User talk:Enigmaman

If you leave a message here, I'll reply here. The same applies to you. If I leave a message on your page, I keep it watchlisted and I'll see when you reply. Thank you.

Oh hey

Nice to see you're still around. =) · Andonic ^contact 18:43, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

He's the old guard. Always gotta be around! Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 04:55, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Pat, a year without editing? You're making my head spin. I was looking for your comment on Malleus's talk and then I finally saw you posted on December 23, 2011. Enigma^msg 06:01, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Come on, Pat, get with the program. Merry Christmas to you both, cheers to the old guard. ;) · Andonic ^contact 00:14, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Nice to see you are still around, Andonic! :) And E, I laughed when I saw I left that comment one exact year since my last edit. I swear I didn't plan it. Hope you both had a great Christmas and New Year, guys. I'm gonna be in New York state in May/June, if you guys wanna have a beer or something. Ciao and take care. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 00:40, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Perpetual traveler

Oh that sounds like a cool one, especially since it isn't immediately obvious or apparent but it's an interesting factoid about particular people that makes them stand out. I say go for it, might be hard to collect info but I'm sure it'll grow. I always err on the side of creating something, if it turns out to not meet expectations you can always reverse it later, but in this case I don't see why this category wouldn't be a snazzy addition. Might be worth spending a few moments to clearly define "perpetual traveler" though (not sure if there is an official/technical definition), for example does the term necessitate that the individual not have a homestead (i.e. for tax purposes or otherwise)? Or is it more liberal, as in, as long as they're traveling constantly they qualify? · Andonic ^contact 00:13, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Gotcha, so you're considering deleting it based on its potential inconsistency? · Andonic ^contact 07:07, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that'd probably be the right call. Too bad though, would've been a fun one. · Andonic ^contact 20:51, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Serena Williams

Hi Enigmaman, thanks for watching this article and for blocking 76.98.218.70.

It seems that 75.150.181.65 is on the same 'mission' as 76.98.218.70, but I am no good at the official procedures. Therefore I thought: let me drop you this note, and maybe it can be useful information to you.

Name server lookup: 75-150-181-65-Philadelphia.hfc.comcastbusiness.net resp. c-76-98-218-70.hsd1.pa.comcast.net both point to Philadelphia=PA and comcast.net. Perhaps the first IP-address belongs to his office, and the second could be private.

Kind regards, Vinkje83 (talk) 22:45, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome and thanks for the tip, I will take a look. Enigma^msg 00:41, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Read lynx

They were merely pulled into WikiMedia Commons or reformatted into more sophistocated diagrams under a different title, but thanks. Perhaps it is time to get rid of all that red. And thanks for checking up on me to make sure that I'm still alive :) -- have a great day! DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 02:26, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Back at it

This IP user is back to vandalizing the Serena Williams page 76.98.218.70.HotHat (talk) 07:07, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I reverted it and blocked the IP. Obvious BLP violations in there, but no one reverted it. thanks, Enigma^msg 17:05, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Totally wish I was still an admin. Not. Has much changed on the Wiki? Most policies are still the same, yes? Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 05:23, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Enigma^msg 17:42, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Cookie Monster

Vandalism rarely occured over the years. Although the topic is popular, as well as the show, I believe that not all unregistered users would harm the article. If in doubt, "pending changes" perhaps? --George Ho (talk) 16:21, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

I will unprotect it as a trial for a week and we will see what happens. Keep an eye on it. Enigma^msg 21:41, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

You are wrong about the vandalism, though. It has rarely occurred when the page was protected, for obvious reasons. Look at the log for periods of unprotection and then look at the edits during those periods. Plenty of IP vandalism. Enigma^msg 21:45, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

About Jimmy Kimmel Live! kids table that talked about US government shutdown and debts

I restored the paragraph that you deleted due to lack of resource. I have added resource for it.

Let me know if there is any problem.

