User:Lectonar/Archive 17

Turkish Insurgency Detailed Map

So there's this map:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Module_talk:Turkish_Insurgency_Detailed_Map

And it is full of wrong information and it's being used to spread wrong information in a article. You can even see senior wikipedians calling this map a "anti-Turkey propaganda map" at the talk section for this map. Could you do something about this shit-show? Thanks in advance.

I don't care who is right or wrong. You are edit warring. Heed the warning, or I will block you. Lectonar (talk) 20:06, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

User:86.141.246.169

Why did you disable talk page access? I see no abuse. User's are allowed to blank their own talk pages. I will undoing that part of the block unless you can justify it. -- John Reaves 21:03, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Do as you please, but I remove talk-page access when the block notice is removed, being aware the editor must have read it. I find it easier to process. Lectonar (talk) 21:08, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

No problem....

I didn't ever even read and check the grammar there:D Ilya Drakonov (talk) 15:04, 3 March 2016 (UTC).

apology

When I left this comment I didn't realize you deleted Einstein Syndrome in February 2016. Einstein syndrome is at WP:UND, and it was deleted in December 2015.

My point, if the versions deleted as G4 in 2015 and 2016, were substantially different from the version deleted at AFD in 2007, then didn't the nominators lapse, because a new version of the article required a new AFD? I am afraid you and the other administrators who didn't recognize that the G4 were bogus also fell short, by not recognizing the G4 as bogus. But I would not have left that comment, that might give the appearance I was outing you, at ANI, if I had been aware that you too had deleted an article under G4 that didn't qualify for deletion under G4.

Am I wrong that you deleted an article under G4 that didn't meet the criteria for deletion under G4?

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 23:53, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

No apologies needed. I have commented at WP:UND. Lectonar (talk) 00:21, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Master of Puppets

Can you reduce the protection of Master of Puppets? It was vandalized because it was the TFA. Thanks. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 17:51, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Done. Was out for dinner, sorry. Lectonar (talk) 19:59, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Miaw

I'm not sure how that was nonsense? Adam9007 (talk) 19:31, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

The progression the article took made it nonsense..it started with a sentence in Spanish, with a question in Spanish in the edit summary, which was answered by the same user in English after you added the notenglish tag....would you prefer vandalism as reason for deletion? Lectonar (talk) 19:48, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure; I can't remember exactly what it said, but nonsense hadn't even occurred to me, so I'm guessing it wasn't. Adam9007 (talk) 19:50, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Depends on definiton; I prefer that one: sometimes in ordinary usage, nonsense is synonymous with absurdity or the ridiculous...which the whole thing was. Cheers. Lectonar (talk) 19:53, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I think G1 means nonsense as in incomprehensible. Absurdity would fall more into vandalism I'm guessing. Adam9007 (talk) 19:58, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Frankly, what do you expect me to do? Every time you answer you include that "you're guessing"..... Lectonar (talk) 20:01, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

That's the impression I'm getting from my understanding of the criteria. Of course, I could be wrong. Adam9007 (talk) 20:04, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Then let me repeat: what do you expect me to do? Lectonar (talk) 20:07, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, nothing. I was just confused as to why you thought it was nonsense, that's all. Adam9007 (talk) 20:10, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I though I did explain why...let me see...yup, I did. So I am a little confused by the whole ecxchange here. Lectonar (talk) 20:12, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

RFPP

Mistake? Thanks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:03, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

blushing...yes Lectonar (talk) 22:05, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi

Another clash. This one was caused by a delay between when I protected the page and when I posted to RfPP. Although the most recent vandalism was all one IP, there is a history of vandalism by different IPs, going back to the point the page was automatically unprotected on the 3rd of Jan. So I thought PC would be a good move. Yaris678 (talk) 09:57, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

No problem...I saw your protection shortly after I posted...pending changes is fine with me. Lectonar (talk) 09:58, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

You set the bar too high for enabling page protection

I disagree with many of your recent decisions to decline protection for pages suffering vandalism, saying that recent vandalism levels are too low. Such decisions waste the time of established editors, as well as negatively affecting readers while the vandalism is unrepaired. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 11:59, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

IMO, I stick to the Protection policy. Maybe we read it differently. Using protection to prevent vandalism is a last resort, not the norm. We have AIV for that, amongst others. And while protection may prevent vandalism, it also prevents constructive edits by IPs and unconfirmed editors, which should not be discouraged. Thank you for your feedback, though. Lectonar (talk) 12:04, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps see here: Wikipedia:Rough guide to semi-protection. Lectonar (talk) 12:07, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

