nicki Minaj discography talk page. Kelly already reported them, just for bringing up an issue on a talk page. Again, why is she allowed to do this? She is unreasonable. 156.12.252.171 (talk) 01:28, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Let's see what the CU comes up with and then we'll go from there. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:33, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

So you're not even going to bother to look into what it is that Kelly's been reverting? Because if you did you'd see that she's reverted factual content. And you see absolutely no problem with that? You wouldn't even revert it yourself as it is, once again, factual content? 156.12.252.171 (talk) 01:36, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Who are you?

You think you're somebody special because you're an administrator?

You're not better than me.

Vjmlhds (talk) 22:48, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

@Vjmlhds: When someone ask you to stop posting on their talk page, it's a good idea to stop posting on their talk page. As I said on your talk page if you want to discuss content, you can do that on the article's talk page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:51, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Not answering my question...you think you're someone important just because you're an administrator? That and $3 will get you a gallon of milk. Vjmlhds (talk) 22:53, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

@Vjmlhds: My revert of the content you posted twice more after you were asked to stop could have been done by anyone. Again, the best thing is to take up the content dispute on the article's talk page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:59, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

how are my edits unacceptable?

i do not understand why you say this — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siefert (talk • contribs) 15:10, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

@Siefert: Please see this. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:13, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Neil, there have been subsquent discussions on the talk page of the JEWs that says the consensus is that this needs to be edited to accurately reflect the state of the field. Do you see those? Siefert (talk) 15:36, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

@Siefert: Let's please keep the conversation in one location (the article's talk page). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:41, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Neil long time no talk

Hiya! Just wondering how to request a page lock down. Two banned users are block evading on the Bill Goldberg article. The article is now a complete mess and with all the socks there is no way to get it right without the socks messing it back up. Sro23 has been trying to keep it clean as well as myself and it's become a losing battle as you can see in the history Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 03:32, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

@WarMachineWildThing: Semied two weeks. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:04, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you sir Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 04:11, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

You might find this interesting

Thought you'd find this interesting. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 04:29, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

And I see you caught it already, damnit your quick lol Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 04:30, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

@WarMachineWildThing: Yeah, saw that. Wish all socking blocks were that easy. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:32, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Ask and you shall receive, user has been here since Feb 17, never edited a Wrestling article, suddenly hits Goldberg restoring previously removed sock edits, right after you block. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 04:52, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

@WarMachineWildThing: One down. Who's SantinoBrandy? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:37, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Take a guess......hmmmm Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 05:39, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

The message they left on my talk gave it away so I played with them alittle 😁 Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 05:41, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Ali Yazdi from Iran has come out of the blue to immediately restore the blocked User:Samoa Rusev's work. Obvious sock. 185.17.159.103 (talk) 06:01, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't quite know what's the story there is they started editing in May 2016. Regardless, the article is now under WP:ECP. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:05, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Pretty sure I smell another dirty sock ::shrugs:: Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 06:08, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

The material constantly being restored tonight by the now-blocked User:Samoa Rusev, was originally added by User:Trepcost (confirmed sock of veteran sockmaster User:Mangoeater1000). Minutes after User:Samoa Rusev's block, User:Ali Yazdi from Iran appears to continue Rusev's cause. Per the sockpuppet investigation going back several years, Mangoeater1000 is known to have dozens of sleepers on hand at any given time. 185.17.159.103 (talk) 06:20, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Neil just to be clear my last comment wasn't referring to User:Ali Yazdi from Iran, I was referring to this Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 06:32, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Persistent nonsense at Jehovah's Witnesses

Hi Neil, I see you have been among a group of editors rolling back absurd changes to the Jehovah's Witnesses page, mainly pertaining to the origins of the religion. I'll take a stab and suggest they are all from one user who creates a succession of identities. An editor has already asked one user to desist [3] but it continues. Is it time to lock this page to save everyone the trouble of constant reverts? Thanks. BlackCab (TALK) 05:59, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

@BlackCab: It's already at pending changes protection and the other editor is autoconfirmed so they're unaffected. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:10, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry dude

I got carried away, please forgive me LOL — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.132.209.46 (talk) 14:58, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

The Citadel

Hey NeilN, I saw your comments over at User talk:Bob80q. Although it is just one revert in a week, I'm afraid the edit-warring is gonna pick up again. Billcasey905 has tirelessly tried to get them to start talking on the talk page (which you commented on). I know he's tired of it, and I'm tired of seeing the edit war week. after. week. after. week. Is there something that can be done? At least Strgzr1 is willing to discuss (so he says, unlike Bob80q). Thanks, Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 21:04, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Looks like you're already a step ahead of me! Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 21:06, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

@Corkythehornetfan: Hopefully that changes his style of communication. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:12, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Hopefully, but I don't think it will based off of his appeal. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 23:20, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

AE stuff

I'm not sure how much attention you've paid to the underlying facts, but to the extent you choose to volunteer your efforts in these matters, please consider the following: Editor #1 violates DS. Editor #2 sees that. Choices for editor #2... A. Ignore it and carry on. (this actually happens frequently). B. Immediately open an AE complaint and template the perpetrator on her talk page with the required notice. C. Post a brief request to Editor #1 to undo their violation.