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zhangle (talk • contribs) 03:48, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

SchrutedIt08 starting an Edit War

User:SchrutedIt08 is starting to get in an edit war on The Red Road (TV series) over what is currently a hidden episode table. I just posted on his talk page explaining my side and saw you had recently warned him against this same sort of thing in the past month or so. Also while I am typing so I can be clear when I come across other pages citing IMDb, is it fully credible or certain information or what? Encmetalhead (talk) 21:16, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure imdb is considered credible. As for your issue at The Red Road, I will look into it. Enigma^msg 19:56, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the imput! Encmetalhead (talk) 22:02, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

OK, they're saying imdb is not reliable. I don't know. If you ask at the wikiproject for tv shows they'll know. Regarding the edit war the whole thing is pointless. Hidden or gone altogether, it makes no difference. When it's verified, you can undo the edit in question to restore the info. No added work. Enigma^msg 19:58, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the imput! Encmetalhead (talk) 22:02, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Indef semi

Hi Enigmaman, would you consider dropping the protection of Independence High School (Independence, Ohio) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) to pending changes or trying unprotection for a while. PC more closely lines up with the reason you protected it in the first place, but unprotection might be worth a go too. Up to you. Regards, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:26, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

OK, pending changes it is. High school pages attract a lot of vandalism. Enigma^msg 17:46, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Another one, how about Michael (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)? I'm not sure on that because it's getting over 600 views a day and is a tempting target, but up to you. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:59, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

All these old semis were put in place before pending changes was implemented (or at least fully implemented past the trial phase), I believe. If you want to look, there must be hundreds of them. Pending changes is a better alternative, and I'm sure I would've utilized it back then had it been an option. I'll make the change. Enigma^msg 20:26, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

There are lots and lots of them. I'm just working through the ones there are edit semi-protected requests for. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:25, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I've applied PC to Roblox (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), hope you don't mind. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:52, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

OK, I don't mind. Enigma^msg 15:28, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

RE: Xavexgoem's talk page

Enigmaman, I saw that you unprotected Xavexgeom's talk page. He's redirected it to his user page, so I've taken the liberty of removing that re-direct, after all, it didn't make much sense to unprotect his talkpage only to have it redirect to his protected userpage. If you disagree, feel free to revert me. Just wanted you to be aware that I had done that, however.  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh   20:02, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I was thinking of doing it myself, but I figured if anyone wanted to post there they could remove the redirect. Enigma^msg 20:07, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

April 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Amanda Nunes may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• (fighter)|Sarah Kaufman]]. However, Nunes later pulled out of the bout with a back injury.<ref>[http://t.co/0qH1bxulwA</ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:58, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Ferrari S.p.A

User:Ferrari S.p.A is the sock of Altimgamr, as is the IP. Bahooka (talk) 03:13, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

It will be taken care of at SPI. I was just blocking the IP as requested. Enigma^msg 03:18, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Proxy block

I have just changed your block of 209.251.58.174 from "anon-only" and "allow account creation" to "Prevent logged-in users from editing" and "account creation blocked", as it is an open proxy. Blocking an open proxy for anon-use, but allowing an anon editor to create an account and then edit via the proxy makes no sense at all: in fact it is worse than allowing anon-editing, as it hides the use of the proxy from everyone except CheckUsers. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:22, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

All open proxies should be blocked already to begin with. Enigma^msg 14:33, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Lord Laitinen

Hello, Enigmaman. I am Lord Laitinen. I looked at a user's edit history, since they vandalized my page, and found that they had vandalized several more, as well as making many nonconstructive edits. I have also issued a new warning to them myself. It is very important to me, and many other users, that vandals are warned and, if necessary, banned from editing Wikipedia. I would like your support in helping get this repeat offender banned. Thanks, and go with God. Lord Laitinen (talk) 05:09, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Re:sockfarm