We do it read it differently. Wikipedia:Protection policy does not mention "last resort". More specifically, the relevant language is that semi-protection "is useful when there is a significant amount of disruption or vandalism from new or unregistered users". "Significant" is not a precise term, of course. For me, the rule of thumb would be, if there have been five reverted edits by new or unregistered editors, without a useful edit by such an editor, then semi-protect. What is your rule of thumb? I would remind you of the concerns about the shrinking population of active editors--to what extent do you want us to waste our time tidying up after unconfirmed editors doing nonsense?--Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 19:59, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Five reverted edits in what amount of time? If in one or two hours I would concur, especially if there is already a history of vandalism. If 5 reverted edits in as many days...not a case for semi-protection. Please have a look at Arizona Wildcats men's basketball before I protected the article: that imho is significant vandalism. So I think we must agree to disagree. Lectonar (talk) 18:13, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Um, so your bar is, what, 35 vandalism & reversion edits in a 24-hour period? And you don't think that's too high? The issue is the amount of time wasted reviewing and reverting vandalism and needlessly complicating edit histories, versus the inconvenience to unconfirmed editors. If 5 reverted edits in as many days...and that's the only activity...then who is inconvenienced, other than vandals? But I don't seem to be making any headway with you, so I'm have removed French from my watchlist, which only got on there in the first place in the course of cleaning up vandalism elsewhere. As you don't seem to find it a nuisance, I'd appreciate it if you took my place and put French on your own watchlist. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 10:55, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

The disambiguation page? I did. And there is not much movement on the page afais. Lectonar (talk) 11:22, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. --12:04, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Deletion of Philippins Urban Living Solutions

Dear sir / madam,

We have been trying to upload a wiki page for Philippines Urban Living Solutions and have been rejected 3x for "unambiguous advertising or promotion." We apologise for this and have sincerely tried to make it neutral and objective with ample reference to third party sources. To our opinion the article is no longer advertising in nature, but you still seem to disagree :). As such, could you please be specific and let us know what we need to change to get our company piece accepted? Your advice / assistance is much appreciated. Thanks, Steven Zwaan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Idolzyp (talk • contribs) 06:03, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

As you use a "we" in your post here, it is implied that more than one person is using the account. See our username policy. I have therefore blocked your account. Also please disclose any conflict of interest you might have in regard to the subject of the article. Lectonar (talk) 09:02, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Ricardo Munguía

Hi Lectonar, I wanted to let you know that I boldly re-added the murdered International Committee of the Red Cross aid worker's name to the above dab page. Although he does not have his own article (looks like it was PROD'ed) I found he is mentioned in at least five articles (including the one I linked in his entry). I found a reliable source, which I added to all of the articles. If you have any concerns about my approach please let me know. Regards, Accurizer (talk) 16:00, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Already did ;) Lectonar (talk) 16:00, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

O.K. My thought was he seems notable because of the circumstances of his death and the ICRC's reaction to it, but not sure that warrants his own article if there is nothing to add beyond what is contained in the ICRC article. (I've seen this approach taken with other murder victims.) Can you make the PROD'ed article text available to me so I can see if there is anything else there that would influence my decision on whether or not to write an article? Thanks. Accurizer (talk) 16:08, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, no worries. Thanks! Accurizer (talk) 16:54, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Received, thanks very much. Accurizer (talk) 01:02, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Olgino

Gute Nacht. The article you are protected , in this thank you. Now what do I personally advise ? Or are you willing to make me a scapegoat and lock ? Solaire the knight (talk) 21:28, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Я не понимаю, извините. Я не против того, кто прав. Я вижу, редактировать воюющих, Я запираю статью. Ваш английский не является хорошим, Это проблема. (I do not mind who is right. I see edit warring, I lock the article. Your English is not good, this is a problem.) Lectonar (talk) 21:34, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Do not write in Russian , I read well in English, but the writing is bad :) But rather than give advice or to ask is not to big revisions , his trying bully me. Solaire the knight (talk) 21:52, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Ok...I was only trying to be friendly. See: from what you wrote above, your last sentence makes no sense, and the second one only partly. Anyway, as administrator who protected the page I will not comment on the content of the disputed article. Use other venues for that please. Lectonar (talk) 21:57, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, I 'm telling you, I'm very bad writing big complex text. The fact that I did not ask you to discuss the article , I was afraid of such persecution because of one article. Well , have a nice day Solaire the knight (talk) 22:04, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

London Eye

There has been vandalism. Extend PC? --George Ho (talk) 05:33, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Let's see how it evolves; it is on my watchlist. Lectonar (talk) 11:07, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Vasilije Pejović

