User talk:NeilN/Archive 26

Archive 20

←

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

→

Archive 30

IP sockpuppet of banned User:Vote (X) for Change returns

See Special:Contributions/82.3.169.164. Thanks, JoeSperrazza (talk) 11:04, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Blocked. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:12, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Disruptively editing at calendar articles again. See Special:Contributions/86.134.217.6, Talk:Hebrew_calendar#More on Cheshvan vs. Marcheshvan, & [1]. Thanks, JoeSperrazza (talk) 14:22, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

86.174.161.26

Binksternet seems to believe that this IP is the same as the cause of death vandal. What do think about this? Dustin (talk) 16:51, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

@Dustin V. S.: Yes, I agree. They're already blocked for a week for edit warring and it's likely they'll just hop to a different IP. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:56, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

User leaves me an "edit warring" message after nothing of the sort occurred

I'm not sure if policy means anything can be done about it, but I just wanted to let you know that I've gotten an edit warring message from User:Jytdog only after one friendly good-faith revert. What makes it worse is that he reverted back to an incorrect text, where he could have easily verified that the newer version reflected information in the article Jerry Abramson. I'm not sure what I did to deserve such treatment. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 17:36, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Follow-up: Jytdog has issued a retraction. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 17:59, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

@Stevietheman: That's good. I know it's never pleasant getting slapped with a template for edits you believe are good. Often, it's a good idea to engage the other editor, to find out what they're thinking. Sometimes it's a mistake, a misunderstanding or they're just having a bad day. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:18, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for blocking User:RichardNorfolk. I hope we are able to expand Yishai Schlissel significantly in the next few days.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:38, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Requests for adminship (3nd nomination)

I'd recommend you speedy close the nomination under WP:SNOW then. - NQ (talk) 02:04, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

NQ, just did. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:06, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

NQ or anyone else wondering as to the reason: [2]. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:17, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

The close was a no brainer. I restored the notice since the discussion was ongoing and wasn't closed yet. - NQ (talk) 02:33, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Re:MFD

I respect your decision to close the MFD. I also direct your attention to the our IAR policy:

Wikipedia:Ignore all rules: If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it.

All the same, I proved to myself something I needed to prove: no one gives a damn. Having re-learned that lesson, I will fall back into place. Sorry for the inconvenience I caused. I'm not sure why I did this or what I thought I could achieve. Please accept my apology. Sincerely, TomStar81 (Talk) 02:34, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

TomStar81, have you not looked at the myriad of recent discussions about reforming RFA? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:40, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

They talk and talk, and nothing is every accomplished. Ten long years of "blah blah blah" and what have we to show for it at RFA? Nothing. Not one God-bleeping thing. Actions speak louder than words, but by the time the Wikipedia chapter of the League of Nations figures that out it will be far too late to do anything. It always is. If this had worked, if we were to force the shut down of the process then evolution dictates that with the sudden need to evolve we would have a new process in a few months that everyone could have a chance to weigh in on, and more importantly one that would be free of its predecessor, but no one sees the issue from this perspective. I don't know about you, but I would have liked to have looked back on this at New Years time and remembered that thanks to a Bold action we were able to do something, rather than look back in a decade and realizing that nothing has yet been done to fix or reform the process. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:47, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

TomStar81, the atmosphere at RFA has improved from what it was a few years ago. If you want "no new admins until RFA is reformed" then you will have to start a RFC. Yes, I know you think of RFCs but people are going to disagree with your proposal. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:53, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I would have it no other way :) How terrible the world would be if there was no one with an opposing view point, for in our species we judge what perfection we find by the shades of imperfection we see. I have always admire that in you, that you and I may disagree on these matters, for in our difference of opinions I find some small measure of peace. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:59, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Apparent sockpuppet of a user you blocked earlier

Hi NeilN. Earlier today, you blocked Allstartrick14, a user who I had reported at WP:AIV for repeatedly adding unsourced info to baseball player articles. It looks like this user has now made a sock account, Allstartrick13, to attempt to evade their block. Just thought I should make you aware of this. --A guy saved by Jesus (talk) 02:54, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

A guy saved by Jesus, thanks. Sock blocked indef, master's block extended to one week. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:58, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for taking care of it. --A guy saved by Jesus (talk) 03:08, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

There is also Allstartrick (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), created this morning (EDT), before Allstartrick13 was created, but who has not yet edited. May want to keep an eye on them also. General Ization ^Talk 03:15, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Stop Deletion

Hey Dear User Please Stop Speed Deletion Of Our Country Artist Article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.222.143.250 (talk) 05:37, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Dear Techzaada, please stop socking. Another admin will decide if the article will be speedy deleted. If it is not, then it will go to WP:AFD. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:41, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Fix

Fixed this, it's nothing weird, just fixed, is all. Don't panic, not a sock, etc etc 88.104.29.57 (talk) 06:23, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:33, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Gen X

Please unlock the page. Thanks. 2606:6000:610A:9000:1D0F:636F:39A:867D (talk) 18:49, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Protection actually expired a couple days ago. The bot didn't remove the icon. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:54, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Marathon Course Cutting

Thanks for your feedback on the matter and I apologize for violating the three-revert rule. I'm still learning the ins and outs of Wipikedia Etiquette and I'm tyong to be a good citizen. I did notice the rule but it was already after the fact so a bit to late. It is hard to be ina dispute with an anonymous editor who has no evidence to their claim but I guess we'll see how it goes. GregTakacs (talk) 21:29, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Page protection request

Good evening NeilN,
Following my request a week ago, you kindly added semi-protection to my User page at 16:10, on July 26, 2015‎. Since then I received an annoying post, [3], in itself fairly innocuous, but presumably must mean that my Talk page has not received the protection.
Am I correct? — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 17:44, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Gareth Griffith-Jones. You user page is protected and your link is not a diff? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:26, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

@Gareth Griffith-Jones: Are you talking about this? That's on your talk page. We rarely semi-protect user talk pages and never indefinitely for active editors. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:31, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I understand that; it was just that I read that both were protected. The edit in this instance puzzles me more than offends:

=== Matters arising ===

FYI: Wikipedia:Don't feed the divas. 128.90.35.90 (talk) 07:40, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

As an IP, non-registered editor, without any contributions, based in New York, you make no sense at all. Please clarify! — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 10:25, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

... the only contribution from this IP.
Cheers! — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 06:40, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

PP

Answered in detail about Francis. Please reconsider, it is a difficult page and has been protected earlier. --Hafspajen (talk) 16:00, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Sorry. Hafspajen (talk) 16:02, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Done. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:05, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

A brownie for you!

A brownie for you! A brownie is a flat, baked super-good treat made of dense, rich lovely chocolate cake. They are usually served as squares or bars. Delicious .... Hafspajen (talk) 17:00, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

2022 FIFA World Cup

I suggest taking down the 2022 FIFA World Cup page, because it is so far in the future that the page will be vandalized many more times before the tournament even starts. Also their is a chance that Qatar could be stripped of the world cup. One August 17th rolls around people will just come to this page and vandalize it. It probably is better if the page is deleted until qualifying for the tournament begins, — Preceding unsigned comment added by AllSportsfan16 (talk • contribs) 18:36, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi AllSportsfan16. The proper venue for proposing the deletion of an article is WP:AFD. But I'll tell you right now it is highly, highly doubtful it would be deleted as the topic meets our notability guidelines. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:08, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Listen Carefully

Jon Hensley hasn't appeared on the Bold and the Beautiful since 2013! Therefore, not having acted since then, he has been inactive since 2013. Give your head a shake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JimBarbasol (talk • contribs) 00:22, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Replied here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:29, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

User

Hey there! Look, i don't know where exactly i was supposed to report this but user FCKGW-RHQQ2-YXRKT-8TG6W-2B7Q8 has done some inappropriate edits for a while. He stopped for a time but apparently has returned. Since some of his edits are ok i don't know what to do. But i know that edits such as this should not be tolerated, right? Can anyone do something? Thanks. Coltsfan (talk) 00:41, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Coltsfan, you can report things like that to any active admin. They may deal with it themselves or ask you to make a report at WP:ANI. In this case, I've indefinitely blocked the editor, explaining why and what they have to do to get unblocked. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:49, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