I've found a string of accounts that begins with Souheil boulos (talk · contribs). It is hard for me to find deeper roots. Do you have an idea about earlier accounts? Materialscientist (talk) 07:55, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Ok then. There are possibly two groups, but they are rather similar, and thus I've lumped them into one here. I've blocked the underlying IPs for a month, thus if they come out earlier then they found a new mobile hub. Cheers. Materialscientist (talk) 23:28, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

thanks Enigma^msg 19:55, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Bad Image List

Not entirely sure on the process to add an image to the bad image list, but File:Ass.jpg should be on it as it was recently used for vandalism. Any help you can give me would be great :-) ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 08:10, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not really familiar with the list, but it seems it requires repeated examples of the image being used for vandalism. Enigma^msg 17:36, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Axel Michon

Axel Michon is now notable and meets the criteria as he was awarded a main draw wild card for the French Open. Vinz57 (talk) 21:28, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

June 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Bill Bavasi may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• '''William J. Bavasi''', born December 27, 1957 in [[Scarsdale, New York]], is a former [[Major League Baseball] [[general manager (baseball)|general manager]]. He currently works as an

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 04:28, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Tennis player Andrey Rublev

Could you please re-create the article Andrey Rublev (tennis), as he won the 2014 French Open in junior singles, so the article meets the notability guidelines. Regards. --Tomcat (7) 20:10, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

 Done Enigma^msg 22:16, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Please the talk page too. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 10:15, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

 Done nothing to really restore, but I did it anyway. Enigma^msg 23:35, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Francis Benjamin

Hi, please edit your information on my friend, Francis Benjamin, the footballer. He is not 29 years old, but far younger. See info below: Full name: FRANCIS ISHIBA BENJAMIN Date of Birth: JUNE 20, 1993 Place Of Birth: KADUNA Height: 182 CM Profession: FOOTBALLER Position: LEFT BACK

              CENTRAL DEFENSE

Current Club: HEARTLAND FC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaritaba1 (talk • contribs) 07:34, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I fixed it. Banhtrung put in the incorrect date of birth. Enigma^msg 15:28, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Use of "See also" links in Carol Ross article

Hey, Enigmaman. You questioned whether the linked "see also" articles in the Carol Ross article should be included. Your last reversion stated that these articles were already linked in the article itself. They are not, and my inclusion of these particular "see also" links is not accidental nor unconsidered. Careful review will show that the articles linked in the text are for the respective teams, i.e. "Ole Miss Rebels women's basketball" and "Florida Gators women's basketball"; those links in the see also section are for the parent athletic programs, "Florida Gators" and "Ole Miss Rebels." They are included because of the dramatic impact Carol Ross had on the women's athletic programs at the two universities, as a player and a coach, and to provide greater context for our readers -- most of whom reading this article will either be Ole Miss or Florida fans/alumni. The third link, "List of University of Mississippi alumni" is likewise linked nowhere else on the page, and is intended to introduce readers interested in Ole Miss to the larger family of related Wikipedia articles. These purposes are entirely consistent with the WP:SEEALSO guideline.

Your comment that we don't link to "every place she's been" has a ring of common sense to it, at least in the context of the "see also" section. And I agree. And you will note that I have not linked the athletic programs of every place she has been, only those that are arguably most important to her and the institutions. Of course, the other universities and teams are already linked in the main body text, too. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:56, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

The articles for the individual teams have see also links to the overall article. "Florida Gators women's basketball" links to "Florida Gators". How do you determine when there should be a see also? Would you then suggest adding a 'See also - Kentucky Wildcats' for any player who ever competed for the university? Enigma^msg 18:05, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

• There are usually more appropriate related links for notable players to use in the "see also" section -- e.g., "List of Florida Gators football All-Americans" or "List of Florida Gators football players." Successful and noteworthy coaches are more closely associated with the overall athletic program than individual players. And as WP:SEEALSO says, the usage of "see also" links is a matter of editorial judgment and common sense. For major Division I athletic programs, the parent athletic programs are usually the most popular among the family of program-related articles and provide the "spine" of linkage to the entire family; linking to the athletic program from noteworthy coach articles makes eminent good sense from a reader's perspective. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:17, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

OK, so what about DeLisha Milton-Jones and Vanessa Hayden, who were merely players? Enigma^msg 18:22, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

• Well, in the list of six links in the "see also" section of the Milton-Jones article, I would say that the other five are more important than the "Florida Gators" link. Ditto for Vanessa Hayden, where it's the least important of the three to the article subject.