Hi, I just saw you have deleted Vasilije Pejović in the past and it has now been recreated by the same editor. Just wanted to let you know, perhaps it could be CSD or something and removed immediately. Qed237 (talk) 13:12, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I forgot to say that they left phonenumbers and emailadresses in the article. Qed237 (talk) 13:13, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I saw....just trying to make my mind up as to how to delete....the phone number and youtube link make it spam...Thanks for the head-up. Lectonar (talk) 13:14, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I have deleted as self-spam; leaving the phone number of your manager doesn't really help. Lectonar (talk) 13:17, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Bayley (wrestler)

Would two reverts this month justify PC renewal? --George Ho (talk) 08:25, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Not imho...but as I can see at WP:RFPP, different admins decide differently in these cases. Cheers. Lectonar (talk) 09:14, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Zimbabwe

There have been reverts, especially in the past seven days. Extend PC? --George Ho (talk) 05:16, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Michelle Fields

Thank you for protecting Michelle Fields earlier today. I'm sorry to bother you about this page subsequently, but as Talk:Michelle Fields#Today's edits describe, there is a concern over violations of WP:BLPCRIME, as well as WP:SYNTH and WP:NOTTABLOID, and editor intimidation. Perhaps you could take a look about the BLPCRIME issue particularly?--Tenebrae (talk) 17:53, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

@User:Tenebrae I did, and I do not see something which is of immediate concern; what I see ist that the articles talk-page is used...which is good. The "new" user has already conceded that "your" version stays in place or can be reverted to. What I do not see so far is a real SPA from his part, more a newbie with strong opinions. I think you need to get some more people on the talk-page, essentially someone who is not involved; a 3rd opinion would be good. As I protected the page(s), I consider myself involved, so will not comment on the topic. Cheers, and thanks for the heads-up. Lectonar (talk) 18:16, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate your taking the time to look; I can't imagine being an admin and having to field these kinds of requests all the time. It seems exhausting to me and I admire al of you for doing it. The BLP concern is from the redlink intimating that the prosecutor is violating ethics laws. And since he was still arguing in favor of that snyth a minute ago, I dread where this is going. Still, you admirably fielded a good-faith request, and for that I thank you.--Tenebrae (talk) 18:25, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes...he insinuates...but that makes it NPOV...something he has been warned about of sorts, and can get his nose rubbed in at need. And thank you, you're gracious...but as you might see I am not one of the busier admins, I just hang out a lot at page-protection. Oh...and thanks for the userboxen for 10year veterans. Lectonar (talk) 18:34, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

And: the sources he cites might include said information, but as you so succintly put it: it's cherry-picking...because the sources include more than the info he wants in. Lectonar (talk) 18:37, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

@User:Tenebrae I am (still) following the discussion on the talk-page...it's on a good way imho. Cheers. Lectonar (talk) 08:56, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Gavin Dawson

Maternal parents are humorous but incorrect. Linda and Cole are his parents Awesome1986 (talk) 23:30, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Please use the article's talk-page. Lectonar (talk) 06:35, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Hardcore punk

There have been reverts, including self-reverts. Extend PC? --George Ho (talk) 23:14, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

My ususal answer...let's see what happens if the protection runs out :). Lectonar (talk) 12:18, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Page protection

Hi! How is there not enough "recent disruptive activities" in List of Lip Sync Battle Philippines episodes to justify protection when there is obviously a persistent addition of unsourced or poorly sourced content on the article? From March 30 to present, 5 unsoruced edits has been reverted and undone already. I hope you can re-check the page again and reconsider. MBdemigod (talk) 09:39, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

If you have not done so, please read the protection policy: 5 unsourced edits in as many days is really not very much. We don't tend to lock articles for something like that; have a look at the edit-history of WWE Women's Championship (2016–present): that is disruptive and had to be protected. Regards. Lectonar (talk) 09:46, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Economy of Italy

Two out of three edits by IPs and newly registered editors were reverted. Extend PC? --George Ho (talk) 19:07, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Very scarce editing overall; let's see how it works unprotected. Lectonar (talk) 07:39, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

List of Girl Meets World episodes

Loads of reverts and a few self-reverts. Extend PC? --George Ho (talk) 19:44, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Here I have extended for another month. Lectonar (talk) 07:40, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Foundation for Economic Education

I don't know whether reverted edits were of vandalism or in good-faith. Would you extend PC in any case? --George Ho (talk) 06:06, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Most of the IP edits come from the 107.xxx range; I would say it was in good faith, but there might be COI-editing. We'll see how it turns out when it is unprotected.. Lectonar (talk) 07:42, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