SPI case status

I think that once an admin has taken the required final action and no issues remains to be resolved, as was the case here, they can/should change the {{SPI case status}} to "close". At that point a clerk/CU takes a final look, and archives the case if everything's ok (or, re-opens it if it is not). Pinging @Vanjagenije: to make sure that I haven't got the procedure or distribution of labor wrong. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 04:28, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

@Abecedare: Thanks, I've reviewed the instructions and done so. I've left Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BulgariaSources open in case Vanjagenije wants a rangeblock done. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 08:43, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

It seems I missed your RfA, for some reason I just assumed you'd become an admin during my inactivity and only now realized that I'd actually missed it and you're a newbie! —SpacemanSpiff 08:58, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

@SpacemanSpiff: Newbie, but I haven't blocked Jimbo or deleted the Main Page (yet!). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 09:26, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

@Abecedare: Yes, administrators should mark the case as "closed" if they made the decision based on the evidence, but only clerks are allowed to archive cases (see here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Clerk and checkuser procedures#Patrolling). Vanjagenije (talk) 09:14, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

M1gosyrntrillog

You are probably following it but just in case, I would suggest removing talk page access for User:M1gosyrntrillog as they are editing their talk page with personal attacks. 331dot (talk) 10:06, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

331dot, already done :) --NeilN ^{talk to me} 10:07, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

@331dot: See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Migosyrn. My suggestion is to coldly deny recognition. NeilN probably know about it by now but if not, well there you go. Optakeover^(Talk) 10:09, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Chloë Grace Moretz

Hi Neil – thanks for protecting the Chloë Grace Moretz article about six weeks ago. Going to the RPP page is now a bit of a regular thing for me, which is unfortunate but it does have its merits in the long-term. Anyway, because there is still a considerable amount of IP vandalism there since you put the pending changes protection on the page, could you please change the protection level to semi-protected so that IPs can no longer reach the page? Let me know your thoughts. Thanks – 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 12:50, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

@4TheWynne: Given that every single IP edit for the past six weeks has been reverted, I've semi-protected for one year. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:55, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 12:56, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Suspected IPsock you recently blocked

You recently blocked:

• 213.123.194.188 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

This IP seems to be another evasion:

• 86.134.217.6 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Compare these diffs, showing same obsession to replace Cheshvan with Marcheshvan: [4] and [5]. I'll point out that 86.* IPs are commonly used by Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Vote (X) for Change anyway. If I'm supposed to go through an SPI report, I'll do so, but I assume this is allowed and quicker and you know better. Thanks. (This came up at Talk:Hebrew calendar#More on Cheshvan vs. Marcheshvan.) Choor monster (talk) 14:41, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

• Never mind, that was quick! Choor monster (talk) 14:43, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

---

And now he's posting to Talk:Cheshvan (which I reverted). Choor monster (talk) 14:46, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

So you are cleverer than Risker who closed the SPI then.213.123.194.188 (talk) 14:48, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Obsession? What are you talking about? Others support this change. Are they all obsessives because they don't share your POV? 213.123.194.188 (talk) 14:50, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

LOL: [6]

NeilN's attack dog JoeSperrazza

Reported Special:Contributions/80.44.163.80 at WP:AN3 JoeSperrazza (talk) 14:27, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/109.152.119.53 JoeSperrazza (talk) 13:22, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/156.61.250.250 Thanks JoeSperrazza (talk) 13:06, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Vandalism Warning

I have been warned not to edit the talk page as it amounts to vandalism . I am unable to comprehend the context in which i was warned . Could you plz tell me a bit on that . Plz help .rahila 15:15, 4 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrishitch (talk • contribs)

Replied here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:22, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Taken. Thanks. rahila 15:30, 4 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrishitch (talk • contribs)

Affirmative action in the USA

Hi. I can see you blocked my IP. I find it worrying that you don't take the time to actually read the sources. This article are about a policy based on percived injustices, not some that are factual. It's not based on stately discrimination, as affirmative action is, but social discrimination based on people's views about minorities and women. This can never be know for a fact, and we can never know if a majority actually discriminates white males, white women, black men or whatever. This is also something that always changes. It is also a very strange policy, when white men today are to be discriminated based on what their mothers were victims to, would they really want their sons to be discriminated because they were? That makes no sens.

I also added a source by the census bureau. All women are outnumbering men, not only white women, white men. Olehal09 (talk) 17:11, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

And I did not use "sockpuppetry", I don't know exactly what that is, but I could just as well have been loged in when I edited. I just forgot. Olehal09 (talk) 17:12, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Olehal09, I have not blocked your IP but thanks for confirming your sock. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:14, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I could just have edited with my normal acount Niel. I didn't think it were necessary to log in. Olehal09 (talk) 17:16, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Olehal09, see WP:SCRUTINY. The edits you just made and the edit warring are a continuation of your problematic history. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:20, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Of corse my history are problematic, I am on this site because I know it is used by some people, and groups, to make "consensuses" that have no propper sources or are true. Olehal09 (talk) 17:24, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

A new version of an old problem

Hello NeilN. You may remember the nonsense that went on here last month. Well it started up again here Woody Page created by this brand new (in name only) editor. I am not sure that this redirect is needed since his last name is spelled differently. I have tagged the new edit so someone will take a look at it in time but I did want to let you know about the situation. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 19:02, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

MarnetteD, blocked and semied. Thanks. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:21, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

You are welcome and thanks for your efforts N. Since the edit was as full of nonsense as the previous ones and some of it was a BLP violation I am wondering if it should be subject to rev/del. If not no worries I am never quite sure about these. Would you also mind taking a look at this User:Iliketotest/sandbox. I know that leeway is given to sandboxes but the edits from this new account have been mostly WP:NOTHERE so far. Thanks again for your time. MarnetteD|Talk 19:26, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

MarnetteD, I usually don't revdel as it's "stupid" vandalism rather than anything else. The sandbox is deleted as a hoax. That other page in article space should be deleted too but I'll let another admin decide that. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:40, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate your input. Thanks again. MarnetteD|Talk 19:46, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello again :-) I was in the middle of adding a WP:PROD tag to the Lahia article when you add the "hoax" template. Is it okay to add that prod? I did go through the website for the ref provided [7] and could find no mention of this "minor district" MarnetteD|Talk 20:11, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

MarnetteD, I've asked an expert. [8] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:15, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Dr B is certainly the right person to go to about this! I added a thread on the talk page for the article as well so I think we are gathering all of the intel that we can. MarnetteD|Talk 20:17, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

superfluousholes

Hello NeilN. Thanks for blocking him. I was ready to do it myself when I got the notification of the changes he made to the St Austell page. Our happy-go-lucky vandal is none other than "comedian" M J Walker. He's been gleefully reporting his edits on Facebook and Twitter. I may just keep an eye on those accounts in case he decides to create another account for round 3.

Scripticuk (talk) 21:59, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Magazine reader 25

You have blocked this editor as being a sockpuppet. I do not suggest that you are wrong, but it is much easier to assess his inevitable unblock request if you say who you believe the sockmaster is. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 22:28, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Correction; Magazine reader25 --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 22:30, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

OK, found your added comment. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 22:34, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

TD Ameritrade and FINRA Case 13-03663

What do you say neiln's ? In this text, added to the information on TD Ameritrade there is nothing defamatory. The judgment of the FINRA Case 13-03663 has sentenced for illegal actions on account of Antonino Arconte, his accountholder on 25 march 2015 Why shouldn't I be able to update? It is a news story in the public interest, as all those appeals to FINRA and the class action. I do not no crusade on wikipedia. I made a case against a bank incorrect and it is only fair that you know how it acts. For my blog link I've compilation copyright who else if not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AntoninoArconte (talk • contribs) 00:03, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

AntoninoArconte, the article is not the place to advertise your personal lawsuit against the company and your blog is not a reliable source. This is an encyclopedia, not Consumers Watch. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:09, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I understande, thanks, but for me credibility of wikipedia is a priority. The news is true, FINRA has condemned Td Ameritrade for embezzlement on account of a customer (mine) Case 13-03663 on 25 march 2015 in 1 Liberty Plaza in Manhattan, NYC. I had inserted a link to my blog not to advertise it, it has no need, but to give the possibility to verify the news reading the judgment. I saw on that page the news of other appeals FINRA and other judgments FINRA and class action and i thought it was fair to also know of this very serious judgment and it is not libel, because it is the truth established by FINRA judgment. It is not copyright infringement, because the blog is mine and I have all copyright. Let me know if I can insert it without my name and no link to the blog.

