User talk:NeilN

Today's featured picture The cinnamon hummingbird (Amazilia rutila) is a species of hummingbird in the "tribe of the emeralds", Trochilini. Currently, four regional subspecies are recognized. It is predominantly found along the Pacific western coast of Mexico and south through Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua and Costa Rica, with some also residing in Belize and the southern Mexican states of Campeche, Quintana Roo and Yucatán. Cinnamon hummingbirds are typically found at or just slightly above sea level, often inhabiting coastal and lowland areas, as well as further inland in warmer locations in the southern parts of their range. The hummingbird has a length of approximately 9.5 to 11.5 centimetres (3.7 to 4.5 in), and on average weighs about 5 to 5.5 grams (0.18 to 0.19 oz). Its diet usually consists of food foraged from the understory to the mid-story, but it will also visit taller flowering trees. The cinnamon hummingbird feeds on nectar from a very wide variety of flowering plants and also eats insects. It is a territorial species, defending its feeding sites from intrusion by other hummingbirds, bees, and butterflies. This cinnamon hummingbird feeding from a flower in flight was photographed in Los Tarrales Natural Reserve near Patulul, Guatemala. Photograph credit: Charles J. Sharp Recently featured: Arthur Sullivan Reduced Gravity Walking Simulator Amphipoea oculea

Your protection of bus page

I have attempted multiple times to use talk page to resolve disputes on the article and on the users and unfortuntely have had no luck. I still keep being reverted by @SportsFan007. Is there a way to revert it back to the way i suggest. I have heard from no other editor that it is an issue. Olsen24 (talk) 21:59, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Olsen24. There are other options like opening a WP:RFC or using WP:DRN. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:01, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

How do i go about doing this? Olsen24 (talk) 14:59, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Olsen24. If the dispute can be distilled into a clear question (or a question with multiple options) then open a RFC. If the dispute is more complex and requires extensive discussion to work towards a consensus then use WP:DRN. Feel free to post here again if you have further questions. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:23, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Revision deletion

Can you hide the edits of [[1]]? I have not seen them directly (I am glad) but I can tell from the name on source that it is really disturbing. So please hide it before someone else sees it or I accidently see it. Also, there are "redacted" article names but the attcaka still appear in history. 2600:1:F157:CC86:4150:BA89:25B0:C9AE (talk) 23:50, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I tend to browse through Wikipedia's history looking at recent changes, socks, or good faith editors edits so I am familar with many vandals and their socks. Furthur, as the afore mentioned ediotor seems to be a sock of a notorious vandal, I suggest deleting talkpage and hiding all edits rather than simply reviaion deletion. 2600:1:F157:CC86:4150:BA89:25B0:C9AE (talk) 23:50, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

IP's personal attacks

Hi, not sure if it was you that concealed the IP's edit on my talk page. If so, can you conceal the IP's disgusting third and fifth edits as well? Sixth is likely in order as well. Same with this other IP's edit as well please. Also if you could email me with the content of the concealed edit on my talk page it would be appreciated since it was concealed before I noticed. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 02:22, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

@Hwy43: Yes, done, sorry I didn't notice the other edits before. Emailed you. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:28, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks for everything. Hwy43 (talk) 02:37, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Notification of appeal

This is to inform you that your recent topic ban against me has been filed for appeal. Greggens (talk) 04:28, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

WP:BLP

To answer your concerns that you posted on my talk page, I have always been a proponent of WP:BLP, adhering to its instructions as best as I possibly can. In fact, one of the things that I enjoy is, when I find something that is unsourced, I find a source to back it up and insert it into the appropriate article. As for my recent attempts at inserting a category or adding to a list, I misread the policy and thought I had all my ducks in a row each time. That's my bad. With respect to these edit attempts, even if there had been no sanctions imposed, I would not have restored the edit, anyway, since there was no consensus in favor of it. I believe that gaining consensus for restoring such reverted edits is one of the things that WP:BLP mentions in WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE.

To prevent future misunderstandings of WP:BLP, I'd be happy to talk with other admins about how to clarify the letter of the policy. Greggens (talk) 03:10, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

@Greggens: I don't think this is going to help you very much. The policy is pretty clear; what other admins commenting on the appeal are looking for is your understanding and commitment to adherence, not advice on how to change how the policy is written. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:37, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

I've modified my appeal statement. Greggens (talk) 04:07, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi NeilN, I hope you don't mind if I comment here – please revert if you want me to stay out of it. @Greggens: I've seen your modified statement and I thought it showed progress – certainly your emphasis on not restoring without consensus is a point in your favour, as is enjoying adding sources, and both of these could be supported with diffs. However, at the end of your modified statement, you requested that all sanctions be lifted. That request was and is unwise, in my opinion, in that it takes away from appearing to beginning to appreciate the seriousness of the situation and also reflects a misreading of the consensus developing. Showing that your editing in BLP areas has been good (except for the case that led to this sanction) and undertaking to continue to respect consensus, not restore anything removed without strong support, and seeking to rebuild your reputation is a wiser way forward. In my view, an "appeal declined, sanctions remain unchanged" result is the best option you could get, and an increase in sanctions is a real possibility, so seeking to present reasons why the extension to all BLPs is not warranted would be a more sensible strategy. In my view, that will depend in part on a statement that you made, which is why I'm posting here to ask you for clarification: You wrote here and on AE that "To prevent further misunderstandings of WP:BLP ... clarify the letter of policy" statement. Are you suggesting describing how you came to hold the misunderstandings that you have demonstrated, and so looking at changes to the text of WP:BLP so that others may not develop similar misunderstandings / confusions? Or, are you suggesting the policy text be modified so that WP:BLP is closer to what you had thought it was? EdChem (talk) 06:08, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Long lasting vandalism by 177.158.171.152. (Brazilian IP).

Middle power article was vandalized by User talk:177.158.171 .152.

3 times today he vandalized article.Last time 6 hours ago.IP is always from the same area. I suggest to block him and to lock atricle and related articles (Great power,Power and Regional power)for long time. I suppose he is (he vandalized Italy article too with brazilian nationalism ;the iP is brazilian)B777-300ER.He should be detected. Thank you.LittleOx (talk) 20:08, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Again, WP:AIV is the proper forum for reporting vandalism. Be sure to supply diffs that support your claims. Beeblebrox (talk) 09:03, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Email notice

Please check your inbox. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:16, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

That Mrbrklyn / Panix comics sock case

Hi, Neil. I thought I should bring up that sock 47.21.43.226 at User talk:47.21.43.226 has declared his intention to continue meat-puppetry: "Well, you are gonna see a lot of those because we have a big family." I'm wondering if maybe it becomes an ANI issue now? Do you have any advice? --Tenebrae (talk) 20:34, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

@Tenebrae: Both main targets of the sockmaster have been semi-protected. No IP rangeblock is possible right now because the IPs are all over the place. All we can do is block if more socks show up and perhaps protect the talk pages if they don't leave those alone. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:41, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I really wasn't looking forward to the time and trouble of an ANI. Much appreciated! --Tenebrae (talk) 20:42, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

@Tenebrae: You can drop a note here or at the SPI if more socks show up. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:44, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Neil. Just found another one, as his history makes abundantly clear: 47.21.43.226 Thank you again for standing up against block-evasion. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:02, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Actually, you previously blocked him for 31 hours, and I guess he's defiant. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:03, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

@Tenebrae: One month this time. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:00, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Republic of Macedonia

The Greek editors are feeling all warm and nationalistic after the anti-Macedonia protests this weekend. --Taivo (talk) 03:12, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

@TaivoLinguist: I was wondering what caused the sudden flareup. Usually I have to hand out a warning once every six months. This past week I've handed out about ten. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:16, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the Greek government sent negotiators to meet with their Macedonian counterparts to work out a compromise. Greek nationalists denounced any compromise that includes the word "Macedonia" in the new name. --Taivo (talk) 03:21, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Imagined copyright infringement is a beast. --Taivo (talk) 03:22, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello again, NeiN. I think the nationalistic surge relates to political developments between the two countries and not to mere protests (which too are a reaction to these developments): New important developments on the Macedonia Naming Dispute. -- ❤ SILENTRESIDENT ❤ 00:39, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

User talk:Abolianchem Fest

You may wish to revoke talk page access.--Cahk (talk) 10:06, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Done. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:46, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Clear-cut edit warring incident

Hi Neil, with re your verdict in here, it is pretty disturbing, should I say. I have wasted quite a lot of time in diffs, DRN and so on for a straightforward case, in which the editor keeps adding something that it is not in the source, just disruptive editing. I will tell you honestly, it looks to me like either an invitation to escalate and/or to get fed up with the WP. The editor in question is not engaging in dispute resolution, so what is the way you are beaconing really? Iñaki LL (talk) 17:26, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Iñaki LL. The revert today was Swazzo's first in five days and they were using the talk page until that revert. I directed them to use dispute resolution. If they simply continue to revert then a block will probably be forthcoming. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:33, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN: He is comfortable now, because it is his version remaining now in the article. So he feels he needs do nothing. That is why I say it is like an invitation to escalation. Iñaki LL (talk) 17:38, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

@Iñaki LL: There are others involved in the discussion so Swazzo's version won't last long if another editor objects. Then we'll see how they respond. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:44, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN: But as it happens, another editor had made a comment, and following my filing of incident to move on as a lack of results, the DRN is now close, and our input not showing. Iñaki LL (talk) 17:51, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

@Iñaki LL: The DRN case can be re-opened if circumstances warrant. Again, we need to see Swazzo has decided to stop talking and just revert before blocking. One revert isn't enough. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:56, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Problematic image

I noted your edit to Udayadityavarman II so seek your help re the problematic image which the other editor could not see - File:Backtowel.jpg. It is also somehow embedded in New Zealand general election, 1887 (and other articles) but I can't find it in the edit history to remove it. Moriori (talk) 22:09, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Moriori. Do a WP:PURGE on the affected articles. I've done one on New Zealand general election, 1887. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:12, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks NeilN. After I placed this message I noticed your advice at ANI. Aaaaargh. Moriori (talk) 22:17, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppet.

Hello Neil, Could I ask you to look at the activities of Maximajorian Viridio (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) ? This "contributor" appears to be following exactly the same pattern of Alex102072 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who your recently blocked and only started editing when editors started an enquiry into their disruption. Many thanks and regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 10:19, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi David J Johnson, Alex102072 doesn't exist? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 11:33, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Neil, My apologies, I was rushing to get my wife to the Doctors. I should have said Alexb102072 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 11:53, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

@David J Johnson: I will look into this and open a SPI case if necessary. Hope everything is okay with your wife. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:21, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN: Many thanks. The changes do look the same as Alexb102072 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Wife still smiling. Many thanks and regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 15:41, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

They are still overlinking and adding unnecessary alterations to random articles in exactly the same way as Alexb. Further they have not responded on their Talk page - again the same pattern. Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 11:33, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

@David J Johnson: Blocked 48 hours. I'll keep an eye on them. If they start up again without replying, then it's an indef block. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:36, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks for all your help. Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 20:47, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Climate Change DS

If you get the time to do so, would you please have a look at this editor's activities? I'm not sure if they are a new editor who doesn't understand, or if they're just a sock who wants to be disruptive. Thanks, AzureCitizen (talk) 14:38, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

@AzureCitizen: Topic banned six months. If it's a new editor, they can start by contributing in other areas. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:12, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Today they made 4 or 5 more edits, all to the same batch of articles. --JBL (talk) 03:31, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Moves

@NeilN: The reason why I changed Bariloche to San Carlos de Bariloche is because of Google Earth; Rand McNally; World Book Encyclopedia & Encyclopedia Britannica. Catfurball (talk) 17:36, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

@Catfurball: You need to respond here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#New_editor_Catfurball_and_article_move --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:45, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN: The reason why I changed Bariloche to San Carlos de Bariloche is because of Google Earth; Rand McNally; World Book Encyclopedia & World Book Encyclopedia. Catfurball (talk) 18:48, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

@Catfurball: Please read what I wrote directly above. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:08, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Jason Chaffetz Wiki entry

You cancelled my comment because it noted the obvious political slant of the ENTIRE article. Then you cite a 1932 "The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here. Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions."

I don't need to familiarize myself with the discretionary sanctions system. Wiki has already educated me on it with every article I read. If you want to talk face to face and have a real intellectual debate, then man up. Otherwise, don't hide behind a keyboard and hit the delete key just because my analysis hurt your feelings.