The page protection for Foundation for Economic Education has ended. Pending changes seems to have slowed down the disruptive editing not at all. The anonymous editor continues to make edits that violate policy. When another editor corrects the changes the anonymous editor just rants endlessly about edit waring and violates even more policies by abusing warnings. Many administrators have explained policies yet the anonymous editor just tells them that they are wrong and goes right back to ranting. The anonymous editor constantly makes grammatically invalid edits, yet labels that with things like "write good grammar now." So since pending changes failed to change any of the disruptive behavior, what would make for a next logical step? Abel (talk) 00:18, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Actually it did help...as none of the (scarce, I count about 10 edits in 30 days) IP-edits went "live"...and that is what pending changes is for. I will not comment on the quality or merit of the edits, as that would make me involved. I would invite the participants in this slow-burning edit-war to seek a third opinion. Lectonar (talk) 06:52, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Already did that. The anonymous editor filed a dispute resolution where multiple administrators explained policies in detail. The anonymous editor told them all that they were wrong. The dispute was closed as nonsense. Then the anonymous editor proceeded to pepper the talk page with why all the administrators were wrong. Administrators have issued multiple warnings about the anonymous editor's disruptive editing, which the anonymous editor assumes are for other people. I would chalk the entire ridiculous saga up to a combination of incompetence plus a complete disregard for gaining competence by learning, but the constant change of IP address, sometimes in the middle of editing, is all kinds of shady. The anonymous editor constantly makes fake edit war, conflict of interest, and personal attack claims. It really comes down to, "How much nonsense must people endure to keep a good article within the good article criteria?" Keeping a good article good should not require constant vigilance. Abel (talk) 15:35, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I have reinstated the pending changes protection and will watchlist myself. Lectonar (talk) 15:51, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Help is very much appreciated. Abel (talk) 16:22, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Sir, can you please look at FEE page and talk the months sinc Nov? I feel user Abel is trying to Own the article, and making personal attacks. Also he might have Conflict or connexion with FEE and he argues on other pages, like 'Irvington' Thankyou.107.107.60.21 (talk) 02:35, 8 April 2016 (UTC) User Abel has just again undone my new edit on FEE article. And he continues unkind remarks here with no truth or evidence. 166.171.187.167 (talk) 03:55, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Case in point, here "unkind remarks" literally refers to "Improper grammar." Incompetence is absolutely expected from new editors, but new editors labeling ever tiny correction as a personal attack is beyond ridiculous. Abel (talk) 12:55, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

no,ubkind personal insults here, above 8 April. What is bad when i added college undergratuate? Not bad grammar at all! 107.107.58.215 (talk) 03:25, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

---

The anonymous user made a giant deal out of including the phrase "think tank" in the lead of the Foundation for Economic Education article. More than a week ago RaphaelQS deleted that phrase. Yesterday the anonymous user made changes to the Foundation for Economic Education article, yet completely ignored the deletion by RaphaelQS. Yes, this all could be a case of incompetence combined with an attitude of assumed expertise. However, the IP addresses that changes often, sometimes during editing, and only taking issue with what I have touched is all very suspicious.Abel (talk) 20:45, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

I have semi-protected for some lomger time; let them register accounts if they want to edit. Lectonar (talk) 20:59, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Appreciated.Abel (talk) 22:12, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

The article is not currently protected. Think something went wrong. Abel (talk) 13:57, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

It is semiprotected until August 2nd...that is what it shows in the log. I just lifted the pending changes and inplemented semi-protection. The bot just removed the pending changes template from the page. Try editing the article while logged out, and you will see. Lectonar (talk) 19:12, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I will trust your far superior understanding of the mechanics of the process. Semiprotection sounds like a better fit than pending changes.Abel (talk) 20:50, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

List of Naruto: Shippuden episodes

Vandalism still occurs; extend PC? --George Ho (talk) 20:26, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

KKK titles and vocabulary

What does it mean "I will watchlist"? Does that mean the article is on a list, and if so how can I access it.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 15:28, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I will watch it...it is on my watchlist. This will extend the number of eyes watching the article. Lectonar (talk) 21:27, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Unprotection

Hi Lectonar, I hope you don't mind but I unprotected Sun Vandeth a couple of weeks early per this request on my talk page. Please let me know if you foresee any issue with the early unprotection. Cheers, --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:52, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

No problems...I would have unprotected as well. Cheers and happy editing. Lectonar (talk) 20:41, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Please reconsider RPP @ Hun Sen

I ask you to reconsider this decline. There has been more activity today from yet another IP and all IPs in question have been "properly warned", but they blank their talk pages immediately after being warned.--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 16:44, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Sorry to come late to the party....seems to have died down now. If it picks up, ping me please. Lectonar (talk) 10:17, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