AntoninoArconte — Preceding unsigned comment added by AntoninoArconte (talk • contribs) 21:52, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

@AntoninoArconte:. Again, Wikipedia is not a soapbox. The only way that material will be added is if multiple independent sources cover the incident. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:09, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

User:DeBarry Texas legal threats block

I have posted a long comment on ANI about the DeBarryTexas/Luis Santos24 dispute and the resulting legal threat block. You are mentioned, and although I pinged you there, the ping feature has failed for me several times recently so I thought I'd best give you a personal heads-up.

Please note that my criticisms are not personal to you in any way—a fact I particularly wish to stress since you and I coincidentally disagreed a few days ago on an unrelated matter. A large number of administrators would have handled the situation just as you did, and at least one has expressly said so. Nonetheless, my concerns as I've expressed them on ANI go very deep and I thought I'd best place them on the record for community discussion. Your thoughts as part of that discussion would of course be very welcome. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:27, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad, I replied before I saw this message. I fully understand your concerns and did not consider taking them personally in any way. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:48, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I hope you are ok with my severe refactoring of User talk:DeBerryTexas. Johnuniq (talk) 02:04, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

(tpw) @Johnuniq: If wanted, you could create another account and continue editing.. Doesn't that go against what is described at WP:NLT? - NQ (talk) 02:18, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I reverted the change. I'm all for giving blocked editors good advice, but telling them it's OK to simply create another account and carry on is not good advice. Nor is removing the block notice, without which they'll be pretty much clueless as to what they need to do. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 02:28, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Johnuniq, I would probably re-add a message saying the material has been removed per our guidelines. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:32, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Of course I know about WP:CLEANSTART but given the circumstances my comments were the best way to handle the situation. There is very little chance that person (with a total of two edits) will return to Wikipedia so precisely following the rules is not necessary. Johnuniq (talk) 03:27, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Did you see this?

Congratulations - apparently you have become the personification of the ideal RfA candidate! [9] --MelanieN (talk) 09:28, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

@MelanieN: Ack. I know of a few editors who would politely (and not so politely) disagree with that sentiment. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 10:41, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

...and I think you can probably wear their disagreement as a badge of honor. 0;-D --MelanieN (talk) 15:54, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

"7 Seals" revealed as 'beyond Einstein theories'

NeilN: You wrongly removed a link of http://7seals.blogspot.com by Watson for the "7 Seals" revealed as 'beyond Einstein theories'. This is very important; it's nothing less than the 2nd Coming of the Christ and a HUGE paradigm shift in science. You need to reverse your action. If not, I will. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.180.104.60 (talk) 11:54, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Please see here and WP:FRINGE and WP:ELNO. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:29, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Our friend is back ...

... this time at Talk:Cheshvan. Thanks. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:49, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

@StevenJ81: Blocked. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:57, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

We appreciate it. Maybe keep an eye on that page, and semiprotect also if he comes back? Thanks. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:29, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Kelly Osbourne

Hello. I was wondering what was wrong with my pending changes request, I have made a few others that you have also denied and applied semi-protection, would you please explain what is wrong with my requests? Govindaharihari (talk) 16:09, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Govindaharihari. You asked for indefinite pending changes. The last time the article was protected was in January 2013 for one week. We don't jump suddenly from that to indefinite. The recent disruption was frequent enough that it's not productive to ask editors to keep reverting. Therefore, I chose two month semi-protection. After that expires, the situation can be reassessed. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:19, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't see a backlog of pending changes, in fact there are hardly any, you could just have easily applied two months pending protection, this at least allows ip users to contribute, you have totally restricted them for two months, I don't see this as an open approach? You gave this article 6 month pending protection, and I see little difference in the revert history], was it just because I clicked on indefinite, and in the online world isn't six months a very long time? Govindaharihari (talk) 16:23, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Govindaharihari, if you're willing to keep on reverting then I will drop the protection down to pending. As for Chris Pratt, take a look at the protection log. [10] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:32, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I just saw this and thought you applied pending, I don't really get it , one month semi and six months pending, anyways, no worries really, I had it on my watchlist and edit most days and always look at any pending revisions. Thanks for responding and advising. Govindaharihari (talk) 17:03, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Govindaharihari, if you want to know, sometimes I do this to articles where there's a low but steady stream of vandalism which has suddenly picked up for some reason. I want to stop the immediate disruption and then have some sort of control over future disruption when the semi expires. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:11, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Ok NeilN, thanks for the explanations, I don't often request protection so when I do in future I will consider your comments here, I appreciate the advice. Govindaharihari (talk) 17:15, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Block request

HI. Could this IP please have a temporary block placed on them. Continued unsourced additions over a prolonged amount of time and has not heeded to warnings. DaHuzyBru (talk) 19:22, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi DaHuzyBru. I've added a final warning and a tutorial on how to add references. Let me know if they continue and there are no sources for their changes. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:55, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

up to his old tricks again. IMO, he's been warned enough and needs a time-out. Rikster2 (talk) 00:45, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Seventeen (band)

Sorry. I can't because i am an IP editor, so I can't edit semi-protected pages. 2602:306:3357:BA0:454B:F02:1D85:F7DF (talk) 19:27, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Here is the last good version. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Seventeen_(band)&diff=674197604&oldid=674030716. 2602:306:3357:BA0:454B:F02:1D85:F7DF (talk) 19:32, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Question...

Hello NeilN. I've got a question for you – what should an editor do when they see something like this (note the edit summary)?... Thanks in advance. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:37, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi IJBall. There are two issues, the edit and the user. If what they're changing from is not strongly sourced, I would leave their edit if it looks credible. If the person has taken the username of someone famous or semi-famous, they should be pointed to WP:REALNAME and reported to WP:UAA. In this case, I would simply welcome them using {{welcome-COI}}. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:51, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

 Done And thanks for the advice – I think that is the first time I've come across something like that! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:04, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Millennials page

Could you provide your expertise on the new info. box on the Millennials page please? Splitting the dates in the info. box makes the range of dates very confusing. Why add another layer to what the lede already says. This information is redundant and negatively impacts the flow of the lede. Also, we already have a notable person segment -- but do the authors of that need to show how the people listed are relevant to the Millennials page? The sources don't say they're "Millennials" (from a first glance). Should the list be removed as well...per OR? Your thoughts?2606:6000:610A:9000:1D0F:636F:39A:867D (talk) 21:19, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Gen Z page

The editor is adding the same info. box to the Gen Z page with unsupported info. i.e. "Ending years 2009 - present". Could you remove it please? It makes the range of years confusing and the information is redundant. Thank you. 2606:6000:610A:9000:1D0F:636F:39A:867D (talk) 21:21, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

David Yerushalmi - Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act173.67.162.123 (talk) 01:46, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Editor claimed that it does not even belong on page citing original case against OBAMACARE and his name is not mentioned. Editor removed entire reference to case. I tried to correct references by adding a new reference that clearly shows involvement by David Yerushalmi The passage needs work, but should be there! The last edit had the following:

On March 23, 2010, Robert Muise and Richard Thompson filed the first federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Thomas More Law Center et al. v. Pres. Obama et al. The case was filed in Detroit, Michigan on behalf of four Michigan residents who did not have health insurance and who objected to the Act's individual mandate, which required them to purchase insurance. By the end of the case Muise and co-counsel David Yerushalmi became the lawyers of record. On October 7, 2010, the judge ruled against the plaintiffs. The case was appealed to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. which also ruled against the plaintiffs and upheld the individual mandate. Muise and Yerushalmi filed for a U.S. Supreme Court review, and in June 2012, the Supreme Court ruled against the plaintiffs and upheld the individual mandate. In 2012, Muise and Yerushalmi co-authored an article published in Duke University Press's online version of the Journal of Health Politics, Policy, and Law, entitled, "Wearing the Crown of Solomon? Chief Justice Roberts and the Affordable Care Act 'Tax'", which criticized the majority opinion written by Chief Justice John Roberts in the United States Supreme Court's ruling on the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act.