You selectively include whatever you want. I bet he kicked a puppy once as a kid. Maybe you should find out and get some evidence to that fact. Or maybe he has an unpaid parking ticket.

How about noting one or two positive things that he has done. You can't - because you don't see those things through your political filter goggles.

See ya. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dsewall (talk • contribs) 23:17, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

@Dsewall: You might want to read the first message I added to your talk page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:27, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN - I did read your response. It was unsatisfactory. That is why I wrote the above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dsewall (talk • contribs) 02:34, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

@Dsewall: I don't think you did. I'll repeat the important part: "I noticed that you recently added commentary to an article, Jason Chaffetz. While Wikipedia welcomes editors' opinions on an article and how it could be changed, these comments are more appropriate for the article's accompanying talk page." If you have issues with the article, post them at Talk:Jason Chaffetz. But if you simply post the same there, you'll likely be ignored or asked to propose specific changes. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:28, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Weird (and wrong) move

Num-ik (talk · contribs) has just done a weird and completely wrong move from userspace to mainspace regarding the troubled Udayar (caste) article, where you have had past admin involvement. - Sitush (talk) 13:03, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher)  Done.And, @Sitush: why don't you apply for pagemover flag?!Winged Blades^Godric 13:37, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Never thought about it. To be honest, when I can't move a page it is usually a situation where the user needs some admin advice anyway. - Sitush (talk) 13:42, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

@Sitush and Winged Blades of Godric: Editor blocked one week for continuing this disruption. Next time it will be an indef. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:13, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I note Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cnmk mentions them now. - Sitush (talk) 15:06, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Dealt with. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:13, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Incorrect Reverting

Hello! You recently removed Apollo from the real-life superheroes, I noticed this when I browsed the edits. I undid your removal because Apollo has no need to be removed, and you noted him as "nonsense". Apollo has been sighted (by me personally as well) and a source was linked in the original posting. I'd like to request that the edit be reinstated to the page, and what appears to be a strike for "disrupting Wikipedia" for bringing it back to the page be removed. Thank you, have a great day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stealthyracoon11 (talk • contribs) 17:25, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Please see Doug's post on your talk page and stop playing around here. Reddit might be more to your liking. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:58, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, and a query

Hi, Neil. I very much appreciate your keeping watch on my talk page, which the block-evading Mrbrklyn/Panix comics has disrupted, along with other pages, as 166.84.1.3. I'm truly sorry he's causing you to go to the trouble. I'm wondering if, given that the IP's talk page says, "166.84.1.3 is registered to Panix Public Access Internet," whether that IP might be worth blocking. This individual seems almost obsessively relentless. Whatever you think best, and thank you again for being a good guy. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:10, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Tenebrae. There's some good edits from that IP but they were a couple years ago. The sockmaster is just going to hop IPs anyway. I've blocked a narrow /31 range of IPs for one month. Let's see what that does. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:42, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

I know this is going to sound remarkable, given that you blocked 166.84.1.2/31, but he's begun block-evading again at 166.84.1.1! I used the word "obsessively" earlier, and I think this bears it out. Wow.--Tenebrae (talk) 20:49, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

@Tenebrae: Expanded to 166.84.1.0/24. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:55, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Again, I'm so sorry you're being put through this. I'd have to hope he'll get tired of it. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:57, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

@Tenebrae: You're doing most of the work! Thank you for that. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:59, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Now Gaming Boy II is back as Games boy II, edit-warring [2]. He doesn't seem to care anymore if he gets caught. Oy!--Tenebrae (talk) 22:49, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Blocked. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:11, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

So wikipedia is actually schauvinist shit

So wikipedia is actually schauvinist shit careless not only whether what's here is actually true but also what's actually in sources present even on wikipedia.--83.10.5.144 (talk) 02:33, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Read what I wrote on your talk page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:34, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

This is the answer. Wikipedia is really simply schauvinist shit.--83.10.5.144 (talk) 02:37, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

And you've been told that Wikipedia articles (including articles written for Polish Wikipedia) aren't reliable sources. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:41, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

And you are stupid or schauvinist enough not to notice or understand that I'm referring to sources outside wikipedia which you can really very easily find here: Talk:Sosnowiec#Silesian_Metropolis or in articles on pl.wiki (which are also listed here: Talk:Sosnowiec#Silesian_Metropolis). The only point of the whole situation is that there are no actual english sources on this particular topic and you're actually using it as an excuse not to actually verify that User:Poeticbent is forcing really shitty fiction simply because he/she is a registered wikipedia user. And this is why wikipedia is simply schauvinist shit.--83.10.5.144 (talk) 02:50, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

And the other editor presented their own sources and arguments. And a third editor proposed a compromise which you should respond to on the article's talk page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:55, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

SilverSpooner

Thanks for the block of that account, much appreciated. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:31, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

User Symaptisch is testing your topic ban

Symaptisch (talk · contribs) is testing your topic ban. [3][4][5] --Ronz (talk) 03:32, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

@Ronz and Joel B. Lewis: Yes, blocked a year. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:36, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I think some intervention is needed

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Coffee seems to be having a meltdown on WP today, quite disturbing to observe, attacking other admins, leaving obscenities in edit summaries [6], participating in dramafests all over the place. Coffee should turn off the computer and go and lie down, or someone should step in and intervene. I don't know where else to post this, hope you don't mind.Smeat75 (talk) 17:13, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

@Smeat75: That someone can't be me as they seem to think disagreeing with a few of their actions over the years (politely, I think) seems to constitute attacks, harassment, and hounding. I obviously don't but it's clear anything I say won't be taken well. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:21, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

@Smeat75: This comment is unacceptable and in no way shape or form can be seen as anything other than antagonizing. The fact that Neil didn't call you out for some of those aspersions speaks volumes. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 17:32, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Coffee, seriously, you need to step back a bit and step away for a while. I have no idea what is going on but it is clear that you are not acting appropriately. And you love talking about aspersions, but on the AETalk page, you cast aspersions on me an Ymblanter which is unacceptable. Please take my advice and take a weekend break. I fear that if you continue this way it might result in more action that we don't need. (Just in case you want to claim hounding again, [7] )Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:43, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I think it might be easier for Coffee to step back if people stopped berating them for their mistakes, perceived or otherwise. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:23, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

What about casting aspersions? He is claiming that many editors are hounding him, that is not a mistake in process or administrating, this is casting aspersions on many editors. Something that other editors get warned or blocked for. I have no problem with letting this go, but Coffee does need to take responsibility as well. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:31, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

@MPants at work: It would be easier if Coffee stopped doing things like this. There's no way I would ask another editor to take that warning and smile and toddle off and that editor should be supported when protesting. Otherwise it's "they said-they said" and an unaware third party editor or admin looking at that now or in the future is going to think, "oooh, admin warning!". --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:37, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

He's lashing out, and has been doing so for a few days now. I'm not defending his behavior in its entirety or even in a general sense (though I've seen a few instances where he's been put on blast for no good reason), I'm just pointing out that the situation is escalating, and that's not the direction we should be going in. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:45, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

This is a volunteer project. Coffee is doing something that desperately needs to be done. It's been discussed at great lenght in various venues. You don't think he's doing a perfect job the way you would personally do it? Well chip in and do your best to help and that will be a contribution. Sniping and gotchas is just not. SPECIFICO talk 18:50, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Accusing editors like me of purposeful and blatant harassment does not desperately need to be done. I’m certainly no saint but I don’t appreciate those patently false and absurd characterizations of my actions. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:08, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, given that you haven't touched in article in a week it certainly is looking like you, at the very least, have nothing better to do at the moment. Here, let me help. GMG^talk 19:16, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Mr Ernie I agree that the warning he gave you was out of line. NeilN obviously agrees as well. I'm sure SPEC would agree, and Sir Joseph, and TheGracefulSlick, and EEng, and I'm sure plenty of others. Coffee screwed up and got an earful from several of you at the talk page. Coffee isn't listening, which is frankly not surprising because they've been taking shit left and right for almost every admin-related action for at least a couple of days now. Maybe they deserve it. I don't know. But I do know that continuing to heap shit on them is not going to fix the problem. Coffee isn't going to hear that one, perfect argument that they've been royally screwing up as a result of their failings as a person and an admin and then do a complete 180° turn. Nobody would. So can we please try a different tactic? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:19, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

@MPants at work: Sure, what do you suggest? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:23, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I think Coffee taking a break might be for the best. But an enforced break is not going to help one bit. I can politely ask them to do so at their talk, as I'm one of a few editors who's "stood up for" them recently, maybe my opinion will be worth something. But part of that is you guys all getting a break from Coffee, as well as Coffee getting a break from all the criticism. So I'd ask everyone involved to please just let the matter drop for a few days, and if something needs to be done, it can be done in the future, with cool heads and some of that hindsight perspective. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:29, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)BTW, when I "wasn't listening" I got blocked. I'm not suggesting a block at all, but when every admin action is a terrible action then something needs to be done. I know at work I once in a while take a mental health day to recharge and I don't know if it's in policy but a (Redacted) block/action to make sure Coffee takes the weekend off and comes back on Monday recharged would be a good thing. I hope he voluntarily does that, which I think he is based on his page, but we are not to blame. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:31, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Coffee is imploding before our eyes and it's been going on for days now: Block after block, heavy-handed blocks, disproportionate blocks, refusal to take advice from seasoned admins regarding the blocks, calling editors liars, claiming there's an off-wiki conspiracy against him, paranoia, cursing in edit summaries, inappropriately threatening to block editors because they've done things no one else would see as blockable, removing comments from editors on his talk page that he sees as attacks and then changes the context of what's being discussed, silencing blocked editors by inappropriately removing talkpage access, telling good and longtime editors that the project doesn't need them when told they are done with Wikipedia because of all the above... Did I miss anything? I realize Coffee had some serious problems a while back, and maybe that's what's keeping anyone from doing something now, but I have to wonder how long this is going to be allowed to go on. I wish only the best for Coffee IRL, but right now it doesn't seem that continuing to have the bit and being allowed to continue on while repeatedly skirting the line of abusing the bit is doing him any good. Or the project. None of this equals building an encyclopedia, rather, it equals unneeded, unnecessary drama and disruption. Is that what an admin is supposed to be offering Wikipedia? Is any of this acceptable behavior for any editor, let alone an admin? From what I can see there is way more damage occurring than is needed - for the encyclopedia, for the community, and most certainly for Coffee. Left unchecked, it's only going to continue to escalate, and even if it doesn't, allowing everything that's happened to just fade away and not be dealt with appropriately is going to encourage him in thinking he can return to the same behavior in the future. I fear this isn't just a one-off or that being recharged on Monday after taking the weekend off is going to solve something that very obviously and seriously wrong here. When is enough going to be enough and something done to save Coffee from himself? -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 19:24, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I really don't want this to be more of a "bash on Coffee" thread than it already has so some potentially closing thoughts:

• Coffee does some worthwhile heavy-lifting in contentious areas.

* Their participation in AE is almost always valuable and useful. Struck. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:46, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

• No one person is indispensable to the project. If I left tomorrow I hope I'd be remembered with good thoughts but the project would continue on in the same fashion.
• Admins can't sweat the small stuff. Criticism, even sharp criticism, is not a personal attack or harassment. Commenting on past incidents is not stalking. Ignore the unkind words, focus on the substance. "Only a blind fool and complete idiot would've blocked." Well, maybe I was a blind fool and complete idiot?
• If the small stuff is getting to you, step back and do something that makes you happier.