FYI, I very much subscribe to the operational theory of Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates:

"Wikipedia offers several ways to group articles: categories, lists (including embedded lists), and navigation templates (of which article series boxes are one type). The grouping of articles by one method neither requires nor forbids the use of the other methods for the same informational grouping. Instead, each method of organizing information has its own advantages and disadvantages, and is applied for the most part independently of the other methods following the guidelines and standards that have evolved on Wikipedia for each of these systems."

A "see also" list with 3 to 5 non-redundant links can be a helpful tool to the reader in conjunction with navboxes, wiki links in the main body text, and categories. For related list articles in particular, it often makes more sense to include them in a "see also" section rather than trying to jam them into the text using an awkward or misleading piped link. My goal is to introduce new Wikipedia readers -- many of whom find their first college sports article by accident, and don't understand that it is part of a family of related articles -- to that larger family of related articles. And unless it's linked in the text, they may only find the next most relevant article by accident, too. I like to leave a popcorn trail for the target audience. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:37, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Blocking of inactive accounts

Pooet and Andy14and16 were just recently re-blocked on August 7, 2014, even though both accounts were previously unblocked in October 2010 [1][2] and have been dormant ever since. Who asked you to block these accounts, and under what policy were the blocks implemented? I am seeking your answer because the issue was raised by another user here. Dolovis (talk) 23:56, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

No blocks in June, 2 blocks in July, no blocks in August. Enigma^msg 01:29, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Can't help but notice that you are now indef blocked. I did not block any accounts in August, but those accounts were sockpuppets of yours. Enigma^msg 21:47, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Range block

Thanks for your email. I have gone back and checked the history of the IP range again. Unfortunately, there is no smaller CIDR range that covers the relevant IP addresses. Most IPv4 range blocks involve a judgement of the balance of stopping disruption against likely collateral damage, and in this case over 90% of recent edits from the range are clearly from the disruptive editor, and some of the few edits that are likely to be from other people are also unconstructive, leaving a minute proportion of constructive edits. However, looking further back over the months I see that in the past the proportion of constructive edits has been significantly higher. I have removed the block, and let's hope that it has been there long enough to deter the disruptive editor. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:37, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Page reverted

Hello,

I have searched in vain for the good path to get administrator’s help for the following issue and so I decided to send this request to some including you.

I have considerably expanded the article Guerrilla filmmaking and took care in referencing it as far as I could (over 90 links to trustful sources). I am an experienced editor of Wikipedia. For my surprise, the article was reverted by user CIRT to a preceding stub version mainly consisting of a very narrow list of films. Many important contents were removed. Self promotional vandalism seems to be the reason of such intervention, sustained by acute threats. I do not intend to respond with helpless and inconsequent arguments and the time I have to dedicate to Wikipedia is quite limited.

I’d be happy if you could pay some attention to this occurrence and let you decide whatever you think is reasonable.

My best,

Tertulius (User talk:Tertulius) 05,49, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bill Dinwiddie, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page American. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:55, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello enigmaman, thanks for giving us light about our star novac wanted to know wether editing pages can be done as ajob. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.29.164.75 (talk) 17:54, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Aaaaa

Hi. I am contacting you because you were the administrator who salted the page Aaaaa way back in October 2009. A request has been made at Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects to create a redirect at that title to AaaaaAAaaaAAAaaAAAAaAAAAA!!! – A Reckless Disregard for Gravity. I think the request should be accepted, because the target article does state that it is often shortened to just "Aaaaa!", so "Aaaaa" would be a likely search term for the subject. Do you think you could unsalt the page so the redirect can be created? Optionally, when the redirect is created, it can be fully protected to prevent it from being modified. Regards, Mz7 (talk) 04:41, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Yisroel Belsky

Please see the discussion on the Talk page. The WP:RS about him focus on the sex abuse scandal. It seems that this is what he was known for at least to a broad audience much more than his career about which other than being quoted in the NY Times a few times there seems to be little WP:RS--Jersey92 (talk) 17:03, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Can the article Brown be unprotected?