The Brave Little Toaster (film)

I saw attempts to uppercase indefinite articles and prepositions. Also, I saw unsourced additions reverted. Is PC extension needed? --George Ho (talk) 19:54, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Not for now; pc is doing its job just fine. Lectonar (talk) 10:18, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Amandla Stenberg

People keep changing pronouns because of the nature of this person. Upgrade to semi? Extend PC otherwise? --George Ho (talk) 20:14, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

I don#t see enough disruption for semiprotecting; for pc...let's see after it expires. Lectonar (talk) 10:19, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

AQA

Can you also remove the things added onto the AQA page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DJRiver123 (talk • contribs) 18:24, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Hmmm...as I am not an expert for that, I'll leave it to others. Lectonar (talk) 18:28, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Mount Washington Observatory

Hi I saw you protected the page. Maybe the page should do what Materialscientist did before. Protect it for a few months, if the few day protection fails. Etimena 14:29, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Actually I protected for one year....Cheers. Lectonar (talk) 14:33, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Template talk:RC-stub

Hi, would it be possible for you to close the discussion on Template talk:RC-stub? I would, but I'm an involved editor. Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:15, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

I am one of the older admins who does not stand that much on formality ;) (IAR and so forth), so do not think a formal close is necessary. But with this snowy outcome, no one will object you closing it if you really see a need to do so. Lectonar (talk) 11:19, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you!

If you would, In Stereo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) as well? Thanks! Jim1138 (talk) 09:41, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

@Jim1138: done. Lectonar (talk) 09:47, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Noticed! Lots of vandalism. Some "let's go out and vandalize something" group. Thanks again! Jim1138 (talk) 09:48, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Salinger (film) protection

I don't know if this is the appropriate place to alert you but I'm not sure my comment on my existing Protection Request is enough. You declined semi-protection for Salinger (film) due to no recent disruptions. A day after your decision, someone removed all of my changes to the page with a single post. Link to diff.

Note that this change was done with a post, not a reversion, so I did not receive an alert. Several additions to the page that I had added were also removed.

Abuse of this page has been going on for a year now. Originally, the reversions were being made by user RoobyRinkyRoo.

All of the edits by RoobyRinkyRoo were either to the Salinger page or the page for the writer-director of Salinger, Shane Salerno.

RoobyRinkyRoo also uploaded the headshot of Shane Salerno used on his Wikipedia page. Note that the page has been flagged (by someone else) for reading like a news release.

Please read the Talk:Salinger_(film) page for a more complete idea of what is going on.

Here is a tweet by film critic Dave Chen when I tried to alert others to what was happening a year ago, just to be clear I'm doing this in earnest.

Danwroy (talk) 03:52, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

@Danwroy: When you read our protection policy, protection is not the way to go here, as the disruption is simply not high enough. RoobyRinkyRoo has not edited since April 2015, and the IP you mentioned above has edited other pages as well, so I would not say it is the same person. Anyway, to deal with this, you would have to engage the IP on the IPs talk-page, and tell them what you think is wrong with their edit. If it is obvious vandalism, warn them and report to WP:AIV later. Lectonar (talk) 06:49, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

@Lectonar: Please read this carefully: when I tried to make the page NPOV a year ago, I got into an edit war with an account which only edited the Salinger page, and the page of Salinger director Shane Salerno, including uploading the headshot used on Salerno's page. That should be plenty of evidence that there is something fishy going on and the page needs some form of protection.

I had given up because my changes kept getting reverted. But when I tried again recently, my numerous edits were reversed by an unknown IP in a single post with scant justification, which would have been prevented if the page were semi-protected. And while that IP had multiple edits, all were a) on the 22nd, after the protection was declined, b) within less than an hour, c) to the pages for: the Salinger movie, the accompanying biography of the same name, the upcoming biopic based on the movie and the book, a page about one of the author's books, and there was one additional edit to a page about a TV show.

I can argue with an IP address that is likely no longer be in use, but it would make more sense to read the page as it is and see it has a clearly promotional tone, and compare that with how I left it, and consider my entire edit was undone with a single post.