Now, I have never filed an AE complaint against man nor beast, so I'm not really too fearsome a figure. But IMO, in case (C) above, which, after (A) is what I often do, it's basically just a request for the editor to review their recent edits, which may have unintentionally violated DS, and to correct anything that crossed the line. We're talking about one day's edit history, and a message like that is not a threat or a prosecution, so I sometimes, but not always, will not point to the violation with diffs as if a complaint thread had been opened. That doesn't seem inappropriate to me. As I have pointed out recently, if I had instead taken a less collegial approach and gone immediately to a formal complaint then many editors would end up taking the time and effort to research diffs and the like. My approach may require Editor #1 to take a minute checking the past 24 hours' history, but aren't we all responsible for keeping track of our histories all the time, in this respect? So it's pretty hard to see how a simple talk page notice is worse than filing a formal complaint. And when the response is "do you have diffs?" rather than the editor simply doing a quick check of his diffs, then I don't see that it's inappropriate to reply, "yes".

The whole ARBAP2 area is not working as well as one might hope, but I'm pretty sure that there are no evil villains on the loose. Anyway, thanks for your volunteer efforts to improve the editing environment. SPECIFICO talk 15:10, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: You made a specific assertion - "1 RR Violation at Russian Interference" - which implies you have evidence. If you make the assertion, it's up to you to provide specific evidence (not vague hand waving) if asked to back up the assertion. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:17, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Editing

Dear NeilN We apologise if we have broken the rules of editing Wikipedia. We are currently attending a Wikithon to increase visibility of female artists and creatives. This is our first time editing and we are trying to add information and links about Alice Jolly, a local writer to our area.

Please could you advise us on why our last edit was declined?

Many thanks and kind regards--Shazzamattazzerly (talk) 16:17, 8 March 2017 (UTC) Shazzamattazzerly — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shazzamattazzerly (talk • contribs) 16:12, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Shazzamattazzerly. You need to show that it was a notable example of crowdfunding. That is, you need to provide independent, non-local reliable sources that cover this, holding it up as an example of crowdfunding. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:20, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Dear NeilN Many thanks for clarifying. Alice won the PEN/Ackerley Prize for the book. This awarding body has it's own Wikipedia entry. Would this count as 'notable'? Kind regards --Shazzamattazzerly (talk) 16:25, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

@Shazzamattazzerly: The book is notable but you need to find independent sources that cover its significance to crowdfunding {see Crowdfunding#Significant_campaigns for examples). When it won the prize did the independent coverage detail the crowdfunding aspect? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:34, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

dear NeilN I understand, thank you. We kept trying to add it in different ways as we thought that we knew where we were going wrong. I understand now that the best thing to do it ask straight away. It was our first go so we will know for next time. Many thanks again. Kind regards --Shazzamattazzerly (talk) 22:45, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

RD1: Ebele the flutist

Hey NeilN. The content you revdel'd in Ebele the flutist (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) is still visible in the first few revisions of the article. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:47, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

@JJMC89: At a glance, I could not spot any copyright violations in those versions. Can you? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:34, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I thought that the content in the hidden revisions was the same as the content in the first revision. Earwig's tool only give's a slight overlap for that revision though. If the content wasn't the same, what were the hidden revisions a copyvio of? — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:48, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

@JJMC89: They changed the text later. For example, they had "Ebele, whose passion for the wind instrument started far back, was influenced by certain white ladies in her school days while playing flute as an extra curricular activity”. And ever since then, her hook on the instrument has brought out her innate creativity surpassing a laudable career as an accountant in an oil firm." which is from here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:54, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

That is in the first three revisions of the article (rev 769057159 to 769197084). — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:01, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

@JJMC89: Thanks. With all the puffery my eyes glazed over the lead :) --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:06, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Vjmlhds

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. This concerns Vjmlhds (talk · contribs) and solicits community resolution..Acroterion (talk) 01:38, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Re: User:ReelCrowdPleaser

He has been blocked before. Should this user be indefinitely blocked? It seems that after his previous expiry of the block, he just went back to vandalizing. Evidently vandalism-only. TheCoffeeAddict talk|contribs 14:06, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

@TheCoffeeAddict: I'm discussing with the user now. If I don't like what I hear, I'll indef block. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:10, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Chris Cuomo

Could admins please put this article on their watch lists? For some reason it is an absolute magnet for gigantic cooked-up "controversies", including repeated mentions of insignificant tweets. The latest is a WP:BLP-vio non-issue cooked-up by and referenced to a right-wing opinion site. The user Anonymousedit19923034 (talk · contribs · blocks · count · rollback · admin · logs) has received two three warnings on their talk page. Please help. Thanks. Softlavender (talk) 16:28, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Make that three warnings. I can't re-revert without violating 3RR. Pinging El C for help also in case Neil is asleep at the switch. Softlavender (talk) 16:32, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Crash Underride, you've just edited that section. Any comments? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:51, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