Hi there Enigmaman. According to the logs [3], you protected Brown all the way back in 2009. I haven't looked for the specific incident that caused protection to be applied, but given the "brown people" content that is part of the article, I'll bet that I can make an accurate guess. While vandalism of that type is a real concern that I don't care to minimize, seven years is a long time for an article to be protected without review. I have a particular edit that I would like to make, but it seemed better to me to ask about unprotection rather than just make an edit request. Any chance you can consider it? Regardless of your answer, thanks for taking the time to read this. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 19:58, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

OK, but if it starts up again, I'll have to reprotect or do pending changes. If you want to know why it was protected, look at the history dating back to 2008 and 2009. Enigma^msg 20:16, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for that. Thank you for responding almost immediately, as well. I'll make my edit and see if there's anything else I can improve in the article. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 20:55, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection

Hello, Enigmaman. 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. 17:47, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Vektroid

Hi Enigmaman--please reconsider page protection. The unsourced transgender claims have been added persistently at least since early this year. Thanks, 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:19, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I added pending changes. Enigma^msg 01:22, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Terrific. Cheers, 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:33, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

EC- or semi-protection?

I don't know why Amy Schumer is EC-protected indef instead of semi-prot. indef. Also, what about Billy Bush? --George Ho (talk) 07:13, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Andy Murray protection no longer needed

Hi, if you have the chance, could you unprotect this article? The reason for protection has disappeared (the new official tennis ranking has been published). Thanks, Gap9551 (talk) 01:47, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

If you check the times, you'll see it was already unprotected. "(cur | prev) 18:31, November 6, 2016‎ Enigmaman (talk | contribs | block)‎ m . . (238,464 bytes) (0)‎ . . (Changed protection level of Andy Murray: ranking will be official shortly, so shortening full protection ([Edit=Require administrator access] (expires 01:31, 7 November 2016 (UTC)))) (undo) [automatically accepted]" It was set to expire 21:31. 3 hour protection. Enigma^msg 04:39, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

I noticed the 01:31 expiration time, but the protection was still active well after this time, including when I posted here. There was no edit button, only 'View source', and the gold lock icon still appeared on the top of the article. Gap9551 (talk) 13:57, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Must be an error on your end. It was set for three hours and people started editing the article shortly after that. (cur | prev) 23:03, November 6, 2016‎ J. M. (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (238,425 bytes) (-39)‎ . . (Ranking update)18:31, November 6, 2016‎ Enigmaman (talk | contribs | block)‎ (238,464 bytes) (0)‎ (Changed protection level of Andy Murray: ranking will be official shortly, so shortening full protection ([Edit=Require administrator access] (expires 01:31, 7 November 2016 (UTC)))) Enigma^msg 14:17, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

There was nothing I could do. Wikipedia considered the page not fully protected anymore, so my changing the protection wouldn't have helped you. Enigma^msg 14:19, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I understand. But as I said, there was not 'Edit' button on the page even after refreshing the page, so I'm not sure what my error could have been. Gap9551 (talk) 14:49, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

This bot removed the protection template two hours after it expired, maybe that has something to do with the edit button showing up, although two other non-admin editors made edits before this. If the problem happens again I'll look into it more. Thanks again. Gap9551 (talk) 14:56, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins

Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

New deal for page patrollers

Hi Enigmaman,

In order to better control the quality of new pages, keep out the spam, and welcome the genuine newbies, the current system we introduced in 2011 is being updated and improved. The documentation and tutorials have also been revised and given a facelift. Most importantly a new user group New Page Reviewer has been created.