I'll leave this thread open for a while but no more bashing, please. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:47, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I agree 100% with MPants at work. To answer NeilN's question: If there is a legitimate concern about admin conduct, it should be raised in a more formal setting like ANI. If that fails to get some level of resolution, then anyone can request that Arbcom examine it. What is not helpful is the death by 1000 cuts approach that seems transparently crafted to drive Coffee into a crisis of self-doubt and despair. Shame on some of you. FWIW, I believe NeilN's feedback has been mostly fair and diplomatic.- MrX 🖋 19:53, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

• NeilN, NBD, but I don't know why you redacted my comment. It was a sentence that followed the sentence you didn't redact about me taking mental health day off work, which is a common term for time off work or school. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:02, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

  Does it really need to explained to you that you should't post speculation about an editor's mental health?- MrX 🖋 20:11, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Sir Joseph, I was considering asking you to strike that section, myself. It's exactly the sort of thing that's not helping. I understand your frustration, but really, the best thing right now would be to close this thread and all of us stop discussing it for a while. I'd do it myself, except this is not my talk page and I don't want to overstep. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:12, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

(Sorry to post in a closed thread but I need to clarify), as I wrote in the first section, I often take a mental health day to take off work and just enjoy the day. It's a common term that just means to shut off your computer and take a day off. It had no negative connotations, I was just using the common term. I apologize if anyone read it differently, but that was not my intention. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:39, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

• I think, Neil, closing this thread is a good idea. Per MP and MrX, no reflection on what you're saying. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:14, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Jim Humble on Quackery

For your information: Jim Humble claims to have discovered MMS on his own webpage (http://jimhumble.is/about). On another webpage he claims to be the archbishop of the GENESIS-II chuch for health and healing (http://genesis2church.is/our-church). In contrary to Escape_Orbits complaint, the article in The Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/science/2010/sep/15/miracle-mineral-solutions-mms-bleach) does mention Jim Humble by name. An article in The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/autism-bleach-california-us-genesis-ii-church-mms-scientology-a7409186.html) writes "The secretive Genesis II Church was founded by Jim Humble, a former scientologist, who has claimed in a video to be a "billion-year-old god from the Andromeda galaxy". Your issue for writing unsolicited information about living people does not hold true, since Jim Humble himself tries to take all the credits for a substance, that the FDA has warned of (https://www.aboutlawsuits.com/miracle-mineral-solution-mms-warning-11838/) and the DoJ sentenced suppliers (https://www.fda.gov/ICECI/CriminalInvestigations/ucm448541.htm). Every word that I wrote in the chapter on Jim Humble either comes from his own website, from serious newspapers, or from US governmental agencies. I don't see what other sources you need. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosemann (talk • contribs) 20:18, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Rosemann. You really want to talk to the IP user who reverted you, not me (I'll invite them here). I agree this source seems okay for some claims about Humble. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:27, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for pinging me. Quackery seems like the least of the gentleman's issues, and I would agree with the characterization. Still, I have two problems with adding him to the article: One, are there WP:RELIABLE sources that make that claim specifically, and if there are, then: Two, does he meet our WP:NOTABILITY guidelines? If he doesn't, and there's no bio here on him already, I'm dubious about his inclusion in the article. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 20:50, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello NeilN, thanks for considering this issue. I very well understand that it is perhaps difficult to objectively tell if something is quackery or simply an non-traditional way of treatment. For the inherent consistence of WIkipedia, however, I'd like you to refer to the single WP entry on Miracle Mineral Supplement. Nothing that I added about Jim Humble to the quackery article is fundamentally different to the more extended description under WP Miracle Mineral Supplement. In the latter one a reference to then-Attorney General Lisa Madigan is made, describing a case of pseudo-medical MMS prescription by saying, "You have a situation where there are people, complete quacks, that are out there promoting a very dangerous chemical being given to young children... Ingesting what amounts to a toxic chemical - bleach - is not going to cure your child." Jim Humble is the "master mind" behind MMS, as one can read on his personal website and the website where he claims to be archbishop of GENESIS II, a cult that praises MMS as its holy sacrament. All their claims read like a Monthy Python joke, but it is all meant to be taken serious. The claims by Humble are so hilarious, that I also completely agree that he does not deserve a personal WP article. But the entire MMS story is perhaps a prototype of modern days quackery. I presented these additional information also to Escape_Orbit, who used to deleted my text always within seconds. But to response to my talk he did not found time yet for more than 12 hours. Strange, isn't it ? (Rosemann talk) 13:15, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

@Rosemann: This removal by Escape Orbit was according to policy and was very properly done. See WP:SYNTH: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.". This is even more important for biographies of living people. It doesn't matter the topic - quackery, politics, scandals, science, business... anything - the policies are the same. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:16, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN:Its hard to believe that a pseudo-medical treatment like MMS is blacklisted by the FDA and its trade sentenced by the DoJ (https://www.fda.gov/iceci/criminalinvestigations/ucm469831.htm), but its "inventor" Jim Humble can not only continue to mislead desperate patients via his websites, but that he can not be called a proponent of quackery in WP. If I understand your point (and WP:SYNTH) correctly, than by presenting a legal statement by an Attorney General saying "....pseudo-medical MMS [is]...prescribed by complete quacks...." and by presenting this elaborate web-presence by Jim Humble and his GENESIS II cult that claims to have pioneered MMS as therapy for virtually every disease does not permit the conclusion that Humble "invented" quackery himself ????? Honestly, this is a punch in the face of basic logical reasoning. If this Syllogism has been invalidated within WP, than bye-bye community based knowledge. (Rosemann talk) 13:30, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

@Rosemann: WP:SYNTH exists to prevent editors from making connections that haven't been reported by reliable sources. Otherwise we could have things like, "X was president of the university from 2014-2017. Y scandal occurred in 2016. Therefore X's policies caused the Y scandal" when in fact X may not have had any part in Y. Some connections are more clear-cut but if they are, they're usually reported in third party sources. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:35, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Look, even if there are direct claims that he's a quack, I don't see adding him to the article unless his notability as an individual has been established. The world is awash with phonies and hoaxters, some of whom do irreparable damage, and it's not an encyclopedia's role to list them, even if our intentions are on behalf of the public well-being. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:55, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Edit war

the dispute that led to your recent protection is becoming an issue again. please message Sports Fan 007 to put an end to this. Olsen24 (talk) 22:01, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Both of you are now blocked for two weeks. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:05, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I actually made a request for page protection on MTA Regional Bus Operations bus fleet. I was unaware of these editors being blocked. Do you mind reviewing the RFPP request? epicgenius (talk) 22:24, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Done. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:28, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Repeated insertion of original research

Asmodim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is repeatedly inserting original research in various articles and refusing to stop, despite being warned. Short of reporting them to the ANI, I'm not really sure what to do. Your help would be highly appreciated. M.Bitton (talk) 22:12, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

M.Bitton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Despite several attempts to solve this misunderstanding he refuses to engage in a discussion and indiscriminately removes everything I do under "original content". The issue here is that the Numidia article refers to the "kingdom of Numidia" an entity that disapeared with the Roman annexation and thus has nothing to do on elements from the Roman period. However the article on Africa (Roman province) deals specifically with the Roman period in North Africa, including Numidia (the Roman administrative province and not the berber kingdom) this is a problem of homonyms that he does not seem to comprehend. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asmodim (talk • contribs) 22:19, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

@M.Bitton and Asmodim: This dispute is about one issue across a series of articles, correct? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:22, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN:Yes, indeed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asmodim (talk • contribs) 22:24, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the issue is across a series of articles that Asmodim decided to "make right", by replacing reliably sourced content with their original research. M.Bitton (talk) 22:28, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

@Asmodim and M.Bitton: Okay, going slowly here. No one disputes the place was named "Numidia"? Just what is the best target article? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:32, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN: I guess, it would have to be Apuleius and Augustine of Hippo, since all other OR insertions are related to them. Both of them were Numidians (born in Numidia, as can be read in their respective Britannica articles[8][9] and hundreds of other RS). M.Bitton (talk) 22:39, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN: It was named "Numidia" but there were several "Numidia"s. The one that is relevant here is the Roman Numidia, which is not covered in the anachronic "kingdom of Numidia" that bitton wants but in Africa (Roman province). Here is a timetable of the province of Africa for more clarity:

EVOLUTION OF THE PROVINCE OF AFRICA
Pre-Roman Conquest	Carthage			Eastern Numidia (Massylii)	Western Numidia (Masaesyli)		Mauretania
by 146 BC	Africa			Numidia			Mauretania
by 105 BC	Africa			Eastern Numidia	Western Numidia	Mauretania
by 45 BC	Africa Vetus			Africa Nova	Western Numidia	Eastern Mauretania	Western Mauretania
by 27 BC	Africa Proconsularis				Mauretania
by 41 AD	Africa Proconsularis				Mauretania Caesariensis		Mauretania Tingitana
by 193 AD	Africa Proconsularis			Numidia	Mauretania Caesariensis		Mauretania Tingitana
by 314 AD	Tripolitania	Africa Byzacena	Africa Zeugitana	Numidia	Mauretania Sitifensis	Mauretania Caesariensis	Mauretania Tingitana

Legend

  Roman control

@M.Bitton: A question: Should the name be one thing but the link piped to the "most relevant" article? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:47, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN: The most relevant article is Numidia. The fact that is was divided at one point into east Numidia and west Numidia makes no difference, it's all part of its history. M.Bitton (talk) 22:51, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Okay. Asmodim, what makes your target article have better content for this particular context? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:55, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

The article Roman province of Africa, refers to all the historical, economic, cultural and political aspects of the region under the Roman era, while the Numidia article treats of the berber kingdom that happened to share the same name of one subdivision of the African probince and is anachronic in this context.Asmodim (talk) 23:01, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN: Please do not pay any attention to the table (EVOLUTION OF THE PROVINCE OF AFRICA). It's wrong. Numidia, regained its independence and became a separate province in AD 40. M.Bitton (talk) 23:06, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

@Asmodim and M.Bitton: At this point I suggest we call in an editor skilled in giving third opinions. I can do so if you want. You can keep the conversation here or move it to a place of your choosing (I suggest Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Africa). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:12, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN: If that's ok with you, I wouldn't mind keeping it here. M.Bitton (talk) 23:16, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Sure, if Asmodim agrees, I'll list it at WP:3O. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:17, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN: At this point, a possible solution would be to create a new article "Numidia (Roman province)" or category in Africa (Roman province) providing @M.Bitton: would take care of the references specifically for this subdivision if he insists for having Numidia written in wikipediaAsmodim (talk) 23:21, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't mind giving a third opinion, and I don't mind brushing up on my Roman history to do so. I'm just about to leave work; as soon as I get home, I'll look over some of the sources and edits and chime in with any thoughts I have. Glad to see you guys both making an effort to work this out! ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:30, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Asmodim There is no need to create a new article. Numidia (the Roman province) is already partly covered in the numidia article. If more content is warranted, it will be added. M.Bitton (talk) 23:44, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

MPants at work Thank you. M.Bitton (talk) 23:46, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

M.Bitton The issue here is that the article deals mainly with the berber kingdom of Numidia and not the Roman province while the 2 are seperate (by some centuries) and are very much unrelated.Asmodim (talk) 23:49, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Asmodim Here's your chance to improve it, just like I did a minute ago. That said, Wikipedia's content is governed by certain core policies, including the non negotiable verifiability. So if the WP:RS say that X is born in Numidia and describe him/her as Numidian, then it's not for me, you or anyone else to say otherwise. M.Bitton (talk) 00:11, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

M.Bitton No need, the current Numidia page is about a different entity than we are speaking of, I prefered creating the page for Numidia (Roman province) as in the french wikipedia and so the case is closed.Asmodim (talk) 01:15, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

@Asmodim: There's a huge amount of unsourced content on that page so M.Bitton may not agree the case is closed. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:19, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

@Neil: You did not count the bibliography.Asmodim (talk) 01:22, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Asmodim and M.Bitton: Sorry about the delay, there. I had to drive home, feed my kids and read up some.

Asmodim, I see you already created Numidia (Roman province). To be honest, it needs a lot of work. The first citation is (or rather, was) broken, and while it's acceptable to use non-English sources, English sources would be best. I'm unable to verify anything in it because I don't read French. I suspect from the sheer paucity of inline cites that a number of new citations will be necessary. It also needs a lead section. But given what I've read in the sources found in Numidia, I don't think it's undue to have that separate article.

Bitton, since the new article is created already, would you object to Asmodim linking to that for references to the Roman province? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:25, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

MjolnirPants Yes I do mind. The Numidia article deals with the provinces, there is no need (other than a WP:POVFORK) to create a new article. M.Bitton (talk) 01:30, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

What would be the POV in question to motivate the fork? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:31, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

jolnirPants 1) It could be a number of things that I'd rather not guess atm. What is certain is that Numidia (the Roman province) is part of the long history of Numidia and is already covered in the Numidia article. 2) The newly created article is full of WP:OR (the very thing that brought us here). M.Bitton (talk) 01:37, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Okay, well do you think you could improve it? If you can't describe the POV it's pushing, I don't think it's likely to be a POV fork. It may very well be undue, but I'm not too sure about that, based on some of the references. See this google search result (for the exact phrase "Roman province of Numidia"), for a list of cities with WP articles that were founded by Rome, in the Roman province, as well as what looks like a few good sources later on in the list. And that's just one particular phrase.