No, I was just doing formatting for a date that said "23rd", I removed the "rd". I have no clue about the issue at hand. ^{(talk page stalker)} CrashUnderride 16:53, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I seem to be the only experienced editor monitoring it. I had put it on my watchlist in 2014 because Daniellagreen was irrelevantly adding "Roman Catholic" to a number of BLP infoboxes and was also making a lot of puffery edits to it (back when she was around); see the talkpage. Since then, it has rather bafflingly gone the other way and become a coatrack for minor controversies. I leave controversies that are well-covered and legitimate, but when people go mad about minor tweets and there's no mainstream RS coverage, it just turns the article into a BLP-violating dumping ground. Softlavender (talk) 17:05, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, now that I think about it, I seem to recall him doing the religious testing of the candidates. So, I think that would should stay since it's clearly against the US Constitution. ^{(talk page stalker)} CrashUnderride 17:08, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

It's on my watchlist now. And Anonymousedit19923034 is basically on their last strike. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:09, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Neil. And yes, Crash Underride, all of the legitimate and well-publicized (in neutral mainstream RS) controversies have been left in. Softlavender (talk) 17:20, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

@Softlavender: I have provided my comment for the content issue on the article's talk page. Just one quick question here: I reverted the insertion because you invoked WP:BLP in your edit summary but why do you care about 3RR if you're standing behind your WP:BLP argument? (I got interested in Anonymousedit19923034's edits when I saw their edit to Tim Kaine, which I was about to revert but NeilN beat me. I'm also on/off subscriber to NeilN's soapbox here.) Politrukki (talk) 19:20, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the edit. If you think that level of WP:BLP issue is actually a defense at WP:ANEW, all I can say is, good luck with that. :-) Softlavender (talk) 03:20, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Shill and discretionary sanctions

I'm grateful for any direction you or your TPS crew can provide me here, NeilN, because although I'm marginally aware of the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions regarding post-1932 American politics, I've never had to deal with an affected article and editor firsthand and I don't want to charge forth blindly and precipitate a donnybrook.

A new editor has added a lengthy non-WP:NPOV analysis to this article asserting that a recently appointed federal agency head is a "textbook example" of a "shill" for the industry that agency regulates. I reverted yesterday and left the standard NPOV-problematic-new-user welcome message. The editor has now re-added, and expanded on, the inappropriate commentary. I am, again, generally aware that there are 1RR sanctions in effect that apply to this article under these circumstances; I'm aware that there are exceptions but I don't have a lot of time right now to analyze whether this contribution falls within one. I'm also not entirely sure how to put the new editor on notice of the discretionary sanctions, given that the required and apparently non-modifiable template message invites that editor to ask ME any questions regarding same, and I don't want to hold myself out as competent to provide answers regarding such a procedurally and substantively fraught area. Any advice as to how I can deal with this, or comparable issues in the future? I try to stay away from national political nonsense but I follow this article for an unrelated reason and the content that has been added is grossly inappropriate for Wikipedia. Many thanks! - Julietdeltalima (talk) 19:07, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

@Julietdeltalima: Ack. What a horrid edit. Never mind the post-1932 American politics sanctions, that's a straight-up BLP violation, revertable on-sight claiming the WP:3RRNO BLP exemption. I've warned the editor and notified them of BLP discretionary sanctions. BLP issues are a lot easier to understand so you may be more comfortable using that template. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:25, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Awesome. I get the drift now. Thanks again! - Julietdeltalima (talk) 19:26, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Looking for external opinion about a situation

Hello, I've seen that you have a lot of experience handling issues here on wikipedia and I'd like to ask your opinion about a situation, to quickly explain what happened, there was a disagreement about the removal of content on the article Censorship by Google, and then I and another user started discussing on the talk page of the article because I believed that the content should be kept and he believed that the content should be removed, then a third user stepped in in defense of the user who wanted to remove the content that I believe that should be kept, probably because he saw the post on the WP:RSN about the issue, the thing is that we reached no consensus, and as said in WP:NOCON, "In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit." , as I posted on the article's talk page, the version that should be kept is the one prior to the edits that were disputed, but these two editors aren't accepting that and keep removing the content that I'm trying to keep on the article, which was already there for a long time. I would like to ask you if I'm the one who is not correct and should stop editing or if I'm the one who is correct in this situation, I'd also like to know why. Thanks for your attention. - Cilinhosan1 (talk) 01:29, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Cilinhosan1. WP:NOCON refers to a result of a discussion that has ended (either naturally or because a set time expired). It is also determined by an uninvolved editor. In this case, the informal discussion only began yesterday and is still continuing so someone can't judge if there's consensus for a position or no consensus. You can use "there's no consensus" for this revert meaning "I don't agree with the removal" but you can't say "there's WP:NOCONSENSUS for this removal so per policy, the content has to stay". --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:49, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

I understand, so I should just stop editing or what? - Cilinhosan1 (talk) 02:05, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

@Cilinhosan1: You should stop reverting and try to reach an agreement on the talk page that you can all live with. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:09, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I'll stop reverting then - Cilinhosan1 (talk) 02:20, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Reverts and DS