References

Your previous IPs have been blocked for this before. [11] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:50, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

Hi Neil, the IP blocked on 4 August as a result of this is at it again: [12] [13]. I haven't bothered with a warning on its talk page because I think we're beyond that and I wasn't sure about adding to the existing ANI entry in case it was considered closed. Do you have a suggestion? Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:16, 6 August 2015 (UTC

"It"!? Are anonymous users animals or something, what are you trying to say? Anonymous users are legitimate users entitled to edit Wikipedia. If they make important points, they are entitled to receive engagement. Kiernan, an admin I see, trolled my talk page with an edit warring warning while himself edit warring, spurned attempts at discussion, and felt entitled to post an edit warring report after himself performing four reverts in a few days, three in one day. NeilN, another admin, blocked his opponent and passed over his contributions without comment but continued to post aggressive messages on my talkpage. And Ian Rose, your contribution? To join in the edit warring citing non-existing 'consensus' as a reason for a template in lieu of any meaningful contribution to the discussion, and run about whining about how you can't be bothered warning some animal thing. And what's this sacred 'consensus' your trying to bullshit me with? Kiernan on the talk page offering some confused logic, and another guy complaining about bad language. It probably won't be to you lot, but the behaviour resulting from what would be an uncontroversial edit from an established user should be an embarrassment. 80.44.64.116 (talk) 03:48, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Blocked my opponent? What are you talking about? That is a serious charge. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:53, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

*His=Kiernan's. Definitely ambiguous, I'll grant you, but you revealed your defensive/paranoid streak there. 80.44.64.116 (talk) 03:55, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

"NeilN, another admin, blocked his opponent..." It would be much clearer if you did not refer to yourself in the third person. You are also edit warring on a featured article which has undergone close review. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:00, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Don't disagree. Have you seen the latest reverts? Meaningless and contemptful like all the rest. Apparently I should be discussing this. User didn't seem to notice that the only time I wasn't was when I was prevented from doing so by a block. 80.44.64.116 (talk) 04:05, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Discussing and refraining from reverting. If you think discussion has stalled, there are options listed at WP:DRR you can try. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:08, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

It seems to be very emotionally attached to this topic. Strange for someone who has been dead for over three centuries. Mary Queen of Scots, not the IP. Who might actually be Mary, communicating from the Great Beyond through the Internet. Where's Melinda Gordon when you need her?  :) --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Health and Welfare ‖ 04:16, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Block evasion is grounds for immediate blocking, yes?

The thing is, they really don't seem to have had a fair discussion, because everyone, including me, is too busy piling on to revert per BRD. Kind of a shame, but I'm sure it will all be worked out. FourViolas (talk) 04:46, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, funny how that works. And I was just starting to sort of agree with them. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - General Health ‖ 04:49, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Does somebody want to help a newcomer with an article?

Performance fabrics. It should have ideally been submitted through AfC, but it wasn't. I've tried to help it somewhat, but I'm afraid I'm losing patience with it. Do you and your watchers want to help? Thanks. Softlavender (talk) 11:59, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Update: It kept getting worse, beyond my control, and I moved it to Draft space, leaving a redirect. The editor blanked the page, apparently intending to replace the article. The editor is very odd, and a loose cannon. I don't know what to do about this but I feel sure you will know what to do, Neil. Thanks in advance. Softlavender (talk) 12:17, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the deletion of the article-space title. The draft is now at Draft:Performance fabrics, which I see you have templated accordingly. Softlavender (talk) 12:29, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Softlavender, the article could've probably survived an AFD but since you moved it to a draft, the redirect had to be deleted. Hopefully the creator submits it for review so he can get some feedback. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:34, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

It wasn't the notability that was a concern, it was the fact that it was a complete mess and that the editor was making it worse by adding to the mess ineptly (every edit he made made it worse). It did not warrant being on article space in that state, nor would an AfD have helped with the problems quickly enough, hence I moved it to Draft to allow the editor to at least modify it and have it reviewed before it went to article space. Hope that makes sense. Softlavender (talk) 12:42, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Hmm. "Performance Fabrics" is a huge field, and that draft merely scratches the surface. Covering the subject properly is way out of my ability grade. Every fabric is a "performance" fabric, requiring specific properties for each end use and trying to define a performance fabric is the first order of business, one which ought to be astonishingly difficult. The draft focuses down on a particular niche which is OK as far as it goes. (this has been my field throughout my working life. Also, if you want to see a poor article in this area, try Spandex) -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 12:59, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Here is how the article started: [14]. The editor then kept creating it on the fly ... triply problematic when one is a brand-new user with only 140 edits, does not know wiki article formatting style or requirements, and does not speak or write native English. It was all too much to bear, even with my cleanup, as I couldn't stem the tide of problems. Softlavender (talk) 13:17, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Renaming Articles

Since your an admin, I've decided to ask you this. How can you rename articles? As this article ,AlbaStar Destanations. Has the word 'destination' spelt incorrectly. I created it but copied and pasted all of the destination information from AlbaStar. Not realizing that destinations had been spelt incorrectly. RMS52 (talk) 12:31, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi RMS52. You use the move tab at the top of the article to move the article to the correct title. Not sure we need a separate article listing destinations, though. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:39, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, we do. Because on WP:AIRLINES destination lists need to be seperated from the main airline article. RMS52 (talk) 12:42, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Ibadi page

I know it's nitpicking, but on the Ibadi page, under "Relations with other communities", the term "predated" should be replaced with "antedated". Efreshwater5 (talk) 13:03, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

@Efreshwater5: Fixed, thanks. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:08, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Can you email me a copy

Can you email a copy of my userpage (wiki coding) that was deleted back in the spring? I just need a few pieces of info off it but do not wish for a full restore. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 14:30, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Hell in a Bucket, done. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:34, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 14:34, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Blocking, gagging, and so forth

Does it not feel a bit ridiculous, protecting the talk page of a featured article for no real reason? 80.42.3.248 (talk) 14:42, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

You were told twice that your comments might be allowed to stand while you're blocked but definitely won't be if you attack other editors. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:45, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

That wasn't the question. I'm still trying to figure out if you are an idiot or not, an answer like that sways me in a certain direction here. 80.42.3.248 (talk) 14:47, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Our blocking policy states that a user may only edit their own user talk page and nothing else while blocked. It's served us well over the years, keeping disruption to a minimum. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:50, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

There. You've just called NeilN an "idiot", and you accuse him of "gagging". Is your behaviour not clear enough? —George8211 / T 14:53, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Also, hope you notice that the guy whose behaviour you are promoting and protecting, DrKiernan (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), has just protected a template to preserve a recent edit he made to remove long-standing content; and he is using your block as an excuse. 89.241.220.110 (talk) 14:55, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Which is entirely proper behavior, seeing as you are block evading. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:03, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Millennials page 2

The new info boxes on the generations pages are turning out to be a way for editors to fight over the birth dates again. The range of dates were already discussed on the talk pages (with input from many editors) over a long time consuming period. Would it be best to remove the date info from each info box (Gen X, Millennials and Gen z) and let the articles explain it with references attached? Thank you for your help. 2606:6000:610A:9000:1D0F:636F:39A:867D (talk) 15:20, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

As I said on the talk page, I agree with you that the infoboxes should not be there. No one has replied to my post yet. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:37, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Could you explain how to get rid of the "start - end" sub-header in the info. box please? See recent Baby Boomers page edit. The template was created here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Infobox_generation&diff=prev&oldid=674697376

Do you want to edit the template or fill in the values? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:48, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I want to edit the template. 2606:6000:610A:9000:1D0F:636F:39A:867D (talk) 16:00, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Edit the template and remove {{{start}}}–{{{end}}} from subheader = --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:02, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Awesome thanks, could you review this change to the template (see the edit summary too) here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Infobox_generation

I dont know if it's going to work. These info boxes should be removed until they can provide value though. They look like crap. The editor who created them wants us to "fix" it instead of putting it in a draft folder.