But assuming you're right, would it be acceptable to link figures from the Roman period directly to that subsection of the page? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:00, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

@MjolnirPants: Regarding the POVFORK: I was referring to the insertion of WP:OR content under a title that should clearly be made a redirect to an existing article. The fact that the editor created it while a discussion is taking place and declared that the case is closed, and that despite the numerous warnings to stop adding WP:OR to articles, only reinforces my conviction. The only properly sourced bit in the whole of article is the one I added to the Numidia article, which they copied (that's the extent of how much work they're willing to put in).

Okay, well do you think you could improve it? Frankly, I doubt I can do better than the reliable tertiary sources (Britannica, Oxford, etc.) who treat the history of Numidia (including its Roman provinces) under one article. The lack of serious coverage, the often contradictory sources and their use of time dependent descriptions (east of X in 100 AD, becoming west of X in 150 AD), etc., require a deep understanding of the subject, something that I cannot claim to posess.

But assuming you're right, would it be acceptable to link figures from the Roman period directly to that subsection of the page? While I do not see the need to do so, if such a solution brings peace and stops the WP:OR insertions, then I will not object to it. M.Bitton (talk) 20:12, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Okay, that looks like a solution, then. Asmodim, why don't you work on expanding that subsection, then use it as a target for your links (I can show you how to link to a specific subsection if needed), and I presume, M.Bitton that you would be willing to help Asmodim expand that section (using only reliably sourced information, of course)? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:16, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

MjolnirPants Sure thing. We also need to redirect the newly created article to Numidia. M.Bitton (talk) 20:23, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

M.Bitton Of course. As soon as Asmodim agrees. I've watchlisted both pages, so I'll kick in whenever I'm able. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:30, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

White's club London

An editor has initiated edit warring by refusing to accept a source from a national newspaper (the daily mail) and claims that evidence (real evidence, which is a legal term for things such as CCTV/video recording of an incident) is a 'spam' link to youtube when in fact it is not a 'spam' link at all, and doesn't meet the definition of spam.

This club is a male only club which was condemned by the former prime minister david cameron, and the fact that women activists have entered and staged a protest inside the building's dining room and entrance, which was all captured on video, is of importance to the wikipedia page, is an actual and factual event and is also posted on social media. Denial of this event is unacceptable.

I am quite happy to engage with anyone on a discussion page, but when links are referred to arbitrarily as spam, this is clearly a political motive to protect the 'reputation' of this club.

Please let me know how you suggest it would be best to proceed, and is there such a thing as an arbitrator on wikipedia who can see logic in a dispute? thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.98.211.168 (talk) 15:27, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello. Please see our bold, revert, discuss essay. You made a change, somebody else reverted, and now you should use Talk:White's to explain why your change meets Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and improves the article. Other interested editors will join the discussion if they so choose. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:33, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Also see WP:DAILYMAIL. Wikipedia has a clear written policy against using the Daily Mail as a source, in light of their history of fabrication; if a story is genuinely notable in Wikipedia's terms, a legitimate news source will have covered it and you should use that as the source; if nobody other than the Mail has covered it, then the topic is by definition not notable in Wikipedia terms, since we require coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. ‑ Iridescent 10:25, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Disruptive editor

Hi NeilN, I thought you should know that Andrew1588 is back to the same disruptive cut-and-paste move vandalism you blocked them for a couple weeks ago. Sro23 (talk) 22:44, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Nevermind, blocked by Ronhjones. Sro23 (talk) 01:56, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

User Bijanii

Hi there, your input is requested about User:Bijanii here. Thanks! UCaetano (talk) 04:42, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Declined the report and explained why. [10] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:56, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Mountains and molehills

I do not want to make a mountain out of a molehill by heading to ANI, so I hoped you could take a moment to look at a situation for me. I have been publicly threatened with a block here, and I cannot see where this user is an Admin. There is a lot of problematic behavior around this article the last few days, and before I do anything I would like your opinion. This small group of editors has apparently scared a new editor away by their behavior. You can see discussions here and here. Thank you for your time and attention! Scr★pIron^IV 15:17, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) They're not an admin. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:21, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

@ScrapIronIV: Thank you for raising this. Absolutely unacceptable behavior. I've warned both editors on the article talk page and their own talk pages. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:42, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much for addressing this. Scr★pIron^IV 15:44, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Mossad

How exactly are my edits disruptive? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.82.55.0 (talk) 20:42, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Replied here. Let's keep the conversation in one place, please. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:46, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Is this vandalism?

Hello Neil,

So I was patrolling through recent changes and I noticed a new user Bill Wong rapidly making edits, so far they've made around ~275 (equalling on average 0.3 bytes) and they were only created today. While editing is the purpose of Wikipedia, their edits are all minor spacing edits [11] and [12] that can easily be done in one swoop or left be. I am still trying to AGF here, I sometimes forget to use show preview too, so I left them a message on their talk page but they ignored it and continue to clog up edit histories on Chinese dynasty pages, like Zhou dynasty. Now this can easily just be a case of a confused editor and maybe I should leave them a second reminder but I am wondering if you have any other suggestions? Thank you, HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 21:00, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi HickoryOughtShirt?4. I've blocked 12 hours for disruptive editing so we can find out what they're up to. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:06, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Alright, thank you for being so quick. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 21:07, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Respond to unblock

Thank you, about my last page edit, I will return to make corrections, because it was not completed and don't be afraid of me !👍 Bill Wong (talk) 21:27, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

List of unsolved problems in physics (Talkpage)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Arianewiki1 (talk) 07:55, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Why NeilN as well as Oshwah should not be an admin

The purpose of my posting on Oshwah's talk page at User_talk:Oshwah#Why_Oshwah_should_not_be_an_admin was to give him a chance to respond, not anyone else, including you. Why are you closing discussions on other user's talk pages anyway? Who do you think you are? Oh, I see. Yet another admin. You guys are unbelievable. And I'll bet you're oblivious. If you're ever on the board of an HOA, I feel for the other owners. --В²C ☎ 21:47, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

@Born2cycle: He has responded. Multiple times. Just because you don't like an editor's answers doesn't mean you get to keep on bludgeoning them. The avenue you should take was pointed out to you but I suspect you already know how that will turn out. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:12, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

I have no idea how it might turn out. Thankfully I've largely been able to avoid the workings of Arbcom. I guess I'll find out. Thanks. But behavior like your closing that discussion only persuades me more that we have a serious problem with authoritarian syndrome among the admins here. I wasn't really aware of it until this incident, which at first I thought was an anomaly. --В²C ☎ 22:18, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Why do people keep reverting your edits? Hmmm... maybe because you're rude, inflammatory, and over-the-top, and everyone else is fed up. Lepricavark (talk) 22:39, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

• Actually It was an accidental rollback, which I didn't notice. And for which, of course, I apologise and will try to take more care in future. Although it does seen to have been almost serendipitous all the same! >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 06:59, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

 On hold until Neil replies, ignores, or removes. Note: when someone is riled up, a 3rd party removing their comments does not un-rile them up. NeilN can handle this, and has not said "don't post here anymore". Let him handle it. If he doesn't respond, B2C need not post here again. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:39, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Floquenbeam, Neil has responded, and I appreciate it.

Lepricavark, I don't mean to be rude, but please remember that I was responding to Neil closing a section I started on another user's talk page. But I'll tone it down. Thanks. --В²C ☎ 22:44, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Basically I was going to let В²C have the last word. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:50, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

User:Ikbda97

Ikbda97 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) looks like a Olsen24 sock. Ducky enough to block, or should I file an SPI? Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:30, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Why is everyone accusing me of being another user? I am trying to edit the site and everyone is reverting me because they think I'm someone else! I haven't done anything to the site that would require a block or to receive this level of resentment from other users Ikbda97 (talk) 02:34, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

@Pi.1415926535: I needs diffs that show similar editing, please. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:47, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Both accounts are single-purpose accounts that edit the same three articles - two of which are rather obscure. Account was created barely a day after Olsen24 was blocked; within four edits, they are already reverting a user Olsen24 had been arguing with (what brand-new user understands the revert button?) - an edit that re-added one of Olsen24's images. This series of edits by Ikbda97 demonstrates several typical behaviors of Olsen24: adding excessive sig figs to the convert template (again, what brand-new user is going to do that?), adding Olsen24's images to the article, adding and changing uncited numbers of buses in service, and a general lack of edit summaries. There's also some circumstantial evidence which wags a finger in the direction of socking. The names are alarmingly similar - 5 letters and 2 numbers, and even adjacent letter keys on the keyboard. And Ikbda97 somehow replied here within 4 minutes of me posting this, even though {{userlinks}} does not produce a ping. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:43, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

@Pi.1415926535: Sock blocked, master's block extended one month. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:54, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Michael Young (basketball, born 1994)

Hello Neil, me again. Sorry if you're starting to get bored of me! You probably regret saying I could ping you to check if edits were good faith.

I did not know whether it was too early to open an ANI or 3RR about this and I felt there wasn't enough recent vandalism to warrant page protection, however, I am beginning to become annoyed at constantly reverting these IPs edits. Young's height was changed to 6'8 on January 13 that went unnoticed until I popped by doing recent changes patrolling.[13] I reverted and sourced two reliable sources (espn and basketball ref) in my edit summary [14]. Despite my encouragement [15] [16] to discuss this matter on the talk page these IPs seem to prefer to revert and ignore me. I told them I had sources to explain the change in height and even posted it on the article's talk page [17] which fell on deaf ears.

Is there anything that can be done? These two IPs have not made any edits besides the ones to Michael Young. I understand if you feel it is too early to do much, I just wanted to nip it in the bud. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 04:20, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi HickoryOughtShirt?4. You're always welcome here. The IPs may be trying to match what is listed (and sourced) as his college prep height of 6'8". To make it really clear, how about adding the ESPN reference beside the current height? I will also keep an eye on the article. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:40, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Oh thank you. I just had no idea where they were getting this source from. Thank you, I will go ahead and add it. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 04:45, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Another IP edited his height and deleted the citation I posted. I sent them a message encouraging them to take it to the talk page. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 19:09, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Semied a month. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:14, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

WP:ADMINACCT

Hello, NeilN. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Request_concerning_EEng.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

— Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 06:32, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

[18] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:38, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Mehmet Oz

WP:BLP says "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." But sure. Now what? Athene cunicularia (talk) 14:09, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

@Athene cunicularia: Are you contending the material is poorly sourced? I see another editor disputing that. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:17, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Authors who want to make sure a defamatory claim stays in the lede are saying "No," while putting the onus on me to explain myself. This is the exact opposite of what WP:BLP says.

"Many people agree including a Senator" doesn't prove the claim, full stop. Many people agree God exists, including Senators.

I'm not disputing the body of evidence or that the allegations belong prominently in the article. But it's an allegation, not a fact. And once you add "alleged" it's very clear it doesn't belong in the lede.

It's disappointing that as an admin you wouldn't immediately see this. This is exactly why I gave up on Wikipedia a few years ago. The voices in favor of POV are much louder than those in favor of neutrality and there's really no point in even trying. Athene cunicularia (talk) 15:02, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

@Athene cunicularia: BLP is not there to be a shield against negative material. If properly sourced, editors must decide, by looking at the sources, if the negative allegations are one of the things the subject is best known for. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:13, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Not negative material, but defamatory claims, yes. As I said, I have no issue with its inclusion in the article. It just doesn't belong on the lede, or without qualification. This is a mob's opinion masquerading as fact. A widely held allegation is still an allegation. Athene cunicularia (talk) 15:30, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

@Athene cunicularia: I suggest you be careful tossing around the phrase, "defamatory claims" as you are invoking a policy with legal considerations. And you need to convince other editors the sources presented constitute a "mob". --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:36, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Except that's exactly what I'm saying, and why I'm surprised as an admin, you don't see that right away. The portrayal of the allegation as fact, and its location, are a clear attempt to defame. The mob I'm referring to is the editors who are quick to revert in order to preserve the POV. BLP clearly says the onus is on them to prove it's not defamatory, and all they've said so far is "No." Athene cunicularia (talk) 16:26, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Admins don't override what reliable published sources say. You are accusing these sources of publishing defamatory statements? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:39, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

As I said, I have no issue with inclusion of the allegations in the article, even prominently. My issue is with portraying those allegations as fact in the lede of the Wikipedia article. The lede says he is a pseudoscience promoter without qualification. It does this in his list of provable professional qualifications, randomly sandwiched between "cardiothoracic surgeon, Columbia University professor" and "author, and television personality". It is also a direct quote from an opinion piece, yet it is unquoted in the lede. This is a clear attempt by some Wikipedia editors to defame the subject of the article. It should be moved to the third paragraph with the other criticism, and it should be qualified with a word like "alleged." Otherwise it is defamatory. Athene cunicularia (talk) 16:55, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker)@Athene cunicularia: I have responded to your assertions at the talk page. In short, a study was published in a highly respected, peer-reviewed journal of medicine that unequivocally supports the claim that Oz is a promoter of pseudoscience. Given the additional fact that there are no reliable sources disputing this; it is our policy to state the assertion that Oz promotes pseudoscience as a fact, and not to characterize it as being doubtful in any way.