Thanks for the reverts at Reddy (surname). I take it by the DS notification you left on the user's talk page that if they try to pull that again I'm free to block them? Primefac (talk) 13:35, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

@Primefac: Yes, you are. Trying to turn a standard surname disambiguation page into one that's caste based is either clueless or disruptive. I'm going to post a few notes on the user's talk page shortly as there are other issues that also need addressing. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:19, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Buddhas Pali name was Siddhattha Gotama

Dear NeilN, The Buddhas Pali name (real, original name in Pali Canon et Tipiṭaka, without having translated it into the Sanskrit) was Siddhattha Gotama. I have a Master's degree and PhD in Buddhism. I can confidently say that the Buddha's original name was Siddhattha Gotama in Pali language. Could you please explain your reason for rejecting my correction?

With respect, Venerable Thitanano Bhikkhu (Andrus Kahn)

References: G.P. Malalasekera, Dictionary of Pāli Proper Names https://www.what-buddha-said.net/library/DPPN/s/siddhattha.htm https://www.what-buddha-said.net/library/DPPN/g/gotama.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrus Kahn (talk • contribs) 01:40, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Andrus Kahn. I assume you're referring to this edit made more than two years ago. You added your text into a comment (i.e., not part of the article content) about the Buddha's birthplace. If you want to add it to the article itself, you will need to find an appropriate place, include citations to reliable sources, and probably explain why it's significant enough to be included in the article. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:01, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

No reason to protect

As Sir Joseph mentioned correctly on User_talk:BedrockPerson#Block, there seems to be no reason to 30/500 protect Yarka, since there is no connection to WP:ARBPIA. Could you please explain? Debresser (talk) 05:15, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

@Debresser: I just added the icon after protection. See El_C's explanation here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:21, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks. Debresser (talk) 08:49, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Pančić's Peak

• Pančić's Peak (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Anastan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ktrimi991 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

It seems to me that User:Ktrimi991 and User:Anastan are engaged in long-term edit warring on this article. You had the page under full protection for a while. Since protection expired, the war has resumed. Ktrimi991 was blocked 48 hours per AN3 in February. Ktrimi991 made a lengthy complaint about Anastan at ANI in January. Is it time for a final warning to both parties, or some other action? The choices appear to be warning, block or ARBMAC topic ban. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 06:08, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: Fix the article at the present version, tell them all to work out a compromise either via WP:DRN or RFC, and block anyone who edit wars over the material while discussion is ongoing? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 07:27, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

User:If you're reading this your gay

You may wish to revoke talk page access.--Cahk (talk) 09:54, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Done. Bishonen | talk 10:47, 12 March 2017 (UTC).

my user page

I would like it if you could organize my userboxes like yours, but without bothering the other stuff. let me know if you can.The garmine ^(talk) 14:54, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

@The garmine: Have a look --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:47, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Can you help?

There's a (bit of a) consensus forming here that something needs to be done ASAP, in a purely preventative sense. Can you take a look and if you agree, action something? Cheers — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 16:07, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks very much for getting involved. Cheers — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 16:17, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: You're welcome. Also replied here as you've probably seen. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:21, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Yep, thanks for the reminder about DS. I always think of DS/BLP as being for the Trumps and Putins et al., of the world, rather than historians from minor universities! — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 16:24, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	thank you sooooooooooooooooooooooo much for organizing my userboxes The garmine (talk) 19:08, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

WP's infrastructure to protect against IP spoofed sock-puppetry?

A question has come up at Jimbo's talk page about the preventative technical measures that WP has (or has not) taken to protect against what I will call "technical-ip-spoofed-sock-puppetry (TISSP)"? Would you happen to know if WP has spent any significant money to take steps to protect against TISSP? Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 00:00, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

@Scottperry: I have never, ever seen a thread on Wikpedia that states IP spoofing as you describe it is a problem for us. Are you referring to IP hoppers that use proxy servers to change and switch IPs? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:10, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

I recall reading an article by a paid WP editor who said he bought some kind of a router that could somehow spoof any IP he programmed into it, and that by using these, he and his employees were able to create an army of sock puppets, and to get away with it. That's what I'm referring to. Do you know if WP tech can stop this type of sock-puppetry? Scott P. (talk) 00:14, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

@Scottperry: You're going to have to point to the article as I'm strongly doubting the veracity of his story. If it was remotely true, geo-blocking would be quickly rendered useless. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:18, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

And the more I think about it, the more I'm convinced it would be technically impossible to use spoofed IPs in the way you describe. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:23, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

This article was written approximately two years ago, and published in an online German publication. I can assure you, it was exactly as described above. Perhaps the editors of the article were spoofing, I don't know. If so, then I guess they certainly got me! I will see if I can still find it. Scott P. (talk) 00:28, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

I myself have seen commercially available IP spoofing routers, but I don't know about regionality spoofing. Scott P. (talk) 00:31, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

@Scottperry: Link? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:35, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

...(continued from above)... Ok, I'm still looking for the German site, but h e r e is a link to what I will call an IP-masking-service. Would WP have the ability to stop someone from using a site like this to create untrackable sock-puppets? Scott P. (talk) 00:49, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