Yes, I don't like those infoboxes at all (and this is coming from someone who generally supports their inclusion). The "notable members" field right now seems like an exercise in original research. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:43 pm, Today (UTC−4)

Also, how do we get rid of the dash in the sub-header inside the box? See Baby Boomers

The dash is in the field code you were asking about. See it between the two start and end fields? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:53, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Louis Belasco 2

See[15] and his talk page. Really I don't see much future for this editor. Doug Weller (talk) 15:53, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Doug Weller, indeffed, obviously. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:57, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Painfully. Doug Weller (talk) 16:51, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Mujaddid

Hi Neil, could you look at this.--Peaceworld 17:51, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

MelanieN took care of it. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:52, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

@Peaceworld111: Thanks for identifying the last stable version for me. That made it a lot easier. This has been going on for a LONG time. --MelanieN (talk) 19:10, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for taking care of it.--Peaceworld 19:13, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Marie Antoinette

Hello, first I want to thank you for your intervention, I hope you supervise this article from the talk page after the ban is lifted ; I 'm ready to follow your arbitration and make compromises, I have already sent a message to Blue Indigo on his talk page. Thank youAubmn (talk) 18:04, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

To your attention:

NeilN,

I left a msg to your attention on Marie Antoinette's talk page [16].

Best regards, --Blue Indigo (talk) 19:22, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Gadgets

Howdy, I've fixed the gadget "Change UTC-based times and dates, such as those used in signatures, to be relative to local time.". Cheers, Nakon 03:45, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

@Nakon: Thank you! --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:58, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

TD Ameritrade

TD Ameritrade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The FINRA is an independent source and it's public. I don't understand their own motivation to not give the news on wikipedia. In the other published were not even judgments FINRA but acceptances to pay compensation before the judgment of the Court. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AntoninoArconte (talk • contribs) 17:51, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-Protection

Hi, sorry if I am wasting your time while I'm doing this but could you please semi-protect the article Presidente Nicolau Lobato International Airport? As IP's are currently vandalizing it. I have already reported them for vandalism as well. RMS52 (talk) 07:49, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Bulgaria national football team

Hi NeilN. You recently semi-protected Bulgaria national football team and blocked BulgariaSources as a result of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BulgariaSources/Archive. The editor's block has since expired and they have gone back to re-adding non-free images, etc. as before. I've tried using edit sums and talk page posts to explain/discuss their edits, but so far I have not received any response. I'd appreciate any suggestions you might have on how to possibly further proceed. Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 00:55, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Specifically, the section can be found at WP:ANI#Behavior of User:Olehal09 - T-ban request. Thank you. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:30, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Generation Z page

Could you read the new addition to the Generation Z page please? Is this what Wikipedia considers OR -- since it's not a direct quote from the Statistic Canada site? The reverting editor has experience but apparently won't actually read the source before reverting back to an OR statement. It should be left out -- until it's not OR. Thank you. 2606:6000:610A:9000:D551:3464:77B9:A66A (talk) 18:02, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

René Bazinet

Hi NeilN. I'm hoping to enlist your aid with a slight problem I'm having, involving the caption under my picture of Mr. Bazinet. As it stands, after I edited it to read correctly, the caption is now once again redundant, with "Bazinet," which is unnecessary and the word "during," which is inaccurate, displayed. Since this is a photo, which I took, at the Studio Bizz workshop facilities, while there was -No- workshop in progress I had edited the caption to read "Photo taken - 2002 - at a studio workshop in Montreal, Canada." I'm asking you to help me reinstate that caption, because I've already asked Voceditenore, who undid my edit and is apparently ignoring my very nice request, to revise it and I don't want to get into a 'war' about it, which is what you warned me about, once before. Also, I'm not well versed at how to list references and would value your help in showing me how to include the exact date of his birth, which is verified on his Facebook account as follows: https://www.facebook.com/rene.bazinet2/about

I believe these edits would not only be more accurate, but would would look better on the page, too, and I'd very much appreciate your help in implementing them, in such a way as not to offend or antagonize Voceditenore, who composed a very nice article to compliment my picture. I respect her work and am simply requesting the same respect be paid to my photo and the information directly under it. Thanking you, in advance, for your assistance in the above mentioned matter. Blythe Spirit (talk) 22:18, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi NeilN. Re the caption, see my response at User talk:Voceditenore#René Bazinet. Re adding the full date of birth, see my comments at Talk:René Bazinet#Full date of birth. (The DoB is not publicly available on the Facebook page.) I have also suggested to Blythe Spirit that the appropriate place to discuss content issues is on the article's talk page. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 06:34, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

I believe that Voceditenore has a personal vendetta against me, which is evidenced on the Wikimedia Deletion Request page, where my pictures were the topic of conversation. Please read the unnecessarily vitriolic comments she made and my attempts to defend myself, there. Unfortunately, as a result, she deliberately undid my subsequent edits to Mr. Bazinet's page. I really do not understand the problem she has, as I have thanked her and given her praise for the lovely job she did, on the body of her article, composed as a direct result of our interaction on my Deletion Request page. Leaving Mr. Bazinet's DOB out of the article makes no sense, especially, for the reason she claims. It is verifiable and available to anyone with a Facebook account, which is a very 'public' venue that, in fact, offers access to this article. His DOB is, also, listed prominently on his IMDb page, which is used as a reference for his page, here. The point is that his DOB is substantiated and there is no rational reason to omit it in favor of the vague, rather unprofessional looking way Voceditenore has unfathomably seen fit to list it as 1955 and a 59 - 60 life span. Moreover, I do not see the relevance of discussing the -personal- problem(s) Voceditenore appears to have with me on the article's talk page. Blythe Spirit (talk) 15:17, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

@Blythe Spirit: Voceditenore is correct about the DOB issue; it is not publicly available on Bazinet's facebook page, except possibly to his friends. In any case, I'd suggest that you not personalize the simple content issues and discuss their merits on the article talk-page. Use one of the dispute resolution processes (say, asking for a third opinion) or post a query at the biography noticeboard, if needed. (Replying since Neil is currently on a vacation) Abecedare (talk) 16:17, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your attempt to help, Abecedare, but I feel I must correct your misconception. The DOB is, indeed, publicly available to -anyone- on facebook, whether or not they be a friend to Mr. Bazinet. I suggest you check it out, if you have a facebook account. It, also, appears prominently on the IMDb page and that site is used as a reference for Mr. Bazinet's page, here, too. I'm not well versed in Wikipedia protocol, but this is a rather petty issue that I'm hoping to -simply- resolve with Voceditenore and had originally enlisted NeilN's help, since he once warned me about continuing to undo edits, when I initially wanted to delete my pictures. That action was construed as an act of 'war' and I certainly didn't intend to antagonize anyone. Blythe Spirit (talk) 16:32, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

I did check the facebook page (while logged in) and didn't find the DOB. But in any case, this is not the right venue for that discussion. As said above, take it to the article talk-page. Use one of the dispute resolution processes (say, asking for a third opinion) or post a query at the biography noticeboard, if needed. Abecedare (talk) 16:40, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Did you use the link I provided, above, that leads directly to his "About" page easily accessible on his Timeline? Did you check the IMDb page, which I mentioned, twice, that the DOB appears on, too? Please do so, as IMDb is listed as a reference for Mr. Bazinet's page here, as I also mentioned. With all due respect I do not believe this is an issue for the article's talk page, since it is a -petty- personal matter between Voceditenore and myself. I'll endeavor to settle it elsewhere, if necessary, though. Should I feel the need to I'll do so through a dispute resolution process, if that's your recommendation, I guess... (sigh) Blythe Spirit (talk) 16:51, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes I checked all the sections of the about page ("Overview", "Work and education", ..."Life events"), and didn't find the DOB. As for IMDB, on wikipedia it is not generally regarded as a reliable source for such data, although it is accepted as a valid external link. (Again, if you want to discuss this any further take it article talk page or WP:BLPN)

More broadly: Blythe you said above that "I'm not well versed in Wikipedia protocol", and that is perfectly fine. However, now you have twice been told the correct protocol ("use the article talk-page... if needed"), but are choosing to disregard the advice and again projecting a simple content issue as a "personal issue between Voceditenore and myself". That's not an effective approach. Either drop the issue, or use the article talkpage or WP:BLPN.