I would also advise you to heed NeilN's warnings about the use of legal threats, such as by labeling these statements "defamatory" and stating that they were intentionally inserted by editors for that purpose. If you continue to make these allegations, Neil will be well within his rights (and indeed, even fully expected to by many editors) to block you indefinitely, until such time as you retract them. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:00, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Describing something as legally dubious does not constitute a legal threat. Athene cunicularia (talk) 17:04, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps, but your descriptions both here and at the Oz talk, would be described by some as personal attacks. -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 17:08, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Wouldn't I have to attack someone personally in order for it to be a personal attack? Athene cunicularia (talk) 17:12, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

@Athene cunicularia: Saying experienced editors are committing libel is never a good idea. You can email info-en-q@wikipedia.org and see what the WMF thinks of the content. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:09, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm an experienced editor too. I don't see how that's relevant. Athene cunicularia (talk) 17:12, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

@Athene cunicularia: Because it is the inexperienced editors who say things like, "X is a fraud who helps murder people" without any sources (libel) while experienced editors make sure that negative statements are properly backed up by quality sources (not libel). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:17, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

2A00:23C5:11F5:E700:E99B:E03:5DE9:28AA...

may have evaded your earlier block - Geolocate shows that is from Kent, editing Coldplay related articles. Iggy (Swan) 15:49, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

@Iggy the Swan: Blocked. Thanks for reporting. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:53, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Blacklist removal for Susan Collett - thank you

Thats appreciate Neil! SensoriamSensoriam (talk) 16:22, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	For constantly helping out with resolving disputes, the edit war noticeboard, and all the while being extremely respectful to all! Lord David, Duke of Glencoe (talk) 20:23, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Lord David, Duke of Glencoe, thank you! --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:46, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

NeilN, side question, if you are the victim of a 3RR dispute, do you have to post a request on the noticeboard and have another admin answer it or can you resolve the dispute yourself, i.e. blocking/protecting pages? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DJ-Joker16 (talk • contribs) 20:49, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Lord David, Duke of Glencoe, see WP:INVOLVED: "In general, editors should not act as administrators in disputed cases in which they have been involved." So if I'm working on an article as an editor, I cannot use my admin tools to help keep the article the way I want it to be. For edit warring, I need to post on the noticeboard like anyone else. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:04, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Abusive behavior

Reverting edits three times in a row is unacceptable behavior and wastes editpr's time. Please review Wikipedia:Banning_policy#Edits_by_and_on_behalf_of_banned_editors if you need assistance with how we do things on Wikipedia so that your account is not suspended or banned. If you need assistance with how we do things on Wikipedia, please ask someone. For details on how to behavior and Wikipedia practices, policies, and guidelines, please also review Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines. We value your services as a volunteer editor but your disruptive behavior makes other editors frustrated. Thanks for your understanding. BiologistBabe (talk) 21:09, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, thanks for sparing me the effort of watching for your return ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ ScrapIronIV, don't think you'll have to worry about this "admin" any more. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:17, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

You really have to wonder what, exactly, she expected to accomplish by threatening to block an admin. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:20, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

The silly message is one thing, this, after being warned to stop playing games, is another. I'm also wondering what's up with TrainsOnTime and Damotclese. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:26, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

I was actually looking for that diff on her TP history (to be sure you saw it) when I noticed her last edit was to remove the block notice. I've already restored it, so you don't need to. Given the way those two seemed to look up to this one, I suspect someone might be trying to play off different characters. A CU might shed some light on that. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:31, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

LOL nevermind: Ponyo was blocking them per a CU as I was writing that... ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:32, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

The pejorative

Hi, Neil - would it be best if I simply nominate that page as a speedy delete, or can you simply do it? It was in the NPP feed, but as I explained to Kudz, my AfD ended up under the old AfD, so it appears that maybe the close was done incorrectly. Appreciate anything you can do to get rid of that page - it doesn't belong in our encyclopedia. I'll do whatever you think is best. ^{Atsme📞📧} 10:52, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi Atsme. No speedy delete conditions apply to that article so it will have to go to AFD. Twinkle should be able to do the nomination properly (when you did it, you didn't create Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Libtard (2nd nomination)). If you can't get it to work, let me know and I will do it for you. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:47, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Poopers, NeilN - it did the same thing using Twinkle. I used the TW dashboard, but it isn't creating the 2nd nom. It simply adds to the bottom of the 1st AfD. See the bottom of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Libtard - and please delete that notice. I deleted on the blocked user's page already. Are you saying I have to create the 2nd nom page 1st? Never had to do that before... ^{Atsme📞📧} 23:52, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

• While I think an admin might want to take a good long look at the contribs of the editor who wrote the initial version of that page, I personally don't think the page needs to go. It's been covered in the RSes, and while it's offensive, WP is not censored. I've already spot checked this editor's contribs. Every single one I checked was either blatant vandalism or agenda-driven OR. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:40, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

• @Atsme: The nomination has been successfully created, I see. @MjolnirPants: I wish more editors active in this area would help out by putting {{subst:alert|ap}} on problematic editors' talk pages (yes, eyeroll to "It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date."). Notification really does help curb and control future disruption. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:41, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

I'll make a point of keeping an eye out for editors who haven't gotten one recently. It never even occurred to me when I took a look into this one. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:19, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, indeed it was, NeilN. Thank you for keeping this issue in your sights. I'm still trying to digest the steps Malcolmxl5 had to take because I prefer to not disturb others with issues I should be able to resolve. I don't think the curation tool is the issue. It appears that the old AfD was not closed properly and that a page move was involved but I'm not sure of the why or how. This happened to me once before but did not involve a pejorative - especially one that may negatively effect my position as a NPOV editor . I do find it problematic that WP:NOTDICTIONARY #3, tends to be overridden from time to time when "the sum of all knowledge" is misconstrued. Wikipedia actually defines why such words are not acceptable: Wikipedia:Encyclopedic#Content policies and guidelines which links to the definition of encyclopedic - #2. (lexicography) Relating to or containing descriptive information rather than only linguistic or lexical information; about facts and concepts, and not only a word or term; including proper names, biographical and geographical information and illustrations. I also noticed that attempts to keep antonyms of that term have failed at AfD as well they should. ^{Atsme📞📧} 14:13, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Civility in infobox discussions case opened

You were recently listed as a party to or recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility in infobox discussions. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility in infobox discussions/Evidence. Please add your evidence by February 17, 2018, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility in infobox discussions/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:49, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2018).

Administrator changes

None

Blurpeace • Dana boomer • Deltabeignet • Denelson83 • Grandiose • Salvidrim! • Ymblanter

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC has closed with a consensus that candidates at WP:RFA must disclose whether they have ever edited for pay and that administrators may never use administrative tools as part of any paid editing activity, except when they are acting as a Wikipedian-in-Residence or when the payment is made by the Wikimedia Foundation or an affiliate of the WMF.
• Editors responding to threats of harm can now contact the Wikimedia Foundation's emergency address by using Special:EmailUser/Emergency. If you don't have email enabled on Wikipedia, directly contacting the emergency address using your own email client remains an option.

Technical news

• A tag will now be automatically applied to edits that blank a page, turn a page into a redirect, remove/replace almost all content in a page, undo an edit, or rollback an edit. These edits were previously denoted solely by automatic edit summaries.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee has enacted a change to the discretionary sanctions procedure which requires administrators to add a standardized editnotice when placing page restrictions. Editors cannot be sanctioned for violations of page restrictions if this editnotice was not in place at the time of the violation.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:52, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

February 2018

Hey I'm very sorry but I think (User:ChocolateRabbit) has created a new account called (User:RemoteXbox) because he is disrupting other editors. You need to block him for indefinite please before he gets out of control. 82.19.95.171 ^Talk 10:43, 04 February 2018 (UTC)

Blocked. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:57, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Clarification on legal threats

I would be curious to get your take on this edit summary. As there has been so much drama about legal threats, I figured I would ask someone whose experience I trust look at it before doing anything. Thanks in advance! Scr★pIron^IV 14:46, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

@ScrapIronIV: The editor gets the same basic treatment as anyone stopping short of saying, "I will sue you" - a NLT template and a strict warning not to do it again. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:34, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I saw some ambiguity there; wasn't sure if they were threatening or just aggressively "informing" if you catch my drift. Scr★pIron^IV 17:08, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Heads up

Per this message/block issued on this user (please see here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Raifujimaru#February_2018), i think it would be a good idea to revert all edits by them (just saw a couple of "contributions" - and reverted of course) which were downright disruptive (i.e. the inflation of footballer statistics in their infoboxes), and they have the nerve to insult other people for undoing their "work".

Attentively, continue the good work from Portugal --Quite A Character (talk) 16:16, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

@Quite A Character: Most of their edits will have to be fixed manually if there are issues as the articles have been subsequently edited. You might want to ask for help here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:25, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Block or topic ban?

[Nelson Muntz voice]: Ha-ha. I know it's ungracious of me to be pleased to have beaten you to it, Neil, but that's only because it's so rare. You generally work about ten times faster than me. Anyway, IMO, we don't need no stinkin' discretionary sanctions for that kind of thing. Bishonen | talk 21:48, 5 February 2018 (UTC).

(talk page stalker)Uh oh. Dem's fightin words. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:50, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

@Bishonen: I was going to add an edit summary something like, "Hear Bish roar! Discretionary sanctions? No more!" --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:56, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Editor using their sandbox to park coding that seems to have nothing to do with WP...

I've come across an editor who seems to be using WP space (as in their sandbox) for parking heavily coded charts + html. They haven't meaningfully edited WP - as in editing anything other than their user sandbox - since sometime in 2014. Is using WP space to park content against the rules? Seems like it should be but I'm not sure if there's anything that can or should be done about it. Thanks in advance for any advice. Shearonink (talk) 23:15, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) See WP:NOTWEBHOST. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:23, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

@Shearonink: WP:NOTWEBHOST and a warning not to create inappropriate pages. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:53, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for weighing in NeilN & MPants at work, I knew there was something - just couldn't remember what the page/guideline/policy was. I am not sure what is going on with this page and this editor. I became aware of this editor when they were actively editing other areas in WP back in 2013 & came across this content as an AfC submission (which was subsequently abandoned in its AfC state). If anyone wants to take a look at the page in question it's User:Vidal101/sandbox & it's gotten fairly massive. Shearonink (talk) 15:03, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) This looks like the sort of data that the sockmaster User:Weathertrustchannel and his socks used to put up on geographical articles, but it can be found in legitimate use as well. If this is not a sockpuppet, and there are articles for the locations specified in the sandbox, then it may be a legitimate set of climate data intended to be integrated to articles. Just my 2¢... Scr★pIron^IV 16:04, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

ScrapIronIV Yeah, that could have been the case but after just now doing some further research...it isn't. All the places I checked that are mentioned in this sandbox are fictional, the only reference I was able to find to the place "Mamalojo" is on a city-data.com forum thread called "Rate this fictional climate" (see this), which, in turn, leads to all these other city-date forum threads. City-data is the only place I found on the internet that has this content (though there is an identically-named Reddit community with no posts). Shearonink (talk) 18:04, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I found it there, too. I agree that it needs to be nuked. Maybe take it to MfD or some such. Scr★pIron^IV 18:19, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Page deleted. Left a note for the editor. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:36, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Whitewashing articles

I think these edits constitute deliberate whitewashing of an article, which seems to be the purpose of that contributor on Wikipedia because they're been doing the same thing to the Sanjay Singh article. The two article subjects are connected and are politicians, so I suppose it is most likely that the contributor is either family or supporter. In any event, I think they need to be sanctioned if you have the time and inclination. - Sitush (talk) 10:48, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