Under the new rule, you may find that you are temporarily unable to mark new pages as reviewed. However, this is nothing to worry about - most current experienced patrollers are being accorded the the new right without the need to apply, and if you have significant previous experience of patrolling new pages, we strongly encourage you to apply for the new right as soon as possible - we need all the help we can get, and we are now providing a dynamic, supportive environment for your work.

Find out more about this exiting new user right now at New Page Reviewers and be sure to read the new tutorial before applying. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:28, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

A new user right for New Page Patrollers

Hi Enigmaman.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:46, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Enigmaman. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

User:Geezpeetz meatball

Hello Enigmaman,

It appears as though you have set the block duration for this account as 3 years. Generally, (at least when I often report vandal-only accounts) they are blocked indefinitely (with no set block duration). Did you mean to have a fixed duration of 3 years, or was it supposed to be indefinite? Regards. 73.96.113.105 (talk) 04:17, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Three years looks good to me. Ends up being the equivalent of an indef block. Enigma^msg 20:31, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Enigmaman!

Happy New Year!

Enigmaman,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Donner60 (talk) 06:16, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Issue with the Ford F-series page.

Good morning, Enigmaman. For the last two days, I've been in an edit war with user DorianGrey14 on the F-series page regarding whether or not the 2018 F150 is or is not a new generation.[4] I have posted several sources confirming it will be a member of the 13th generation and NOT a start of a 14th generation, including a post form Ford's official user account on the F150 Forum, but he keeps reverting the changes to incorrect information. Would you please help me with this issue? Thanks, sir.

It seems to me he's in the wrong. If he continues to revert as he has promised to do, he will be blocked. Enigma^msg 14:57, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. I appreciate your review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LaMartian (talk • contribs) 16:47, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter - February 2017

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

Administrator changes

NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67

Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Guideline and policy news

• A discussion to workshop proposals to amend the administrator inactivity policy at Wikipedia talk:Administrators has been in process since late December 2016.
• Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2016 closed with no consensus for implementing Pending changes level 2 with new criteria for use.
• Following an RfC, an activity requirement is now in place for bots and bot operators.

Technical news

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

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee released a response to the Wikimedia Foundation's statement on paid editing and outing.

Obituaries

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

---

Discuss this newsletter • Subscribe • Archive

13:36, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

RE: Hey

lol ahoy old friend! Feel free to e-mail me and I'll send you my facebook if you'd like to keep in touch. :) · Andonic ^contact 14:30, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

OK. :) Enigma^msg 17:54, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Cheri DiNovo

The issue is in fact older than 2013; a campaign of POV attack edits against her began in 2007, within a matter of months of her being elected to the Ontario Legislature — and as soon as the article was protected, the editor in question started trying to use the talk page to make the same unverifiable allegations that they couldn't get into the article. The problem has been, however, that the user in question has always edited as an anonymous IP rather than a logged-in editor, making it impossible to use editblocks to stop them (we know it's been the same user, because the IP numbers have always resolved to Thailand and the tactics have always been the same.) As you can see if you go further back in the edit history, the talk page also had to be protected in 2009, 2010 and 2011 because of the user's sheer refusal to give up the stick. You can see User:Natalie Erin/Cheri DiNovo vandal if you need additional background on the situation — but the long and the short of it is that I don't see any valid reason to let either the article or the talk page be edited by an anonymous IP ever again. The risk of the attack editor coming back again is simply too high given that they were still persistently at it six years later — page protection is literally the only thing that has ever kept the problem under any control at all. Bearcat (talk) 21:48, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

ok. I was just wondering because the talk page is the logical place to suggest an edit and that can't be done now. Enigma^msg 00:25, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