@Scottperry: IP masking services are a completely different thing. These are the proxy servers that I alluded to above. We block open proxies as we come across them. See Wikipedia:Open proxies. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:54, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

I see, as I understand it, that type of service should be restricted to a limited number of "fake" ip addresses that should be trackable and limitable. I'll keep looking for the other things and will keep you posted. Scott P. (talk) 01:15, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

@Scottperry: That's correct. An IP-masking service will give out IP addresses in the same range. BTW, these are not "fake" IP addresses. Using an off-the-cuff analogy, think of it as a snail mail forwarding service. When you move, you can sign up to forward your mail from your old (real) mail address to your new (real) address. You may be interested in this looong conversation which discusses making it easier for established editors to use such services: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#IP_Block_Exemptions_should_be_expanded_to_include_accounts_.285.2B_years.29_in_good_standing --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:35, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

How about IP's that were "spoofed" at the "source" as described on by this Internet Society page? According to t h i s   w e b s i t e, "(An IP spoofing) application with sufficient privileges can modify the source IP address field of an IP packet to any syntactically correct value, and in most cases the packet will be sent through the network interface and in many cases will reach the destination." How easy would it be for such a spoofing-application to succeed in posting to WP under a spoofed IP address? Scott P. (talk) 01:43, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

@Scottperry: That kind of spoofing cannot be used for web browsing (including editing Wikipedia) where information (i.e., web pages) need to be sent back to the client PC. It's used for DDoS attacks. The article has a pretty good explanation of how it works but the key takeaway is that the person spoofing the IP does not receive back (and does not want to receive back) data from the server. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:51, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Ok, Neil, I hate to keep throwing all this "crap" in your general direction, but here is one last attempt in a so far losing quest (at least unless I can somehow find that German article.) What about this "Cloakbox Pro router," with which supposedly when "special settings" have been applied, even the Chinese haven't figured out how to block? Scott P. (talk) 02:20, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

@Scottperry: It's just a off-the-shelf router with software installed that automatically connects to their proxy servers (listed at the end of the page). As they say, "It is especially useful for devices that have no built-in way of using a VPN such as smart TVs, media-streaming devices, and gaming consoles." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:13, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

This whole discussion seems like a case of WP:BEANS to me. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 03:28, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

@Nihonjoe: I don't think using VPNs to edit is any great secret. We are, after all, holding a huge discussion about it at one of the Village Pumps. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:37, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Ok, Thanks for all of that Neil. I'm off to continue the hunt for the German article, and to see if I can remember where my wife hid the beans. Cheers! Scott P. (talk) 03:58, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

With thanks

I'm assured this is a fine single malt. Cheers, 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:09, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Well deserved for anyone who puts up with my intolerable babbling for so long! Indeed cheers!! Scott P. (talk) 02:25, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Reuven Rivlin

My apologies , I wasn't thinking well when I edited that. I won't do it again TheSuperx369 (talk) 14:52, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

C.k Morgan (DaFlyBoy)

Which you deleted yesterday- I seem to remember it had some stuff on the talk page- the various permutations of article which had been produced over time. can't remember who posted it either. Can you let me have it please? Re: LTA case. cheers, — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 17:48, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: It was at the AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/C.k Morgan (DaFlyBoy) --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:54, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

So it was- daft to miss that. Advice, though, re: listing them at LTA? -this ('Only add vandals that have a need to be pointed out.') gives me pause- I mean, someone whose only edits are creating the same obscure article, under more or less the same name (of which their can't be that many versions surely!), probably doesn't need pointing out? — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 18:04, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: "sneaky sockpuppeteers, prolific trolls" - does not seem to qualify. Right now, just seems like run of the mill socking. LTA pages help editors identify non-obvious characteristics. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:10, 13 March 2017 (UTC)--NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:10, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Yep. Thanks though :) saves a job. — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 18:14, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Blocked disruptive editor

Hi NeilN. On the Victory at Entebbe article, you cautioned ...930C:FCE5 about edit warring. You've met him before, three times in 2015. He's had over 30 sequential ip-hops since I started tracking him after he gave me a pile of annoyance as 75.34.103.158, all about deleting/reverting edits on Uganda related articles. He was blocked as 70.124.133.228 by Ponyo last September for six months, and still has a week to go on that ban. During the block I saw disruptive edits as 2605:6000:EF52:B200:4C5D:FB30:169F:383A and as 2605:6000:ef68:d500:711f:74b0:c23d:301b. All these geolocate to the same neighborhood north of Austin, Texas, US. His new ip's can usually be spotted by checking edits of Index of Uganda related articles, which Ponyo semi-protected for a few months.