No worries now - Bishonen has blocked for two weeks. - Sitush (talk) 11:49, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

B. R. Ambedkar edit warring

Hi Neil, I need help with this user. After loads and loads of discussion, he still goes and deletes the content on the B. R. Ambedkar page. And I have no idea why this talk page (of an apparent friend) is talking to me. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:06, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Replied here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:08, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi NeilN, Thanx for ur inteference. Regarding primary source i was quoting directly from the books of Dr. Ambedkar which were written by him only,which are reliable source since Dr.Ambedkar was the most controversial figure like Voltaire or Martin Luther.The upper castes in India never liked to present the real facts and truths which he wrote in his books.So i asked Kautilya3 to discuss by quoting the Dr.Ambedkar's book without quoting 3rd person because it will lead to appropriation of his thoughts.I have no interest in harming wikipedia or manipulate Information on Wikipedia but suspicious and adamant behaviour of Kautilya3 suggests he has some sinister motives.Udairatna (talk) 15:19, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

@Udairatna: I strongly suggest you stop casting aspersions before you are blocked as we have less tolerance than usual for that kind of nonsense in this area. Kautilya3 is trying to explain why we use secondary sources to interpret primary sources. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:24, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Plz tell me why secondary source is more reliable than primary source?.I asked kautilya3 also but he cannot answer my questions.If you can answer,plz tell,i m here.Udairatna (talk) 15:28, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

@Udairatna: Primary sources can be used as sources for uncontentious facts. Secondary sources are used for contentious facts and analysis of primary sources as they are intellectually independent of the primary source. For example, a politician can hardly be counted on to provide a neutral or even accurate description of their actions, right? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:38, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

hi NeilN,Thanx for replying.Now please tell me if you are writing Dr.Ambedkars views and his biography,which book you will prefer?Book written by Dr.Ambedkar himself or Book written by third guy who could have any motive in writing about some topic and taking Dr.Ambedkar's name fakely.plz tell me what shud be truth? and what is the use of wikipedia page if you cnt tell real views of person?Udairatna (talk) 15:45, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

@Udairatna: I am emphatically not getting involved in this content dispute. I will tell (as I have before) you what is Wikipedia policy. "All analyses and interpretive or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary or tertiary source, and must not be an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." You can use a subject's books as a source of quotes. You cannot explain or imply what these quotes mean. That's the job of secondary sources. If you don't like the sources used then I suggest you find other secondary sources or write a paper detailing the "real views" of the subject and get it published by an academic press or journal so we can use it as a source. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:55, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Ok thanx for ur help n guidance n btw i was saying same thing that i will use quotes from the book directly without explaining the meaning myself.But kautilya3 was not agreeing. .Udairatna (talk) 17:37, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello, @NeilN @ JimRenge as long as wikipedia articles i have read, nobody have indicated person by their surname, then why Dr. Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar called by their surname throughout the article? Except first line? Please give me convincing answer. Waiting for your reply. Sonamankush 06:51, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

@Sonamankush: I don't know what you're reading but it isn't Wikipedia articles. I suggest you stop wasting the time of other editors by making these kinds of claims. The guideline is MOS:SURNAME: "After the initial mention of any name, the person should generally be referred to by surname only, without an honorific prefix such as "Mr", "Mrs", "Ms", "Miss", or "Mx" or by a pronoun." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:00, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Rouge IP address

I have found an IP address (192.5.110.4) that is clearly WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. Should he/she be blocked? (I'm not an admin, so I can't do this myself). Every875 ^{Talk to me} 22:05, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi Every875. We don't block IP addresses indefinitely. There was a bout of vandalism on January 28th but some good edits before then. If the IP is used for vandalism again then it will probably be blocked for a period of time. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:18, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Adi Agashe

Hi, I am at loss regarding what to do after these edits. The contributor has removed the CSD tag but the tag was because it seems to be a recreation of the article deleted via AfD last time round. Does it really have to go back to AfD? The article subject is clearly a self-promoter and almost certainly the creator. I realise that CSD removal usually means AfD next but that does seem rather bizarre for this particular CSD rationale. - Sitush (talk) 04:07, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

@Sitush: I've deleted the article. The recreation was substantially the same and did not address issues raised at the AFD. The AFD ran for more than seven days and would have closed as delete had it been closed independently from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sheetal Agashe. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:28, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Ok, thanks - that's a good rationale, whether it in strictly in policy or IAR. The anons seemed to be making a phenomenal number of edits to get, well, nowhere in particular but I do sometimes wonder whether I have remembered the original article correctly or whether the new one is substantially different. He'll be back. - Sitush (talk) 04:33, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

SPI

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mourinho01. The managers Jose Mourinho and Jurgen Klopp, both suffixed with "01". Got to be a duck. - Sitush (talk) 18:23, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Quack. Blocked. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:30, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Singh family

You semi-protected Sanjay Singh earlier today. Whether the disruption is coming from socks or meats or just old-fashioned relatives, Ameeta Singh could do with some attention and I think sooner or later we will find that Garima Singh will also become a target. This is all related to a disputed divorce case. - Sitush (talk) 20:39, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Ameeta Singh semied and I'll keep an eye on Garima Singh. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:23, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks very much. - Sitush (talk) 21:24, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Wrestlemania 35

hello NeilN can i ask you a question, can you create the Wrestlemania 35 page ? Thefanofwwe (talk) 21:36, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi Thefanofwwe. Wrestlemania 34 takes place in April and your draft for 35 is empty. What verifiable info are you going to add to it? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:39, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Request for assessment

Dear Neil, I wonder whether I may ask you to make critical assessment of our article (ZenerPrize)and update the Assessment Table? The first version (START status) was completed several weeks ago. In the meantime, the first draft successfully evolved into the final article: (1) the text and Tables were carefully edited, (2) a new unique content was appended (3) bugs are eliminated, (4) The number of references increased (pertinent references were only selected). I would be grateful for your critical comments as an editor with such a long experience. Could you let me know your suggestions how to make this article better ('perfect'?) We intend to collect a bunch of licence-free photos of laureates. Apart of this time-consuming task it sounds that the article is ready. What is your opinion? This consultation is crucial since the article, published in English, may soon be translated into few other languages. With warm greetings, OmegaMS (talk) 13:49, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi OmegaMS. The article looks well sourced. The things I would add is who had the idea of renaming the ICIFUAS Prize, how it was first funded, and how is it now funded. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:11, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Observation

You must be doing something right. Just sayin. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 17:04, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Guess so. In case anyone was wondering, emergency has already been informed about the threats to the WMF. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:06, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Wow, and I thought some of my attackers were scabrous! --Orange Mike | Talk 02:26, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Manoj Ranjan Yadav

Big problems with caste glorification by Manoj Ranjan Yadav (talk · contribs) at Yadav and Yadava. They had the same issue last October and were notified of sanctions by SpacemanSpiff. Spiffy isn't very active at the moment, so could you or one of your watching admins please take a look? Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 14:57, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Yeah. Why muck about with SPA caste warriors? I've banned them from caste-related pages. On past form, they'll probably ignore it, but then I'll just have to explain. [Bishonen realises what she's in for. Weeps.] Bishonen | talk 15:15, 9 February 2018 (UTC).

OK, thanks, Bish. The Yadav article could probably use a couple of revdels. - Sitush (talk) 15:24, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

I got one. What's the other? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:25, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Identifying info, eg: here. - Sitush (talk) 15:27, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Ah, you found it. All done, folks. I will leave Bish to deal with the almost inevitable next step. Counting down from now ... 3, 2, 1 ... - Sitush (talk) 15:30, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Edit summaries, article edits, topic ban, logging of topic ban... Dude has like twenty edits. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:32, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Actually not me, Sitush; RegentsPark has already blocked them for 48 hours for violating the ban. Bishonen | talk 15:36, 9 February 2018 (UTC).

I want to be an wiki editor

I know you are employee at wiki as editor...please give me job opportunity as wiki editor How much salary of yours ? Thanq (49.206.97.239 (talk) 18:00, 9 February 2018 (UTC))

Editors are unpaid volunteers so you can jump in right away and contribute and get the same salary as the rest of us. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:39, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Can I get a raise? :p --Church ^Talk 22:36, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

How long do I have to work here before I get a reserved parking space? General Ization ^Talk 22:37, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

@Church: Yes, the cabal has authorized me to give you a 50% pay raise. @General Ization: Here you go: User:NeilN/General Ization's reserved parking space. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:43, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Somebody has already parked there. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 05:08, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Why did you delete my Sandbox?????

Was it needed? Was it somehow taking on valuable Wikipedia space? I understand the sandbox is for submitting articles but I was simply entertaining my fascination with climates... Was it offending you? Was it damaging your life? Its been on Wiki for years until you come along and delete it.... ........................... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vidal101 (talk • contribs) 19:15, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

@Vidal101: See this section above. There are a lot of places on the web where you can host climate stats on fantasy cities. Wikipedia isn't one of them. Same goes for sports fantasy leagues, specs for fantasy cars, recipes for fantasy foods, etc. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:25, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

The Cabal

So now I guess I'm officially a member of The Cabal and I was just wondering if there was any secret handshake or anything I should know. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:03, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

@MjolnirPants: Despite what you may have heard, there are no reserved parking spaces. Ignore anyone who tells you otherwise. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:34, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Uh huh, now you've made me suspicious. Next, you'll be offering to take me Snipe hunting. I'M WISE TO YOUR GAMES!! ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:50, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Well I do parking enforcement and write tickets for people parked in handicapped and in non-allowed spaces. I just park wherever I want to, write myself a ticket and put it on my own windshield so another enforcement patroller doesn't write me one, and just rip up my copy of it. I actually knew people in college who did this... friggin' genius... LOL ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:42, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

I used to know a head shop where -if you asked just right- they'd sell you forged blank parking ticket for just that purpose. There was other stuff they sold out of the back, too. They didn't last long, unsurprisingly, but I was sad to see them go. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:50, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

@Oshwah: On an unrelated note: I actually read about half of your response in the thread below this one, thinking it was your response to me. Confused the hell out of me for a few seconds, because it was just similar enough to something a completely humorless (and clueless) admin might say to me. I was reading it thinking "Who the hell hacked Oshwah's account?!?!" ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:55, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, I can say that it would probably confuse the hell out of me, too :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:01, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

• On a more serious note; Both of you guys might want to keep an eye on Special:Contributions/TruthTastesGood, who made an edit rather similar to the one this account edit warred over, just a week earlier, and hasn't made any edits since. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:18, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Kratom

Whoever edited Kratom is very wrong. Try going to the American Kratom Association's website for real facts. Ave.Maria (talk) 00:23, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that this is your only account. The article's talk page is here - this is where you need to go in order to discuss the dispute. Following Wikipedia's dispute resolution protocol and coming to a consensus with others is how this is going to get resolved; leaving a message here and toward the user who fully protected the page to put an end to the disruptive editing over the content dispute is not the way to properly resolve your concerns. Read the guidelines I've linked you and follow them in order to properly work things out. Message me on my talk page if you have any questions - Thanks :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:26, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

@Ave.Maria: What Oshwah said is correct but please use Talk:Mitragyna speciosa. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:29, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Did I link to the wrong talk page originally? Sorry... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:31, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

I accidentally blocked your alt account

An LTA created User:NeilNAltt and started redirecting it to your real alt account user page and you real user talk page. I clicked on the user page link to block the account, and I accidentally blocked your real alt account instead of the LTA impersonator account. Sorry about that, NeilN! :-/ ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:09, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

@Oshwah: No worries. I "blocked" Wikipedia twice yesterday because of similar tomfoolery. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:34, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

NICE! :-P ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:23, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

To be fair, Wikipedia is known for it's frequent vandalism... ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:46, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	For that super-speedy revdel. Thanks once again! Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 17:32, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Khattar copyvio and SPS

Take you pick at Khattar but the new contributor who has now been reverted by me on multiple occasions is either copy/pasting from a website (linked in my first revert) or has created that site and is transposing it to WP even though there are no independent sources etc/WP:SPS. I'm not sure which it is, although copyvio has to be reverted pronto and so I did that. - Sitush (talk) 21:26, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

@Sitush: Editor indeffed and copyvios revdelled. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:58, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Bloody good service round these parts! Thank you. - Sitush (talk) 22:25, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

If I have to I will

I will if it is absolutely required, however he has no sources for his claims and he uses "probably" as a basis for his edit, I understand the policy of one revert per 24 hours however it should be noted his edit is actually damaging and unbeneficial.