IPs can use WP:RFED to make edit requests when other options are not available. RFED is a section near the bottom of WP:RFPP. EdJohnston (talk) 17:43, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. I came across this in the first place from a suggested edit at RfPP when I was clearing a backlog there. Enigma^msg 20:26, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion instead of AfD

Hi Enigmaman. I am asking specifically why was the article Erich Reimer given a speedy deletion when there was a clear controversy over notability as well as a high multitude of neutral mainstream media news sources indicating neworthiness and when other similar political figures and commentators have Wikipedia articles? It has also been 9 years since the previous AfD and all recent notability factors are quite recent. PepsiLord19 (talk) 00:42, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Also, regardless, would it be possible to receive the code of the page as it was before deletion? Thank you very much. PepsiLord19 (talk) 00:47, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

There was already a draft created when your submission was declined. Enigma^msg 00:58, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the update! PepsiLord19 (talk) 01:02, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Is it not patently obvious that PepsiLord19 is Erich Reimer? Is that not itself grounds for deletion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.54.27.60 (talk) 17:05, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

It was deleted. Enigma^msg 17:59, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Doubt

Hello Enigmaman, i have a question about the Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes process. "Reviewers do not take responsibility for the correctness of edits they accept. A reviewer only ensures that the changes introduced to the article are broadly acceptable for viewing by a casual reader. The reviewer checks the pending change(s) for an article and can then decide to either accept it, revert it or modify it then later accept it." So, imagine this situation: In a article, an stretch says that a car weighs 235 kilograms, and it is supported by a source. Some editor changes this information to 250 kilograms, and the source says 235 kilograms. So, the pending changes reviewer have to approve the edit because is not vandalism or other inappropriate edit, or the reviewer should not accept the edit because it´s a wrong information? Jasão (msg) 05:16, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

In my opinion, if it contradicts the source, the edit should be rejected. It doesn't mean that anything not clearly vandalism has to be approved. Enigma^msg 05:19, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. Jasão (msg) 05:26, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

UpsandDowns1234

You seem to be the last admin to run into UpsandDowns1234—can you see any grounds not to indef block him? I hate to go in hard like this, as he's clearly a young child out of his depth rather than someone acting out of malice, but his Wikipedia history as far as I can tell is literally mistake after mistake, and it's becoming a serious time sink—at a rough estimate 50% of everything he does (that isn't messing around in his own userspace or sandboxes) needs to be reverted. Do you want to see if you can talk him down before I show him the door? ‑ Iridescent 20:29, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

I read through the last bunch of conversations and I have nothing to add. He doesn't seem to be able to learn. I had no reason to comment until he submitted yet another pointless RfPP request. It's been at least five times this month and enough is enough. I am prepared to block him if he submits another RfPP request. Do what you see fit. Enigma^msg 20:49, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Although I will say that his suggestion of a six month block is not a bad one. It's hard to predict when people will mature. Enigma^msg 20:50, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Per my comment a bit further up his talkpage last time he pulled this stunt, I'm very reluctant to impose a self-reqested CIR block. It's not like Wikipedia is an addictive substance from which one has to be kept away—if he knows he doesn't know how to do things, why keep coming back? If he'd only stick to articles and stop trying to "improve" WP: space, there wouldn't be any issues. (If he doesn't stop, I'd be inclined to go with "indefinite as undefined" rather than with a time limit—that way he'd have to explain that he understood what the problems were and commit not to doing them again. I agree that kids that age can mature quickly and unpredictably, but experience has shown that when he's given a time-limited block, he immediately goes back to whatever he was doing before the instant it expires.) ‑ Iridescent 21:02, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Sharing Afd script

Hello ! I want to thank you for entertaining my request and protecting the Page of Abu Dujana (militant). Generally contributor's do not come on protecting admins page to leave a thank note, but as this is a volunteer project I believe we should support and respect each other's hardwork. While my visit to your userpage, I observe that you do your administrators task on Afd manually. I don't know whether you are aware of the userscript for Afd (it will save your valuable time), if you are not aware of the script then this is it - {{subst:iusc|1=User:Evad37/XFDcloser.js}}