I'll copy this to Ponyo. Cptmrmcmillan (talk) 03:35, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Cptmrmcmillan, Ponyo is probably the better one to handle this as I don't recall where I've encountered them. I'm not sure why they're onto films about Operation Entebbe. If Ponyo blocks, I'll keep an eye out for future socks. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:46, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, NeilN. Entebbe is in Uganda, and that country is his main focus. Cptmrmcmillan (talk) 03:59, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

@Cptmrmcmillan: Ah, thanks. I wasn't looking too closely at the content - just the fact he was inexplicably deleting the film plot. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:02, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Cruise

You have absolutely no business deleting articles like that, if you think it should be deleted nominate it for deletion again. Its clearly notable anyway. It should be reinstated immediately. Koala15 (talk) 06:59, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

@Koala15: I would be happy to restore the article in your user space or draft space. However there was already a discussion on a version that actually had slightly more content than the article you created (you can ask Bishonen to verify) and we don't hold "do-overs" of AFDs unless the AFD outcome was overturned. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:10, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

It should be restored, and you shouldn't be deleting articles like that without warning anyway. It doesn't matter if a different version was deleted last year. Koala15 (talk) 17:04, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

@Koala15: It was almost the exact same version so yes, it does matter. Please read WP:G4. Do you want the page restored to your user space or draft space? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:24, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Alright fine, put it in my sandbox. Koala15 (talk) 19:32, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

@Koala15: It's at User:Koala15/Cruise (film). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:47, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Falling out

Hello at Here I lost my cool and disrespected you, for that I am sorry, women tend to get emotional, even though events later turned out to work in my favor it is however unacceptable to disrespect anyone, I'm sorry once again. I would be of better Behaviour in the future. Celestina007 (talk) 11:39, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protect request

Can you semi-protect both pages Something Just Like This and Memories...Do Not Open to persistent disruptive editing? 123.136.111.244 (talk) 01:35, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

• Holding. Not seeing quite enough disruption yet. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:41, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

In correct edits

You made edits on my page that are incorrect. You said you deleted content that was copied from a press release for our school, NHIA. The page is for NHIA, I wrote the press release so there is no reason the content should be deleted. Please reverse your deletion.

Hi Jrobertson70, some of the content you added was also copied verbatim from other sources, including press releases from NHIA. Please read our policies regarding copyright violations--persistent addition of such content will lead to a user block. Thanks, 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 20:08, 14 March 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.34.217.99 (talk)

Hi Jrobertson70. Not sure why you chose to post here as 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 made the (correct) edits to New Hampshire Institute of Art. First, you may have written the press release but your organization owns the copyright ("© 2017 New Hampshire Institute of Art. All Right Reserved"). Second, we do not allow promotional material like "designed to allow busy professionals gain knowledge from nationally recognized experts in the field of creative placemaking" to remain in our articles as we are an encyclopedia, not a marketing platform. Third, please read WP:PAID - following this policy is mandatory for all editors. Thank you. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:29, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for fielding this, NeilN. Given the promotional edits and the copyright violations, I was getting close to pulling the trigger on requesting a block of the account. I've no doubt that the user is employed by the Institute, but I refrained from going further because they appeared to have read and understood my notices, and subsequently made more acceptable edits. Bears watching anyway. Cheers, 2601:188:1:AEA0:4C96:D5F1:D6B9:E627 (talk) 16:24, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	If you protected Will Little because you saw my RFPP request, that was insanely fast! Either way, here's a little something to show my appreciation for your work in page protection. Lepricavark (talk) 14:42, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

@Lepricavark: Protection was because of your RFPP request and thank you for making it. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:49, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

In that case, that was an impressively fast response. And I'm glad to do my part. For the record, do you think edits like this one rise to the level of being oversighted? Lepricavark (talk) 14:53, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

@Lepricavark: They're on the edge but I've revdelled them. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:20, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Ok, thank you. Lepricavark (talk) 16:08, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

You're listed at CAT:RFRD

Everything this user has done needs RevDel. CityOfSilver 17:08, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

@CityOfSilver: That (and more) revdelled. IP blocked for two weeks. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:16, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure if anything can (or should) be done but is it an issue that the name of the person who was attacked is still visible in several edit summaries? CityOfSilver 17:21, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

@CityOfSilver: No, the edit summaries are innocuous and do not meet revdel criteria. Thanks for verifying, though! --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:23, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Got it. Thank you. CityOfSilver 17:24, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

How was I wrong?

Thank you for bringing this to my attention. Could you please explain to me how what I edited was incorrect? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.156.184.237 (talk) 20:49, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

I thought my comment here was self-explanatory. Or, if you'd like it plainer, Creationism is not a system of knowledge based on observation, empirical evidence, and the development of theories that yield testable explanations and predictions of natural phenomena. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:55, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

So basically your trying to say that creationism is not falsifiable, correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.156.184.237 (talk) 21:00, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

No, I said exactly what I wanted to say about your edit. There's no need to attempt to incorrectly paraphrase it. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:07, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for putting that clearly. Also, I just re-read the article about scientific criticism and have to admit that I like the changes that you made over my own. But doesn´t the last sentence sound a bit biased? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rogue Eagle (talk • contribs) 21:14, 15 March 2017 (UTC) PS: I apologize for incorrectly editing that one part. But I´m still worried about that last sentence.