PS: In case you are not aware, my posts in this section have embedded links to the relevant policies, guidelines, processes and noticeboards. Click through for further information. Abecedare (talk) 17:18, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

The Facebook information appears quite plainly and readily on the right hand side of the -basic- "About" page. It appears with a little birthday cake beneath it. It's not necessary to go to any subsection, on that page, to see it. I'm very surprised that you could not see it there... Perhaps you are not looking at the correct René Bazinet FB page??? Blythe Spirit (talk) 17:38, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

I can't see it either. No birthday cake icon, or anything saying birthday, anywhere on the page, right, left or center. Apparently you have a special view of the page that no one else has. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Attract and Repel ‖ 17:46, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, the tiny birthday cake icon is on the left of the date not beneath it, and the date appears directly on the right hand side of the "About" page under a link to a Vimeo video. Blythe Spirit (talk) 17:51, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

It is not anywhere on that page. Have you tried logging out of Facebook and looking at it as a general user? --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - State of the Union ‖ 17:53, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean as a "general user" but anyone with a Facebook account can view his information, whether or not they are a friend of his. I don't have a special view of the page, so can only surmise that you're possibly looking at the wrong René Bazinet... Blythe Spirit (talk) 18:02, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Here's an update for all interested parties. René just said "don't worry about it." So, I supposed that's the bottom line....... Blythe Spirit (talk) 22:10, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Declaration of war

NeilN, May I bring your attention to this,

[17]

[18]

and now this:

[19]

Wondering if he is going to come here to revert my msg to you.

Best regards, --Blue Indigo (talk) 19:06, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Jon Hensley

That user returned immediately from their block to continue their pattern of behavior. Longer block, maybe? livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 22:16, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Please protect from persistent IP vandalism "Worth It" for 2 weeks.

Please protect from persistent IP vandalism "Worth It" for 2 weeks. They persist in vandalizing the RIAA certification and Sales amount in the Certification table with unsupported changes to sourced material. Attempts to call their attention to the instructional comments: WP:CHART#Certifications...Wait for it to actually appear at RIAA as they "provide a searchable database". & Do NOT change sourced material unless you can provide updated reliable sources. "Cite your sources: " & Talk:Worth It (Fifth Harmony song) are to no avail. Indeed IP 195.132.194.51 ONLY vandalizes and might be a sock of a registered user attempting to avoid a block. Perhaps the same with the other IPs acting in a similar nature. THANK YOU.—Iknow23 (talk) 21:45, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

@Iknow23: I have extended the semi-protection by a week. For future reference: try dropping IPs and new users welcome (and if needed, warning) messages on their user-talk page, like I did for Jaylon2233, since such users often don't know enough to even look at edit-summaries or article talk page. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 22:51, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

@Abecedare: Thank You. I too had thought that some were just putting content that they felt like into the article, without looking at edit-summaries or Talk page. They even failed to notice the 'hidden' instructional comments only viewable after they are on the edit screen. I'll have to admit that this is a bit of a learning experience for myself also as this is the first time that I have requested Page protection. Please tell me if there is a template to request Page protection that I should have used. Not knowing, I remembered previous Page protection and just posted this to the admin Talk page that had placed it. Some questions regarding your suggestions: Is the new users welcome a standard message? I mean may I copy & paste it, just removing your signature & adding my own? You have also mentioned warning messages. May I as a 'regular' user do that? I had thought (perhaps mistakenly) that only admins did that. Thanks again!—Iknow23 (talk) 01:20, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Will reply on your talk page. Abecedare (talk) 02:00, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Glad you caught the nonsense

Hi N. I am glad that you caught the vandalism on the article for Lee Corso. I have gotten in the habit of looking for stuff like that on the pages where the protection has expired but I slipped up tonight. I wonder what Lee (or Woody Paige for that matter) has done to bring about such stuff :-) The Tommy Smyth article used to get a lot of the same a couple years ago. Best regards. MarnetteD|Talk 03:47, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

MarnetteD, I was pretty lucky. Still on vacation but my phone caught onto the hotel's wifi and I got an alert. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:51, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello again N. I noticed that Gogo Dodo mentioned (at the SPI) that the Woody Paige article has been getting hit by socks of Jaredgk2008 (talk · contribs) - which explains a lot. With the prolific number of socks I wonder if the protection should be restored. This also makes me think that it was J socks that was messing around with the redirect pages. Enjoy the rest of your weekend. MarnetteD|Talk 19:20, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

MarnetteD, I'm inclined not to fully protect. You can temporarily activate your email if you want to know why. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:24, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

I had to turn it off when I received some absolutely vile attacks a year or so ago. I am curious though so I have turned it back on. Thanks for your time. MarnetteD|Talk 19:30, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

MarnetteD, emailed you. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:41, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Makes perfect sense. Thanks again for taking the time to fill me in. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 19:44, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

This edit seems to be in the same ballpark as others we've come across so I thought I'd let you check it just in case. MarnetteD|Talk 23:21, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Update. This one is now blocked. MarnetteD|Talk 02:35, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Canvassing at

Hi Neil, just a heads-up that I found some examples of canvassing and direct coaching of some of the discussion participants at Talk:List of highest-grossing Indian films. I've flagged them accordingly with diffs in this edit. One of the people involved left a comment that is explicitly POV, "We need help: They still say baahubali is tamil we need to find more Telugu who get it" I believe this to be an IP-hopper who has been whispering bad advice to Marchoctober, (detailed in green on his talk page), and who seems to be conspiring with several people, including Marchoctober, to achieve his POV goals. For instance, he's the one who posted the threat "There is a discussion on Ricky's abusive and racist conduct at the top Indian films article. You better be in support or you'll be ther Next." on your talk page. Anyhow, just asking that you keep this crap in the back of your mind as you do your adminly thing. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:57, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I will also point out that the IPs doing the whispering geolocate to California. Marchoctober admits to being from California here. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:29, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Cyphoidbomb, perhaps open an SPI case so we can do this formally? If the IP's are indeed Marchoctober then I'm willing to block indef. We have geolocation - any stylistic smoking guns? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:35, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I'd have to look. Most of the comments from the IPs I've seen are brief, so it may be difficult. CheckUser won't help for obvious reasons. I'd also have to see if any California IPs commented at the RfC as that might be Marchoctober logged out. Boy sometimes I wish we had rogue CheckUsers. :) Oh, and welcome back from your vacay! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:37, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Stylistic match: compare [20], [21] with [22]. Of course, by itself, it can possibly be a result of an IP imitating Marchoctober's approach. Note also that there are some California based IPs hounding User:Ricky81682 (see last couple of comments here), so this could be just them following Rigky to the movie list page. Will need to analyze timeline to see if the IP-hounding predates the dispute with Marchoctober or not... will leave all that to NeilN. :) Abecedare (talk) 16:45, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Most likely following. I seem to have pissed off a few people years ago and someone comes out every few months to demand my blocking and desysoping no matter the topic. It's probably a bad hand account for someone. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:37, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Ricky81682, Abecedare and NeilN I will point out that Marchoctober was already questioned about his use of other accounts. He claims that he forgot the passwords to these other accounts, which may be a legitimate explanation, but the whole of his POV edits, his prolonging of various discussions related to his 'Baahubali is Telugu only!' argument, the California IPs that follow him around whispering advice, the canvassing all raise questions. For the record, I just noticed that NeilN already found the canvassing a while back, so that's worth keeping in perspective. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:48, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Marchoctober admits that the prior account was User:RTPking which had a similar focus on topics (and refers to User:Kondakotaiah as a before-that account). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:52, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

vacation warning

There is ongoing discussion to rescind your vacation notification, and I am considering even stronger measures if this disruption continues. You've been warned. Abecedare (talk) 18:59, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Hmm... That sounds like our HR department! - Kautilya3 (talk) 19:45, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I have half a mind to issue an ARBIPA warning/sanction for the disruption caused due to this vacation of yours. —SpacemanSpiff 19:58, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

@Abecedare and SpacemanSpiff: I'll drink to that! (any excuse....) --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:56, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I see that a Level 3 desysop is warranted for "conduct unbecoming of an admin". And I am not refering to 'drunk adminning', but 'drunk but not adminning', which is a sacrilege. Now only in NeilN were around to tell me how to open such proceedings... Abecedare (talk) 22:22, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

After reviewing the quality of your administrative work here I have decided that your vacations are disruptive to the project. Please plan your vacations around Wikipedia. Rather than visit Las Vegas, you can block some people vandalising the Las Vegas article. Rather than flying on a plane to an exciting new place you can investigate sock puppets! Surely with a bit of effort you can plan a vacation around working here. Chillum 22:30, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Yeeeahhh, if you could come in on Saturday, that would be great... §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:32, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Wow, I came here to say the same thing. All of a sudden the backlogs are empty, so I knew you must have returned :) Seriously though, don't do this to me again. Handling AIV all by myself during peak hours is not fun. You make plenty of money maintaining Wikipedia, you shouldn't need extended holidays. At least find some backup NeilN's, okay!? :) — MusikAnimal ^talk 19:41, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