I'm asking for assistance, this page has been in bad shape for more than a year now. Danwroy (talk) 11:13, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

I am no expert on the topic, so place a note at one of the appropriate wikiprojects and ask for assistance. Page protection is not the way to go, as the disruption is really not that great compared to articles which really need protection. Semi-protection is not be used to keep the articles at stable versions, as this is still the encyclopedia that everyone can edit. Sorry to be not more helpful. Lectonar (talk) 18:05, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

45.64.16.165

Hi, 45.64.16.165 (talk · contribs) is still disruptively editing. Could you please block them? Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:25, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

@Anarchyte: Done at 12.24 :). Cheers. Lectonar (talk) 12:28, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Fritz-Kola

Hi Lectonar,
I just noticed you deleted Fritz-Kola per WP:G11. Would you please take a look at the last version and clarify how this article was "exclusively promotional and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic"? Given the fairly good article at de:fritz-kola and the large number of language versions, it is hard to believe that there was no properly sourced content that could have been copyedited. Please ping me, so I don't miss your answer. Thanks, --PanchoS (talk) 18:57, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

@PanchoS:...actually I said it was G11 and A7...should have been the other way round. Content was: "Fritz-Kola is a soft drinks company from Hamburg, Germany. They are mainly known for their high caffeine cola and lemonades with a caffeine amout of about 25mg per 100ml. Coca Cola and Pepsi has a caffeine amount of about 10mg per 100ml. Fritz-Kola was founded in 1973 when the Fritz brothers (Herman and Karactacus) had a disagreement with their former employers Munchen-Soften-Trinken over the branding on their newly invented product. Karactacus died in 2005 following a fatal sneezing accident, since when Herman has taken total control of the company." + a link to the company's website. Unsourced and tagged as such. Probably the company-link and the comparison to the main brands was the cause I used G11, but I actually do not remember. No problems if you want to work on it; I can easily restore the article. Lectonar (talk) 19:20, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

List of WWE pay-per-view events

Hi. I noticed you put a full protection on this page. I've been an editor on that page for years and have been clearing it of vandalism any chance I get. A fully protected page doesn't do anybody any good. As it stands right now there are several things on the page that are incorrect that need to be changed. Most notably the number of PPV events should be 322, not 310. Not sure who changed that. Semi-protection to eliminate IP users and vandals is much more acceptable and practical. Thank you. OldSkool01 (talk) 20:24, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

I have protected because of a request at requests for protection; as it was, there was indeed....let's call it slight disagreement about the content. Communication by edit-summary is never helpful for any side, so all parties are invited to use the article's talk-page to have a nice talk about sources and content. Cheers. Lectonar (talk) 20:49, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

IP disruption

While I greatly appreciate the effort, blocking a chronic IP-hopper (without a range block) doesn't seem to be an effective solution. A little history on that editor. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 22:31, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

With all due respect, but a range-block is not possible with the range of IPs involved, semiprotecting all articles he targets seems like shooting with cannons at sparrows...and so sometimes playing whack-a-mole is the only solution left. Lectonar (talk) 06:32, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree that there isn't a perfect solution. I hope the vacation time is awesome. Best regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 18:01, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

template:lang-zh

Hmm... I was reading Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 August 31#Template:Lang-zh. The result was supposed merger. However, it was deleted but then undeleted. What to do with the template? Pinging Plastikspork about this. --George Ho (talk) 11:37, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

That's not a question that can be answered via WP:RFP. I defer to someone else to do that. Lectonar (talk) 15:54, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

User page ill links

How is it that you have inter-language links in the left sidebar to your de and fr user pages (which I assume are wikidata-based) when I see no Wikidata item for your User page? If I want to do that, do I need to create a Q-item for my User page? Mathglot (talk) 09:31, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Actually I just put in interwiki-links as I would for articles, like de:Benutzer:Lectonar and fr:Utilisateur:Lectonar (double bracketed of course); if you go to edit mode on my userpage, you will see them as the last items on the page. So it is imho not wikidata-based. And what is a Q-item, btw? Lectonar (talk) 10:22, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Hab's schließlich geschafft. Wusste nicht dass du Muttersprachler bist; wieso kennst du so ausgezeichnet gut Englisch? Wohnst du in dem Englisch-sprachigen Raum seit lang? Oder verheiratest du mit eine Englisch Mutter-sprachler[in]? Benutzt du Leo oder Linguee für übersetzungen?

Übrigens, » Q « ist die Zeichnung in Wikidata für jede Wikidata element; z.B. d:Q702442 bezeichnet » The Golden Twenties « (u. auch, » Goldene Zwanziger «, » Els feliços anys vint «, u.s.w.). Auf wikidata, Sie sagen dass » Q « hat keine Bedeutung, aber ich meine es muss » Quelle « bedeuten, denn Wikidata ist meistens ein Deutsch-beherrschte Projekt. mfg, Mathglot (talk) 01:42, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I do not live permanently in an English-speaking country, I live either in Brussels, Berlin or Kerry. And I do not use online-dictionaries; I still have some written ones, though ;). Thanks for the heads-up. Kind regards. Lectonar (talk) 07:13, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Re: Husky Tours