Takinginterest01 (talk) 02:46, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

@Takinginterest01: I see cites were added with the content so it's best if you self-revert and use the article talk page before someone decides to report you. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:49, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Okay thank you, and my apologies Takinginterest01 (talk) 02:50, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Neil, can you look into this user’s edits again? Not only has he violated 1RR again (his two reverts have reverted this and this edit), this user makes highly disruptive edits like this and edit-wars it back into the article. The user also uses highly questionable sources throughout the project like in this edit. The user was warned several times for disruption and I think it has become more problematic than their obvious 1RR violations. Étienne Dolet (talk) 08:19, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

@EtienneDolet: Blocked 48 hours. Next step is a topic ban. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:41, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

The View Page

I don't agree with their reverts which is why I reverted them, why can't they discuss with me about what needs to be done first before they revert and I can't revert anything I disagree with? Noodlefish96 (talk) 04:50, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

They made more than 3 reverts I only reverted what they did and asked them to reach consensus first. Why shouldn't they not have to revert back to my edits?Noodlefish96 (talk) 05:03, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

@Noodlefish96: Well, you're both blocked now. It seems nothing I wrote sunk in. GA Reviewers don't "approve" content. Admins don't approve content. And comments like this still tell other editors nothing about why you're objecting to changes. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:40, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Repeat copyright offender

You will see a few copyvio notices for Sanyogchourasia (talk · contribs). I suspect there are probably more instances as yet undiscovered. This would appear to be an ongoing problem, so at the very least it could do with some stern words from someone they may listen to, at worst they need to be indef'd pending understanding of the issues. - Sitush (talk) 00:38, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Wow. Any faster at deleting copyvios as you just did and you will be a mind-reader. Still, it would save a lot of electrons if you were. - Sitush (talk) 00:41, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

@Sitush: Usual indef block with instructions on how to get unblocked. [19] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:54, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Page hoax

Hey Neil, I am unsure how to nominate a page for speedy deletion, however, this page, Mark Rafael Bringas is most likely a hoax. It is already nominated for deletion but I think it may qualify for speedy deletion, so as to not wait until the 18th. I did some research and cannot find a source, reliable or not, on them, as well another editor has also raised belief that is a hoax. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 01:32, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi HickoryOughtShirt?4. Twinkle puts a "csd" tab at the top of your screen. Click that and choose the proper speedy delete criteria. In this case, I agree it's likely a hoax, but it's not an obvious hoax (WP:G3). I have asked the creator to explain their editing, though. [20] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:11, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Alright, thanks. So because it is not an obvious hoax, and to give the editor a chance to explain, I'll just leave it be until the PROD times out. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 02:13, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

So. This person does appear in at least 10 other articles so I was thinking this could be legitimate info but then User:Mark Rafael Castro, who created the Bringas article? Take a look at his user page... He has also changed the name of this person in various links from Mark Rafael Castro/(maybe even Mark Castro) or Mark Bringas to Mark Rafael Bringas. At one point they've also submitted two empty requests in July 2017 to Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects in what I think is an apparent attempt] to create a named-article... I was unable to find any decent WP:IRS references or sources for this person. I suppose if there are Filipino WP-editors who could check out the various claims associated with this name that would be helpful, since there seem to be several associated articles. Shearonink (talk) 03:45, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

@Shearonink: The editor has been going around adding links to this article. If I don't get a good answer to my question then I'll delete the article and block the editor for hoaxing. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:53, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

@Shearonink and HickoryOughtShirt?4: To close this off, as the editor continued to edit ignoring my question, I've deleted the article and blocked them indefinitely. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:58, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Unlocking Medri Bahri

Hey, the third opinion procedure is now accomplished for the Medri Bahri entry, which you, after my Edit War report from February 9th, locked. The third opinion is in my favour, i.e. that the enddate of the kingdom should be given with 1879 and that Italian Eritrea should be deleted from the Infobox as "successor". Can you please unlock the entry again, so I can make the changes? Furthermore, what exactly must I do to get User:Uknowofwiki banned from editing if he starts derailing the entry again with unreferenced changes going against the third opinion? Do i have to put some warning on his profile first? LeGabrie (talk) 11:14, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

@LeGabrie: Left a note here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:25, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN: Unlock is still coming today? LeGabrie (talk) 13:18, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

@LeGabrie: Unprotected. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:44, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Edit warring at Transistor-transistor logic

Your warning about edit warring at Transistor-transistor logic has been ignored. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:29, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

@Jc3s5h: Blocked 48 hours. Next time it will be an indef if they don't communicate. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:04, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Sexism

If this picks up again after the block expires, I'm going to take it to AE. The editor's talk page participation leads me pretty inescapably to the conclusion that they're here to push an agenda. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:33, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

@MPants at work: Censorship!!1!! Vandalism!!!1! --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:38, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

It's my recent induction into The Cabal™ (There is no cabal). It's made me quite censorious and prone to vandalism. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it.

@MPants at work: It's too bad Flyer22 is less active than they once were on this article. They don't suffer editors like this gladly and I bet their comments would have been interesting to read. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:02, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

I seem to recall a few good reads of the "this is why your suggestion is so unbelievably moronic" variety on that talk page in the past. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:56, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Per your comment

Per your comment here, you may wish to look at this edit, which both continues the personal attacks and deletes another user's comment. Scr★pIron^IV 20:48, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Blocked 48 hours. Continuing the attacks at ANEW takes some chutzpah. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:58, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Fire Emblem vandal

Might be worth doing the range block. Not much collateral damage based on this year's edits https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?limit=100&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=110.54.*&namespace=&tagfilter=&ucstart=20180101000000 EvergreenFir (talk) 06:16, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: Already done. 110.54.128.0/17, one month. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:18, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Awesome sauce. Thanks! EvergreenFir (talk) 06:20, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

And talk page revoked across the range. Had to delete about five "unblock me" appeals from different IP addresses, all made within a couple minutes. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:43, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

FYI

This appears to violate a TBAN you placed. Alerting you since I don't want to take any action in case I'm reading your wording too broadly. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:13, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: Thanks. That was a pretty narrow topic ban and yet the editor managed to blatantly violate it with their first edit in six weeks. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:28, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

A little education required

While I hold no sympathy for the subject of the article, I find myself unable to understand why this category exists. Yes, the material is well cited for a BLP, but separating out individuals convicted of crimes by their nationality just seems wrong. The parent category has been in use for over three years, and this was added by both an Admin and one of the most prolific editors here. Any help is appreciated. Thanks! Scr★pIron^IV 19:26, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

@ScrapIronIV: You're talking to the wrong person. Save for WP:BLPCAT violations, I stay away from categories as I think the way we do categories is downright weird, archaic, and cumbersome. I'd much prefer a tagging system but I'm probably in the small minority. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:42, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for responding anyway - I'll check with @Dennis Brown: if he's around. I am sure it's not a violation, as it's been around so long. Just a question of me trying to understand better. Scr★pIron^IV 20:46, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Neil, it's a minority of at least two, I'll tell you that. And I'd bet money I know of at least 3 others who'd get behind that idea. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:06, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Not sure about the category, I haven't really thought about it long enough, although my first instinct is to repel a bit. Honestly, I don't use the cat system here or dabble in it. If I was going to ask an editor around here, I would ask BrownHairedGirl, who I think does a great deal with categories and can probably offer more insight here. Additionally, Wikipedia:Categories for discussion is a good way to find out what consensus is on it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:15, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, @Dennis Brown.

There are 2 issues here:

1. whether we should categorise people who convicted of indecent assault. I haven't formed a view on that, but I can see a good argument that it is WP:DEFINING, and if pushed at this point I'd probably say we should keep it: a conviction on this charge is a v big issue for anyone's public standing. That's only my initial take, and debate might sway me.
2. whether there should be an Irish subcat. Category:Irish people convicted of indecent assault had only 1 page when I looked at a few minutes ago, but I diffused a few pages into it from Category:People convicted of indecent assault. So now it has 7 pages, which seems to me to justify @Tim!'s creation of Category:Irish people convicted of indecent assault.

If anyone believes that we should not have categories of people convicted of indecent assault, then feel free to follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion#Nomination_procedure, and open a group discussion on Category:Irish people convicted of indecent assault and all its subcats. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:42, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

PS If the concern is not about categorising people who convicted of indecent assault, but about sub-categorising them by nationality, then the remedy would be to nominate the three by-nationality subcats for merger to Category:People convicted of indecent assault and Category:Foian sex offenders (where "Fooian" is the nationality). I'm less clear about why grouping them by nationality would be problematic, but anyone is free to make the case. Note, however, that Category:Criminals by crime and nationality is a well-developed category tree, so you'd need to make a case why indecent assault is an exception. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:44, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

LeGabrie using the F-word against me, is this considered Civil behavior on Wikipedia?

Hello NeilN,

I recommend you look at the language LeGabrie used in talking with me [21] Where LeGabrie wrote

"Is that so fucking hard to comprehend for your brain? The entry is about Medri Bahri as a KINGDOM KINGDOM KINGDOM KINGDOM KINGDOM. No fucking shit did the Eritreans survived the imprisonment of the last Bahr Negash and continued their fighting, but that is absolutely irrelevant."

[22] FYI, I responded to your(NeilN) comment and that you would be specifically only looking at my behavior, however is LeGabrie's behavior and foul language usage accceptable on Wikipedia per Civility guidelines? As for calling LeGabrie racist, it was for his edit summary where he talked about "Eritrean nationalists", Eritreans are human beings too and worthy of respect for their point of view on their own history. So I found it racist(offensive) of him to state that in his edit summary. [23] [24] Uknowofwiki (talk) 03:53, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

@Uknowofwiki: First, editors swear on Wikipedia. People may not like it but the community has not banned the use of profanities. Second, LeGabrie did what he was supposed to do to solve a content dispute - he asked for the opinion of a neutral third party. You obviously disagree with the opinion but do not edit war. I don't know what you mean by "appropriate Authorities on Wikipedia" but I pointed out further options available to you. I suggest you use one of them. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:44, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Really the F-word is fine when used in a Hostile combative manner like LeGabrie did in this diffs I showed you, but using the word "Kangaroo Court" is not acceptabale to you? I can tell you don't like me and thats fine with me. But constitency in Wikipedia guidelines being applied would be helpful for editors. According to you, its against wikipedia rules for me to call the bias in Third Opionion I noted as a "Kangaroo court"..but its ok for LeGabrie to be completely UnCivil in responding to me. I kept as neutral as possible. I think you are a Biased Moderator by the way, thats my opinion. And you showed you are biased by using Wikipedia to keep me from even editting but its ok According to YOU that LeGabrie can say "Fuck" and "Hypocrite" and "Eritrean nationalist" editors but I can't call THird Opinion a "Kangaroo Court". Uknowofwiki (talk) 06:22, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

@Uknowofwiki: You need to carefully read what I actually wrote: More comments like the "kangaroo court" one may convince the community that you are not interested in achieving consensus, but rather only in seeing your preferred version of the article put in place no matter what. That is, people understand when two editors with opposing viewpoints go at each other. However they start to wonder about POV-editing when a third-party opinion is contemptuously dismissed. You need to stop harping on the supposed biases of everyone else and start focusing on content. Also, I went back to the edit warring noticeboard, the article talk page, and this page and I cannot find any post from me about potentially blocking you or otherwise stopping you from editing - just a statement to stop edit warring. Do you have a diff that says differently? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:45, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

[25] where you say "I do not expect edit warring to occur after protection is lifted. Uknowofwiki, I'm looking specifically at you." As if I alone was involved in a an edit war and as for acting civilly you completely ignored LeGabrie's conduct, the community would ignore his conduct and "specifically" "look" at me like you stated...You are a moderator and your tone has made me feel as if you will block or ban me if I even continue editting honestly any article that the LeGabrie editor (who has some kind of prejudice against Eritrean editors) is on. I see that LeGabrie is bent on being the Sole Editor owner of the Medri Bahri article by asking to see how he can get me Banned or blocked in the talk section on your talkpage. Uknowofwiki (talk) 07:01, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

LeGabrie took the first step by asking for the WP:3O. You didn't agree with the third editor. Instead of edit warring, I am expecting you to take the next step by using one of the other dispute resolution mechanisms I pointed out. Why is this so hard to understand? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 07:10, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

It's not hard to understand, that isn't my issue at this point. My issue is what this talksection is that you made a comment. I responded to your comment, as a moderator, I wanted you to know exactly what was the case. By the way, you have not acknowledged what I stated there, you did clearly state as a moderator that you will specifically be looking at me(punitive) in any edit war as if I am solely the "guilty one". That is what the tone you communicated to me is and as for "edit warring", I already stated that I just won't edit the Medri Bahri article. The problem here is that you are specifically only looking at me and completely ignoring or excusing LeGabrie's behavior. How can I go to the next level of "dispute resolution" when I will be accused and or treated as if I am guilty of "edit warring" solely? Edit wars are a two-way transaction. Uknowofwiki (talk) 07:26, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

@Uknowofwiki: Given your poor reaction to the 3O, the note was meant to keep you out of trouble. Question: Have you actually looked at the other dispute resolution options or are you just complaining? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:16, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I've looked at the other dispute resolution paths.Uknowofwiki (talk) 05:08, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

@Uknowofwiki: So you've seen options like RFC and WP:DRN focus on content only, not editor behavior. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:14, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

water under the bridge.Uknowofwiki (talk) 03:02, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

User:Tritomex reported by User:Dr.Greyhawk (Result: No violation)

How is this "no violation" if the user keeps reintroducing a false statement despite discussion and warnings?