@MusikAnimal: Gotta be honest with you - enjoying the scenery at some of the Caribbean's beaches sure beats vandal-watching at AIV. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:59, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Haha but only slightly, right? :) Hope you had a good time! — MusikAnimal ^talk 23:57, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Henrikh Mkhitaryan

Of course that's the wrong version, but I've been looking at this and it seems to be a BLP violation to say that he has some Albanian origin on the basis of[23]. That simply says he won an Albanian award. It's been suggested on the talk page that it could be a typo, or that he might have played in the "Superliga" in which foreigners are eligible for the award - see Albanian Footballer of the Year. I'm also wondering if the talk page should be placed under EE discrtionary sanctions, or at least the edit-warring editor given an alert. Doug Weller (talk) 14:06, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Doug Weller, I semied because of the recent vandalism but have placed some notes on the talk page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:24, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Doug Weller (talk) 15:39, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you

[24] Thank you! I was about to file an ANI report. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 19:29, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Callmemirela, you're welcome. Loriendrew actually reported him to AIV and the "Dragons 2025" was obviously the same old type of vandalism. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:43, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

User issues

I would like to bring it to your attention that user AdjectivesAreBad is potentially vandalising the Battle of Cowpens infobox. Despite the fact it has been consistently, until now, been regarded as "Decisive American victory", which is backed up by the article itself and references within the text, this user is consistently deleting edits to display simply; "American victory". This user has provided absolutely no reasons for their edits, the user has also been reverting edits I have made which have been referenced with sources to back up the fact without due reason. I did leave a message on this user's talk page requesting the user either provide a valid reason or raise the issue on the talk page and, in the meantime, desist from editing. The user subsequently deleted my message. (RockDrummerQ (talk) 20:26, 22 August 2015 (UTC))

RockDrummerQ, AdjectivesAreBad has posted on the talk page (albeit incorrectly identifying the edits as vandalism). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:36, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Aye, I have just seen. Thanks! (RockDrummerQ (talk) 20:41, 22 August 2015 (UTC))

Twitter as a reliable source

You edited Plymouth City Airport, removing a citation to Twitter with the comment that "Twitter and a blog are not WP:RS." In general, I'd agree with you, but if the fact being cited is that there was significant opposition to something expressed on Twitter, a link to Twitter that reflects that significant opposition could conceivably be considered a reliable source, don't you think? WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:40, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi WikiDan61. No, I don't. Any controversy, no matter how big or little, is going to generate tweets. Just pointing to a hashtag and saying, "look, there's your significant opposition" is interpretation of a primary source. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:45, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I see your point. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:47, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Blocked IP

Hello again N. You blocked 38.66.210.172 (talk · contribs) for disruptive editing. I wanted to let you know that they have returned as 38.66.209.186 (talk · contribs) making several of the same edits. Have a nice week. MarnetteD|Talk 15:02, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I see that Stevietheman reported this to AIV and that you blocked them. Thanks to you both. MarnetteD|Talk 15:09, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @MarnetteD: Thanks. Blocked and protected a few of their targets. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:10, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks kindly! Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 15:30, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

New day means new IP 72.29.32.91 (talk · contribs). The obsession with trying to turn Capt Picard into Capt Kirk is odd :-) MarnetteD|Talk 14:20, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

MarnetteD, phasered (set to stun, of course). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:24, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for "making it so" N. MarnetteD|Talk 14:25, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Here is the newest IP N 72.29.32.177 (talk · contribs) MarnetteD|Talk 00:44, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

I think my post here last night got lost in the shuffle of the other messages on your page N. OTOH they stopped editing from that IP so it didn't matter. They have started up a few minutes ago using this IP 74.127.86.127 (talk · contribs). Looks like the IPs are too varied for a range block. Oh well. MarnetteD|Talk 19:47, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

MarnetteD, blocked. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:39, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

IP block

Hey. This IP really needs to be blocked. Beyond disruptive and needs to be stopped. DaHuzyBru (talk) 18:09, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

DaHuzyBru, blocked 1 month. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:14, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Much appreciated! Cheers. DaHuzyBru (talk) 18:17, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

my link on AI page

my link on AI page is as relevant as the AItopics link and others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndyPardoe (talk • contribs) 19:54, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

@AndyPardoe: Not quite. AItopics is run by Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence. Your link is to a blog that just started up. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:03, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

While the homeAI.info website is new, it is more up to date than AItopics. It is also much more than a blog, as an example it has a resource directory. It is also independent of any association or company which means it doesn't have any bias to particular section of the community, i.e.: researchers, so is more targeted to the general public and those wanting to learn more about AI which to me makes it more relevant for a link on wikipedia than some others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndyPardoe (talk • contribs) 20:14, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Please read WP:ELNO: "Blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority. (This exception for blogs, etc., controlled by recognized authorities is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities who are individuals always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for people.)" The website will need to be recognized by a published authority in the field. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:23, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't see this as a blog or a fansite. I am not a fan of AI, I am a published researcher in AI. This site has been recognised by other published authorities in the field too and has a lot of support from the AI community already. I believe it fits the criteria of an official link "The linked content primarily covers the area for which the subject of the article is notable" — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndyPardoe (talk • contribs) 20:59, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

AndyPardoe, actually this is your site. Please see our conflict of interest guidelines. Please link to where the site has been recognized. I'm also wondering how you're handling copyright issues as some stories seem to be straight copies of newspaper articles. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:07, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Admin help: BCE in North American history pages

All of the "Nth millennium BC in North American History" pages (e.g. 6th millennium BCE in North American history) seem to have been moved (e.g. this move) to the current BCE name. Isn't this against policy? Do you have time to look at this? --A D Monroe III (talk) 21:38, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

A D Monroe III, there's WP:ERA but seeing as the moves happened more than four years ago, I would think that BCE is now the default. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:46, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm aware of WP:ERAS, but I thought there was a guideline on article names that required AD/BC for all. But I can't find it at the moment. Am I mistaken? --A D Monroe III (talk) 21:51, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

A D Monroe III, WP:NCNUM. Pinging Uyvsdi as they did the moves. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:59, 24 August 2015 (UTC) Fix ping to A D Monroe III --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:00, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

thank you

Thanks for letting me know.

Versus is removing a huge section. At first, it was done in a sneaky fashion by hiding it with grammatical corrections and having a misleading edit summary. Then he kept removing the big section.

I will comply with your request immediately but please restore it. Within a day or two, I predict that section will be written in a nicer way to meet Versus' standards. But Versus removing an entire section is no good. Sandra opposed to terrorism (talk) 00:39, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Sandra opposed to terrorism, both of you continued to revert after being warned so both of you are blocked. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:43, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

wikipedia customs

In the time I was blocked, I saw your edits and to that ANI. ANI has some administrators who seem very aggressive. In contrast, you seem to be fair and kind.

I will not make you look like you had bad judgement by me editing poorly. Instead, I will contemplate every edit extremely carefully for the next 24 hours and not even touch that train article. Sandra opposed to terrorism (talk) 00:55, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

New promise. Your actions reduced my tension level so much that I won't even edit. I'll just read other articles, take notes, and maybe make a few good changes in a couple hours (but nothing related to that article)Sandra opposed to terrorism (talk) 00:58, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you ...