@Rogue Eagle: I didn't change anything - I just put the article back the way it was before. If you have concerns over specific content, I suggest you bring that up on Talk:Creationism. Remember that article content is not made up of editors' opinions, but rather summarizes what reliable sources say. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:39, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

April Ryan

A factual statement about April Ryan's recent, newsworthy misunderstanding of 'net worth isn't vandalism simply becauae NeilN is a biased, partisan admin. Please don't censor information simply because you find it politically inconvenient. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.30.191.155 (talk) 21:21, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Vandalism: [4], [5] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:33, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Alex Jones

I happened to read a page you are involved in. The page says Alex Jones is fake news...I'm no fan personally of Alex Jones, but he is classified on there as being fake news. I along with about 300 people have signed a petition to have that removed, not because we all are fans, it's because it's the right thing to do. If you can watch CNN and not call them Fake news and label Infowars fake news it's very clear you are a on the left. Wikipedia don't allow posts degrading someone over politics. It's clear the only reason he's on there is because of his political affiliation. Please if anything just erase the sentence that says fake news so we don't have to get in a huge spat about it. If you or whoever feels like he's fake that's you preogative. It doesn't need to be on there forcing other people to believe one thing. If that was the case people all over the country would of destroyed CNN and MSNBC pages Realnewseditor (talk) 22:45, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

@Realnewseditor: I'm not the one calling his website fake news, mainstream reliable sources are. And if you're equating CNN with Infowars with a straight face, I doubt you'll be very happy participating here. We actually have an entire article on CNN controversies (including criticism of being too soft on Democrat and Republican administrations) but there's nothing in there that I can see that says it purposefully makes stuff up. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:17, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your help. I moved Hilary Brown back to article space. Geo Swan (talk) 02:59, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

@Geo Swan: You know if you use the first source to expand it a bit you could probably find a hook for WP:DYK. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:09, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Wow  :)

I don't think I've ever seen that before! — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 16:34, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Not impressed. I was posting a note to the admin's page as you were writing this. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:38, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

If you'd just randomly gone and deleated it in the first place then I guess that would be BRD- but overturning an MfD?! strictly none of my business of course, but you know. — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 16:42, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

The other main problem is that they objected to the blanking in the first place. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:44, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Whiiiich is where your comment re. 'Involved?' comes from, of course. I see. — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 16:47, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Redaction

Hello,
in your recent edit on Talk:Rahul Gandhi, i saw you redacted a contact number by using {{redact}}. But from the source code, I couldnt understand how to use the redact template/function. Would you please tell me how to use it? Regards, —usernamekiran (talk) 17:23, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Usernamekiran. Just replace the text you want to remove with {{redact}}. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:25, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

• thanks a lot —usernamekiran (talk) 17:33, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

SVG......

W.r.t to User:Sander.v.Ginkel is the restoring of revisions all of a sudden without any consensus as it seems, even slightly feasible?Anyone taking a look at the current history of the user page find the 4th to last linked to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Sander.v.Ginkel which closed with a Delete.And then this admin while restoring 30 revisions makes a stunning entry to the del. log--The deletion of this page is just bullying.Overall, it seems so pathetic to me!Cheers!Winged Blades ^Godric 17:33, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

@Winged Blades of Godric: Let's give the admin a chance to explain. The outcome may be acceptable to the community but the path taken to get there was definitely sub-optimal (see two sections above). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:38, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, as you said.Failed to get the two sections above phrase.Do you mean the erroneous restoring of a deleted ref. and subseq. restoring?And as I see he objected the blanking in the 1st place which made RHaw. chose the del. disc. route.So, let's wait!Winged Blades ^Godric 17:48, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Two sections above here. That is, User_talk:NeilN#Wow_:.29. You've probably already seen it by now. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:10, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Editnotice

Hi. If I wanted to apply a DS/editnotice to an article, like {{Ds/editnotice|1RR|topic=ipa}}, how do I go about doing this? Thanks. El_C 18:12, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi El_C. Edit the page. Near the top right, below the title, you'll see a "Page notice" link (probably in red). Click that to edit the page notice and add the template there. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:18, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, it worked! El_C 18:36, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

@El C: Good! BTW, something to be aware of - mobile interface users don't see editnotices. [6] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:58, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

A perfect 1RR exemption excuse! (Didn't see nuthin') El_C 19:04, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Help wih infobox

Hello,
A few moments ago, i reworked the infobox of Amravati, you can see the edit history here.

But, I couldnt work out the spacing within the infobox. I mean, there is too much space between "country" and "india". I tried a lot to find a solution regarding that on wikipedia, but i couldnt find it. Would you please tell me how to repair it? Thanks a lot again. —usernamekiran (talk) 19:21, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

@Usernamekiran: I'm not seeing any difference between that and the infobox in Tiosa for the country line. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:40, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

• thats the trouble. I copy pasted Parbhani's infobox to my sandbox (both the cities are municipal corporation), and then replaced the entries with Amravati one by one. Parbhani's infobox is perfectly fine, and Amravati's was this way simce before i edited it. Cant we do anything? —usernamekiran (talk) 20:04, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

• @Usernamekiran: I can't see anything wrong with the spacing. Any comments from talk page watchers? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:09, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