You can Install the script on your common.js

The script will help you in relisting, deleting, keeping etc all in seconds

For other extremely useful userscripts please visit here. Once again thankyou, have a lovely day

Anoptimistix Let's Talk 08:16, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. I will try the script. Enigma^msg 15:09, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Buchalter Page Deletion

Hello Enigmaman,

I created the Buchalter page on Wikipedia and noticed that it was deleted on July 31, 2017. I read the articles for deletion and it appears that the page was deleted due to sources that were not considered "notable." It seems like the main issue for the page was the Accolades/Awards section that listed various "top places to work" awards and sourced these awards to, what was referred to as, "clickbait lists."

I would like to suggest reinstating the Buchalter Wikipedia page with the stipulation that the "Awards" section be deleted. I believe the rest of the page should remain as it was since it did not break any of the Wikipedia content policies or guidelines. Thank you. Mhpineda72 (talk) 17:51, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Removing sources doesn't help. It needs to establish notability. The links did not do that. The discussion was up for over a week and not one person made the case that it established notability. Tagging AfD creator @BU Rob13:. Enigma^msg 19:31, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, it seems really unlikely the company is notable (based on the sources available), which means Wikipedia shouldn't have an article on it. @Mhpineda72: Do you have a conflict-of-interest with respect to Buchalter, by any chance? Your account has been active on that page since mid 2016 and nowhere else. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 19:51, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Fieri Lock

For Guy Fieri's page can you please add a lock icon at the top as it isn't showing. Thanks. Hummerrocket (talk) 03:10, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

OK, I will go look. Enigma^msg 03:23, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Lee Hye-ri semi-protection

Hi Enigmaman. As soon as you semi'ed Lee Hye-ri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) a ten-edit sock account appeared and started the edit-warring again. The sock made ten edits to their sandbox to gain confirmed status and then added the BLP violation. Please upgrade this to ECP. See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Netizentown. Thank you. Dr. K. 03:04, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Upgraded. Enigma^msg 03:42, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Best regards. Dr. K. 03:47, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protection on Adolf Hitler

May I ask why you elevated the protection on Adolf Hitler to indefinite semi? Looking at the talk page history, I don't see much (any) evidence of recent vandalism. --causa sui (talk) 16:21, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

What? Adolf Hitler was already indefinite semi, and if you're looking at the talk page history, you're looking in the wrong place. I didn't protect the talk page. Enigma^msg 20:15, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I was referring to this diff [5] which isn't very informative, now that I look more closely. --causa sui (talk) 03:14, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

It was already indefinite semi. If you look at the article history instead of the talk page history, you'll see why. Enigma^msg 03:17, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

I shouldn't have said 'talk page' -- I was looking at the article history. I suppose the reason I didn't see any vandalism was that it was already semi'd. --causa sui (talk) 23:01, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

@Causa sui: The reason for the upgrade wasn't vandalism. That must've been a misclick on the drop down. Three different users came to RFPP that day and requested an upgrade in protection. Enigma^msg 01:21, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

sean raggett

Hi, I get you have protected the page but you might want to consider sorting the team column , the 2016/17 onwards was lincoln city not dover athletic , obviously i cant correct this — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noobkiller13 (talk • contribs) 12:17, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

I believe it's been corrected. Enigma^msg 15:35, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Re: Your issues with Cyberbot

I apologize for butting in like this, but I just happened to notice your concerns and would like to provide some input. Cyberbot has been giving you these issues because of this IP. I know because today, the same IP made this edit which made my own edit request for another article look like I was requesting protection for a different article. After checking their edit history, I noticed the IP made the same edits on the day you had your concerns. Is it possible that this IP tried to break the bot? I hope I've helped in some way. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 02:52, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

thanks, Enigma^msg 05:36, 22 August 2017 (UTC)