Please consider seeing the page thoroughly. An IP address is consisting that Yanson Group of Bus Companies bought the company and renamed it into "Advanced Liner", which is not. Thanks! Bumbl_loid 14:37, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

I did ...but this is way below the threshold of qualifying for semi-protection (1 or 2 edits per day, with stretches of not being edited for days at a time). If you have not done so already, please read our protection policy. Regards. Lectonar (talk) 14:41, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Please see the edit history Sir. An IP address had attempted it to edit more than two times a day. And the same IP address is insisting the wrong information in Wikipidia. Furthermore, Advanced Liner does not exist. Please see how Advanced Liner was poorly edited and was made by that same IP address. Bumbl_loid 14:44, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

These are not problems that would be solved by applying semi-protection; I take it you have read the protection policy in the 3 minutes it took you to answer? Lectonar (talk) 14:47, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Then suggest me the best possible options I should take in order for that said article to either be protected or not be edited with such fake information. This is ridiculous seeing an IP address making fun out of Wikipidia. Bumbl_loid 14:52, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Editing Wikipedia involves a long apprenticeship...so let's see (if you have not done so already)...how about engaging the IP user at the article's talk-page? Talking to him directly? Then there is dispute resolution with all it's facets. If it is really disruptive editing, you can report it at WP:AIV. Another thing: please fix your signature, so that it actually links to your user- and talkpage. And, concerning Husky Tours, I feel a slight hint of ownership from your part. So perhaps a link to conflict of interest might be ok. Lectonar (talk) 15:00, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Sir, I did tell to the IP address for how many times. Yet that IP address is insisting for his "facts". Though it was I who made the article, but knowing the fact that Yanson Group of Bus Companies didn't bought the company and the existence of Advanced Liner was a total hoax. I would not do this if it is the fact.....however, it wasn't. Bumbl_loid 15:04, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Request for Comment on the guidelines regarding "joke" categories

This is a notice that a discussion you participated in, either at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents or at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 February 8 has resulted in a Request for comment at Wikipedia talk:User categories#Request for Comment on the guidelines regarding "joke" categories. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:37, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Chicken RAISERS?!

I had no clue - really can't read a single word of Malay so for all I knew it could have been a comedy club specialising in road-crossing poultry jokes!! Good call on the deletion... Mabalu (talk) 15:09, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

@Mabalu: If you are into chicken-raising humour, take a peek here: OSS 117: Cairo, Nest of Spies. All these spies are running chicken trading/raising endeavours as cover-ups. And there is a chicken-throwing melee. Cheers and happy editing. Lectonar (talk) 15:35, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Sock?

I think Ramana809 also belongs to the same group who created XYZ EVARINI VADALANU and used the same image uploaded by user Sbkfilms. GSS (talk|c|em) 10:49, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree: deleted and blocked. Thanks for the heads-up. Lectonar (talk) 11:00, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Thankyou

Thanks for your advice at my RPP request for Deepwater Horizon oil spill on when to use AIV vs RPP. As a relatively new editor it is most appreciated. Have a great day!

--Jack Frost (talk) 11:08, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

@Jack Frost: You're most welcome; as long as your at it, please also have a look at our protection policy. Lectonar (talk) 11:10, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Stacy Long

Hi, regarding [1] and [2]: FYI: my report at AIV resulted in a block and this. I hadn't misread after all: the most recent pp had just expired on 10 Feb 2017. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 10:10, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the heads-up; I think that a 2 year semi-protection is way too long, because after the protection expired on 10 Feb 2017, it took 2 weeks for the article to be edited at all. I also think that with the rather low frequency of disruptive edits the article does not qualify for semi-protection at all. Pending changes might have been sufficient. See also: Wikipedia:Rough guide to semi-protection. Lectonar (talk) 10:20, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Interesting guide, that. But, given that it's a BLP and its PP history, I do see support in there for pretty long term semi, perhaps even for indefinite. But mileages can vary of course . Cheers. - DVdm (talk) 10:38, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

I have been here longer than you :)))); being an old coot, I really like the idea of the encyclopedia that everyone can edit. And of course we have admin discretion ;). Cheers and happy editing. Lectonar (talk) 10:58, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Lolicon article changes

I already made a post on the talk page and no one objected it since then, after two days of wait and no response of objection on the talk page I proceeded and undid your revert on my changes, as you didn't object what I stated on the talk page post, but shortly after I made the change a random user called Herostratus came in and reverted my changes telling me to discuss on the talk page, he reverted it without even going there and posting why he thought the content on the article should stay, and told me to discuss it with someone, assuming good faith, I presume that the user thinks that you and me still have a sort of disagreement that wasn't resolved yet, but I think that isn't the case here, could you step in and tell your opinion on the matter? - Cilinhosan1 (talk) 19:59, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