Read the statement:

...with most in a community sharing significant ancestry and up to 75% Levantine genes

Then read the article that he sourced

Does integrity of information on Wikipedia not matter anymore? There's a huge difference between "Middle East" and "Levant." Dr.Greyhawk (talk) 01:29, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

@Dr.Greyhawk: There was no WP:3RR violation. I'm also leaning towards blocking you as a sock and have asked another admin to look at your editing. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:31, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Oh okay, so WP:3RR is the only thing that constitutes as a violation on Wikipedia now? But intentionally introducing false information into articles multiple times even after being warned is totally fine apparently. Does this mean that we can stay in an edit war forever as long as we wait 24 hours in between reverts? This is what you are setting it up to be. I already showed you how his contribution and reverts were erroneous even according to his own source that he cited. Also, how will you block me for being a "sock" when this is the first account I've ever had? Just a few days here and I'm already getting a taste of the hypocrisy and bias in the moderation. Going through their history, the users you are protecting seem to have free reign in violating the integrity of information in multiple articles on this site since 2011 and you want to ban me for being objective and rectifying some of their erroneous and misleading contributions? How does that make sense? Even another user is now discussing the same problem in the same article. Dr.Greyhawk (talk) 02:43, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Prof. dr. Igor Janev is a very notable person.

Игор Јанев or Prof. dr. Igor Janev is a very notable person. He should be included in that list.178.222.98.212 (talk) 01:37, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Please see WP:WTAF. We need evidence of his notability and sources for his ethnicity per our policy on living people. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:40, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

He Was Advisor of three Macedonian Presidents: K. Gligorov, B. Trajkovski, and G. Ivanov. He wrote Macedonian Constitution and He was expert on Name Issue with Greece. What more you need?178.222.98.212 (talk) 01:46, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

An article which conforms to WP:BIO with reliable sources. I suggest you use WP:AFC to create a draft. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:48, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Its impossible to create a draft. It is limited for confirm users. As for ethnicity look at mk.wiki stating that he was or is Macedonian professor, in first sentence, here https://mk.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%98%D0%B3%D0%BE%D1%80_%D0%88%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B5%D0%B2 .178.222.98.212 (talk) 01:52, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

IP blocked per this and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Operahome --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:56, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

New user has created a user page that redirects to yours?

Hi NeilN. I've just noticed a user by the name of DattaVaida, who edited a page on my watchlist (Kiss Somebody), and so I clicked through to their contributions. They have only recently registered, and their second overall edit was to create their user page (User:DattaVaida) as a redirect to yours: [26]. Not sure what this is about? Ss112 09:56, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for reporting, Ss112. It's Thepoliticsexpert. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:12, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

WP:NOTHERE editing by "Prototypehumanoid"

Hi NeilN,

You warned this user several times in the past. You gave him a final warning as well.[27]. He's still at it with his patent WP:NOTHERE nonsense, for I just caught him making another unacceptable edit. With this edit, he just attempted to add unsourced self-interpreted WP:FRINGE/nonsense to the article. - LouisAragon (talk) 19:15, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi LouisAragon. As the edit was not outright vandalism I cannot take admin action as I was directly involved in a content dispute with them. Your best bet is ANI or another admin. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:11, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Aight. Problem with such "editors", other than the malicious nature of their edits, is that they edit quite irregularly as well. So I guess we have to wait for him to make another edit before reporting. - LouisAragon (talk) 14:42, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Replacing deleted PROD tags, and likely associated shenanigans

Howdy, NeilN! I'm hoping you and/or your TPSes have some thoughts on some weird doin's at, e.g., Aylesbury child sex abuse ring. A user who has theoretically only been active since January 15 has replaced PROD tags here and at Banbury child sex abuse ring that were initially placed by a user who has been around since February 7 (the tags were removed by uninvolved folks with valid rationales for same). Both new users appear to be fixated on the child-sex-abuse-ring topic area, have both voted at the AFD for Halifax_child_sex_abuse_ring, have exchanged user talk page messages that are a little suspicious, and are generally setting off alarm bells of a type that I can't really put my finger on but that involve ponds and feathers and concomitant unpleasantness. Unfortunately I am about to get on a conference call and will be getting the heck out of Dodge for the holiday weekend thereafter, and don't have time in the next 3 minutes to (a) set up AFDs (which would hopefully result in SNOW keeps), (b) engage in user education regarding not replacing PROD tags, and (c) put together an SPI if appropriate. While I am happy to work on that come Monday, this is likely going to need some admin intervention anyway and I invite any thoughts y'all have. Thanks in advance! - Julietdeltalima (talk) 00:28, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

@Julietdeltalima: I've opened a SPI. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/RomanskiRUS --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:06, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Wow, thank you! My colleagues and I didn't accomplish anything nearly as useful or satisfying in that hour. Have a great weekend! - Julietdeltalima (talk) 01:28, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

@Julietdeltalima: Good instincts. Both blocked as socks of another editor. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:14, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

You have my thanks as well. It looked fishy to me, too, but I didn't have the experience to know how to follow up. --Mark viking (talk) 04:18, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

BTW, I deleted two AFDs. The third one has to continue because of outside participation but I've struck the sock !votes. You may have seen the articles created by the socks - those are gone too. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:23, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

@Julietdeltalima, Mark viking, Dayirmiter, and Flyer22 Reborn: We might get more sock/meat puppets. [28] Please report as necessary and if it gets too disruptive, I will look into protecting the articles. Editors might also want to look at references, making note of WP:DAILYMAIL: "Volunteers are encouraged to review them, and remove/replace them as appropriate." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:06, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

And semi-protected. The sock/meat puppets may have a point, but the way they're going about editing is disruptive. Editors should be discussing and looking for replacements first, rather than playing the "editors are autistic and racist!" card. [29] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:42, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

May? considering WP:DAILYMAIL. Wikipedia has a clear written policy against using the Daily Mail as a source, in light of their history of fabrication. Since they are simply removing that information sourced by it they are actually improving the article within the guidelines, unfortunately as an administrator you are unfamiliar with this.139.5.177.69 (talk) 19:04, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Cool story. "They" should be discussing whether to remove or replace and "they" should explain why they're removing other sources [30] and "they" should be requesting an unblock from their original account, instead of canvassing offsite. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:15, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

So you acknowledge your reverts were incorrect? gottit, it's not policy to discuss whether it should be removed, WP:DAILYMAIL explains clearly it shouldn't be used as a source, period. Whether it is "replaced" should be up to the next editor to find a better source, simply restoring the article does not improve it.139.5.177.69 (talk) 19:33, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

No, I don't. Editors in good standing can decide what to do. Go away now, thank you. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:36, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Neil. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:19, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

User:Correctman's return from a block is not yielding constructive edits

I see you had blocked this account for one week, and 2 of the user's 3 edits after returning have been highly unconstructive. One edit added blatant OR / false information to an article: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Foreign_relations_of_Germany&diff=prev&oldid=824060537 and the other removed sourced information and completely ruined an infobox by removing a whole chunk of the infobox: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Germans&diff=prev&oldid=826097888. I'm wondering if this should be acted on before it gets worse. I wasn't sure this required more stern measures so I am coming to you. -- Gokunks (Speak to me) 05:36, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

@R9tgokunks: I'll keep an eye on them. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:02, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Personal attacks by Wickfox

Hi Neil,

I know you warned Wickfox about 1RR sanctions in the SCW topic area. The user makes some pretty harsh PAs towards me (see: [31][32]). I warned the user about it, but the attacks continued even after the warning. Let me know what can be done here. Étienne Dolet (talk) 08:32, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Please elaborate the harsh comments. You wrote to my talk page and I responded. Stop reporting everyone who makes reverts on your false statements. I am just trying to keep Wikipedia neutral. Be civil.Wickfox (talk) 08:37, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

You claiming that "I hate Turkey" or that "I hate Erdogan" is a personal attack. See WP:PA. Étienne Dolet (talk) 08:41, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, looking at your talk page; that is a fact yourself mentioned a few times. I am just saying that you are provocatively editing articles and constantly giving trouble to people who are trying to prevent this. Looking your contribution history and the sources you are constantly adding to the articles; this is very clear. Stop being provocative. Again, Wikipedia is not a propaganda portal, it is an information portal. We are not running a propaganda war here.Wickfox (talk) 08:51, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

@Wickfox: You've already skated on a WP:1RR violation so I'm not minded to give you much more leeway. Comment on the content, not the contributor. If you think EtienneDolet consistently edits Turkey-related articles in a non-neutral way then present solid evidence to an admin or admin board and ask for sanctions. If you cannot or will not do this, then stop with the accusations. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:09, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

WP:DAILYMAIL WP:RS

You do know that the Daily Mail is not a reliable source? "Volunteers are encouraged to review them, and remove/replace them as appropriate." As per this, as a volunteer I am removing the information cited from the Daily Mail only. Good day.185.174.157.36 (talk) 18:19, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

WP:MEAT. User_talk:NeilN#Replacing_deleted_PROD_tags,_and_likely_associated_shenanigans. "remove/replace them as appropriate" - not blindly remove them as part of a meatpuppet campaign. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:22, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

nazi party page

This statement, that the Nazi Party was a party of the right right, has no place in the article. I have posted the reasons for this on the talk page about this page. There seems to be no possibility of compromise on this point, judging by the history of contention over this false claim's inclusion in the article. This statement adds nothing, and its purpose is merely to denigrate the modern political right. Dsteakley (talk) 20:46, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

@Dsteakley: Thank you for stopping reverting and posting on the talk page. Others will respond and make their arguments based on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please do not re-revert until this discussion is concluded. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:51, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

well, my interlocutors on the talk page basically told me to fuck off. does that conclude the process? can i resume reverting? Dsteakley (talk) 22:15, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

@Dsteakley: Only if you want to be blocked for violating WP:3RR. The process doesn't conclude in a couple hours. Give it a couple days so that all interested editors have a chance to comment. In the mean time, look through the archives for past discussions. If you can't find what you're looking for, WP:DRR has other options. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:21, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

ok, thanks. I thought statenments on wikipedia have to be factual, and have to be substantiated. This "nazis are right wing" is inherently opinion, and cannot be substantiated as fact, QED. Dsteakley (talk) 22:28, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

@Dsteakley: I believe the editors there are probably using WP:ASSERT. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:31, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

ok, but the article doesn't attribute this opinion to anyone, and doesn't give any source for the opinion. certainly this opinion is widely disputed. it is equally dumb to say the nazis are a party of the left. this just doesn't belong in this article. Dsteakley (talk) 22:51, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Trying to correct misleading information

Trying to correct misleading information deliberately placed on the bio of a person, it seemed to be that people can place harmful information on someones page without challenge but then I spoke with your community and discovered the process to address this issu. I am trying to get caught up to speed on how this site works but it is confusing — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rmcwilliams2004~enwiki (talk • contribs) 21:48, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi Rmcwilliams2004~enwiki. I've added a welcome message on your talk page which links to all kinds of helpful information. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:02, 18 February 2018 (UTC)