• there are no watchers at all. I will play around with infobox in my sandbox. Can i ask you something else? —usernamekiran (talk) 20:15, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

• @Usernamekiran: I was calling out to watchers of this talk page :-) And yes, you can ask me something else. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:21, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

•  it was happening cuz of a "leftover"

lol. I thought you were referring to watchers of Amravati page. After taking a look at my history, would you be able to tell if I qualify for becoming a Pending Changes Reviewer? —usernamekiran (talk) 20:29, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

@Usernamekiran: I think Mz7 is right and you need more of an established track record of editing and recent change patrolling. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:38, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

• hmm. What sort of recent change patrolling can i do now? Also, i dont see/think of myself as a "vandalism fighter". But i do want to edit the unconstructive edits (editing them in good ones, without undoing them). I think STiki would be ggod for that (without rollback rights ). What is your opinion about that? —usernamekiran (talk) 20:48, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
• also, as per your views, where do i lack that i cant get the PCR rights? I cant understand that point. Do you guys think that because i keep joking around? :-/
  Even if i am goofy, i contribute on wiki projects very well/properly. —usernamekiran (talk) 20:53, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

• I spent years doing recent change patrol without having rollback or PCR (they didn't exist when I started). All you need is User:Lupin/All_recent_changes or User:Lupin/Filter recent changes and WP:TWINKLE. And what you lack is a solid track record of editing that indicates you'll use PCR properly. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:02, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

• you got me wrong i think. I dont want rollback rights. all i want to do is to change the unconstructive edits into good ones :) and thanks for the suggestions —usernamekiran (talk) 21:14, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Rangeblock

Neil, you blocked 2607:fea8:2ca0:251:4035:5735:5002:280b (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (per ANI; they had been hounding Jytdog) for six months, but IMO their range, 2607:FEA8:2CA0:251::/64, needs blocking too. It's all the same person, after all. I'm not sure whether you blocked the range or not — is the block log explicit about these rangeblocks? Anyway, in case you didn't, I've blocked the range, taking my cue from you about the time: six months. Bishonen | talk 20:19, 16 March 2017 (UTC).

@Bishonen: I did not block the range. Thanks for doing that. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:25, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

In case it is not obvious, ranges have block logs. And if you display the contributions from any IP in the range, it will tell you if it's covered by a range block. But if a single IP in the range has its own block then the single-IP block hides the range block. (Though I assume both blocks are effective). EdJohnston (talk) 23:19, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

from the earlier ANI topic

You mentioned that someone created the same article earlier, which raises a red flag to me, could there be sockpuppetry going on? --Yukari Yakumo (talk) 22:59, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

@Yukari Yakumo: Doubtful. The first version had a different structure and was poorer. There's probably some undisclosed paid editing going on. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:17, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

The user who created the 2nd version begged me to restore the page and insisted that it was just "practice". I find it hard to believe. --Yukari Yakumo (talk) 23:24, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

@Yukari Yakumo: Tell them we have lots of yet-to-be-created articles they can practice on (examples) :-) --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:36, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Technical Barnstar
	For solving the issue at Widr's talk page by actually doing the math. Gosh, what a concept! MelanieN (talk) 15:59, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

@MelanieN: LOL. And I even used an Excel formula to double check! --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:01, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Fairphone

Hello NeilN, I'm aware of WP:USERGENERATED, but please explain to me what other non-Fairphone sources you would accept? As an example, the FP1 design issues well are known, but only discussed in xda/FP forums. And not only once by a single user. Also FP officials are active in the forum and take part in discussions.

(talk page stalker) In my early days, I ran into a similar issue. It took me a while to understand, but what Wikipedia need is reliable, independent, third part sources. I would recommend that you read WP:PRIMARY and WP:RS. Wikipedia is meant to be an encyclopedia, and requires vetted sources, not forums and rarely a company's own website. I hope this helps! Scr★pIron^IV 20:38, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks ScrapIronIV. I replied here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:41, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Jews - Origin section". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 24 March 2017.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 23:02, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Jews - Origin section, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 01:11, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Sock has come back

Hey NeilN. The original user of this sock that you blocked has come back and done the exact same thing to Tiago Splitter. Perhaps an indefinite block for the original as well? Cheers. DaHuzyBru (talk) 04:26, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

@DaHuzyBru: One month for now, up from 60 hours. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:30, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

I think it's time for semi protection at Tiago Splitter. This person is just creating new accounts and removing the same content [7]. DaHuzyBru (talk) 15:39, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

@DaHuzyBru: Article semied for three months, latest sock and master blocked indefinitely. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:49, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Speak of the devil

I'm pretty sure the IP hopper I've mentioned at RPP is Til - at least 95% confident. Doug Weller talk 13:24, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Please

Check this topic please, new disruptive edition by Reggiewray01. Thanks. --2804:7F4:FC80:8242:3DA9:5169:F5E4:2B56 (talk) 16:14, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Blocked two weeks for continued disruption, copy-pasted articles deleted. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:25, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Archive 30

←

Archive 34

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

Archive 38

→

Archive 40