The issue was already solved, there is no need to step in anymore - Cilinhosan1 (talk) 21:49, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Protection on Battle of Mosul (2016–17)

The "Battle of Mosul (2016–17)" article is semi-protected indefinitely and undergoing PC-protection until June 2017. Shouldn't it be indef. PC-ed and temporarily semi-protected? --George Ho (talk) 22:07, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

You're correct, thank you. And corrected. Lectonar (talk) 00:45, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome. But shouldn't the expiration date be June or September, i.e. three or six months? George Ho (talk) 06:04, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

PC I wanted indef, and semi expires 6 months from yesterday. Lectonar (talk) 08:02, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

March 14

Do you object that strongly to the edits I had submitted, or were they just caught in the crossfire over Jerry Jeff Walker? -165.234.252.11 (talk) 17:14, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes...more or less enemy fire; my bad. Which means that: no, I do not object (although, being German, I somewhat do not see Matilda as a German, but Frankish, Queen (I know she is listed as being German Queen)). Edit away, and sorry. Lectonar (talk) 17:19, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I think I might have fixed it....Lectonar (talk) 17:23, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! And "Frankish" is probably better, yeah. -165.234.252.11 (talk) 17:54, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I also went looking and apparently we say Walker's birthday is the 16th, not the 14th, which the other guy probably should have mentioned. -165.234.252.11 (talk) 17:56, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Nice work...patting our shoulders...Lectonar (talk) 18:06, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Page Protection Josh Frydenberg

Although I agree with locking the page it should be rolled back to before those edits and an anonymous edit which removed. On 19th February 2017, he lied to the Australian public on the show Insiders about the cause of the South Australian blackouts which by that time it had been already proven false. On February 8, 2017, over 90,000 households in Adelaide lost power for 45 minutes in the middle of a major heatwave. It was ordered to be cut by the Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO), causing controversy with the state government. Councilscribe (talk) 09:38, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

That would have to be done by someone else; otherwise I would have to consider myself involved. Regards. Lectonar (talk) 09:55, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

References

Hi Lectonar Happy Patrick's Day

It is Patrick's day today i hope anyone told you the same as me ,Say you changed a bit in your edits and you! so go to my page and we can talk and join my team!? MonkeyPanda1 (talk) 18:11, 17 March 2017 (UTC) *_* oI:) <patrick's hat

WTDY-FM vandalism and subsequent locking

Hello there! Over the past two months, the WTDY-FM page has been constantly vandalized by what appears to be spambots using random IP addresses. The vandalism includes original research, redundant and unnecessary information, and numerous grammar and punctuation errors. (For proof, please check the last two months worth of changes after the station flipped from Top 40 to AC and changed call letters.) In general, the vandalism of the page makes it look unprofessional and sloppy. Is there a way the page can be further protected to prevent even more of this? Thanks. (I will also post this on the W:RFPP section.)

Alex jirgens (talk) 20:39, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Has been dealt with. Lectonar (talk) 15:27, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Joshua

An user is making mass edits by citing joshuaproject[3]. As far as I can remember, it's not a RS and removed by admins many times. Would you please warn her/him? 88.232.102.155 (talk) 09:54, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

That is not my area of expertise; afaiks, the edits are not challenged, but feel free to bring your reservations up on the appropriate talk-page(s). Lectonar (talk) 10:43, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Okay. Thank you. 88.232.102.155 (talk) 10:52, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Protection of An-Najah National University

Greetings Lectonar,

You have recently protected the An-Najah National University article due to it being an Arab-Israeli conflict related page. This block would be valid for articles "reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict". This specific article is not really related to the conflict. IMO, it does not make sense to protect every article about Palestine or Israel, especially non-controversial ones such as this one.

Best regards, --Fjmustak (talk) 11:57, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

This is a very sensitive subject; being in Palestine, I think it can be considered as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, and looking through the article history, I did not consider it to be non-controversial. Be that as it may, I think this probably needs to be discussed (again) on a broader scale. But for now, feel free to ask for a reduction in protection at WP:RFP; I'll leave it at extended confirmed for now. Lectonar (talk) 12:06, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Greetings Lectonar the content of the page is outdated and the article about academic university not related to the conflict and no need to be protected ! i think if you remove the protection this will able the other to update the content. --Basheer.f (talk) 05:51, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Oh...interesting, a new user knowing how to ping and how to directly find my page. See what I wrote above please; I will not unprotect this page unilaterally. If you have any kind of conflict of interest, just declare it openly. Lectonar (talk) 07:24, 27 March 2017 (UTC)