Thank you Neil ... I have been writing for many years, I am amazed at the complexity of Wikipedia... and the terms and controls contained therein (sorry for my naivety). I thought I knew what I needed to do... I will go back to the beginning. As the firm is over 250 years old I thought it would be good to include something about the history of the firm. So I will go back to the drawing board on the facts and submit as a draft for your review and agreement. 217.37.89.137 (talk) 15:40, 25 August 2015 (UTC)Linda Heyworth

Not sure what you're referring to? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:42, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Mentor

Can you be my unofficial mentor for Wikipedia advice? Or are you too busy for this. It is possible that I may have very few questions but am bound to have a few. Sandra opposed to terrorism (talk) 16:21, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Sandra opposed to terrorism, subject to availability, I answer all good-faith questions posted here to the best of my ability, so sure. I will add a welcome message to your talk page containing some helpful links. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:26, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring block

Please explain to me why only the IP (173.197.107.20 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)) was blocked for edit warring at {{California wildfires}}. Further, please explain to me why the logged-in editor was afforded the opportunity to revert their revert (which, by the way, was their 6th in a 24h period - [25][26][27][28][29][30]), but the IP wasn't. Alakzi (talk) 17:35, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Alakzi, replied here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:43, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Can we unblock them on the promise not to edit war? Presumably, since they've handed out a 3RR warning, despite their disagreeing with you over whether their first edit constitutes a revert, they'd not have reverted again. I don't see what's to be gained by keeping them blocked for another twenty-four hours. Alakzi (talk) 18:12, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Alakzi, if they are willing to undo their last revert or you want to take responsibility for that revert, then yes. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:51, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I'll take responsibility for it then. Alakzi (talk) 18:58, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Sikhism

Neil, Thank you for your involvement on the Sikhism page. Could you kindly specify whose feedback I should be waiting for ? I have opened a section to discuss with anyone who is interested on the article's talk page, but no one has posted anything there. The last user who did a blind revert, without giving any appropriate justification upfront, later vaguely says he did it for "readability". He has not responded to my message on what specific aspects he has issues with. Nonetheless, I have made some modifications for improved readability. Please let me know whose response I should be waiting for, and on what exact issue, before proceeding with my edits ?

Thanks again.

Js82 (talk) 23:37, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Js82, as I said on your talk page, you need wait for feedback from editors reverting you. Don't expect instantaneous feedback. A day or two is sufficient. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:41, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Neil, again, thanks for quick response. I understand your point. However, the last user who undid only later vaguely says "readability". Is that sound enough reason to ask someone to hold off on for a day ? I have no issues waiting for feedback, but it has to have some logic I believe. This way, anyone can edit an article citing any frivolous reason, without having any accountability at all. Even with all that, I have myself edited the article for improved readability based on my own perspective. Is it prohibited to now upload an edited version (with "improved readability"), when another use can apparently use that as a pretext to get a lock on the article for several hours ?

Js82 (talk) 23:48, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Js82, you are edit warring against multiple editors, not just one. You've been told about this before. [31], [32] and WP:3RR is a bright-line rule. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:58, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Okay Neil, although I do not see your response addressing my question.

UPDATE: I do see you have posted on the talk page, prompting others if they want to respond. I appreciate your genuine efforts. Thanks again ! Js82 (talk) 00:02, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Paid editing

One of our users is advertising paid editing for wikipedia sites for companies here on wikipedia. They are connected to a rash of troll events so I'm hesitant to hotlink them, it's "OCCullens". I ran into them because they posted they are a Falangist, which is a singularly odd political choice in the modern age so I checked their user page. Ogress _smash! 01:02, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

@Ogress: I have removed the advertising and posted a note on their talk page. FYI, to hotlink a user without notifying them you can use the {{noping}} template. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:54, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

What the hell. That's seriously beyond the pale. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 03:00, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

FreeRangeFrog, if you want to block, I'm not going to shed any tears. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:03, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Blocked as what? That's the problem with COI, very little is actionable. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 03:04, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

FreeRangeFrog, I agree, and that's why I couldn't justify WP:IAR and blocking. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:06, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I seriously question that editor's motivations; I've found a few pages of his I've tagged as hoaxes like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amerind metal#Amerind metal, he identifies as a social darwinist and is all over racism in a way I strongly suspect is trolling. Ogress _smash! 04:30, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

A little help please(Probably a facepalm for you )

Rhianna Pratchett and Lila Tretikov pages seem to be in a disarray. I wanted to revert to a good version but then I read the policy change and removal of person data. How can I put the pages back in order without reverting to person data? And yes, I am handicapped in technical situations and do driveby msging on admins pages. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 04:50, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

FreeatlastChitchat Fixed now? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:52, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Awesome FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 04:54, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

FreeatlastChitchat Somebody over on the dev side screwed something up to cause these messages to pop up everywhere on WMF sites. To get rid of them, purge the page. An easy way to do this is to add the purge gadget (Preferences -> Gadgets -> Add a "Purge" option to the top of the page, which purges the page's cache when followed.). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:58, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch man. I tried to summon the nerve to ask you "how you did it, cant see a thing from history", then I thought better of it . FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 04:59, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

FreeatlastChitchat I don't bite :-) --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:01, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Death of Sandra Bland

SANDRA BLAND WAS MURDERED. SHE DID NOT COMMIT SUICIDE! Please edit the Wikipedia page to say so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.38.24 (talk) 16:22, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

You will have to take this up on the article's talk page but this issue has been amply discussed. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:41, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

California Fires

Hello. I want to take a moment to both thank and apologize. First and foremost, thank you for your approach to talking with me about this issue/debate. You pointed me towards some good resources to help me understand this process. The apology is for engaging in the edit war in the first place. I messed up, plain and simple. ("Insert pointless excuse here"). Moving forward I am going to use this as a learning opportunity to make sure I don't mess up in the same fashion again. I wanted to ask what your thoughts were on removing the page protection? I was one of the principals involved in the edit war that caused the page to be protected. I have already stated on the template's talk page, and will state here again, that I will NOT be making any changes to the color scheme. I would think that if the page were unprotected and I did just revert it back again that would (AND SHOULD) earn me a nice little block. It would be great to be able to edit the template to continue to add fires and other stuff to it. Let me know your thoughts on the matter and once again, thank you! Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing})

Jabs at an editor on a talk page

Hi NeilN. Would you mind taking a look at this thread and commenting as you see fit? It's related to the dispute that led you to protecting {{California wildfires}} and refers to Alakzi and a recent ANI thread. I'm not asking for any administrator actions to be taken, but I also think it's important that the participants in that thread know that their combative comments directed toward Alakzi do not help in resolving the situation. Normally, I'd just comment civilly myself, but this whole incident has been far too factional already. I imagine it would be taken better if it came from an administrator rather than someone from the accessibility WikiProject. Feel free to ignore this if you don't think comment is warranted. ~ Rob^Talk 18:15, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: It looks like the conversation has moved on... --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:28, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

It since has, yes. I started writing that message before it had but was distracted by other things. Still, I wonder how many times editors can be expected to see negative comments about themselves posted publicly before responding to them. It's the response that will wind up at ANI. ~ Rob^Talk 18:33, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: This is not Alakzi's first kick at the can. That's all I'll say for now. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:40, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

"For now"? When can we expect the rest? Please, don't hold it in. Alakzi (talk) 19:02, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

And there's no need to escalate the situation. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:04, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

You're the one who's escalating the situation, with your constant provocation, like throwing your weight around on my talk page, and now responding to a report of taunting with a taunt. Alakzi (talk) 19:07, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I could have easily blocked you for edit warring. I didn't. Instead, I fully protected the template which happened to be on your version. I warned you against edit warring and you responded with "Fuck off my talk page, idiot." You might want to rethink who is doing the provoking. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:17, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

You're doing the provoking when you come to my talk page to assert your authority; a violent reaction to oppressive treatment is natural to humans. And, if there was any doubt, I'm not thankful to you in the slightest for not blocking me. Alakzi (talk) 19:22, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

PP on Nimby et al

Thanks for protecting NIMBY and several other pages till the 26th September. The students don't seem to have given up yet and have added the same material at Cup and Lecture hall. Some protection on these until after the 20th September might also be useful. Many thanks  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   19:09, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Velella, I'm trying to determine if I can do a rangeblock. Stay tuned. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:37, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Velella, okay, I've performed two rangeblocks for one week. 2600:1:E400:0:0:0:0:0/48 and 2600:1:E500:0:0:0:0:0/48. Hopefully that will slow the disruption. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:55, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm guilty of WP:3RR

I just realized I've violated 3RR on Battle of the Bulge. I reverted my own last revert. I started a discussion on talk. What else should I do? Maybe I could self-impose a 24-hour block? Or bring myself up for AN3? --A D Monroe III (talk) 19:58, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

A D Monroe III You realized your mistake and self-reverted so no admin is going to take action. Lay off editing that specific article for 24 hours and continue to discuss during and after and you'll be fine. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:04, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I come with a related question and see that someone asked you this. When you do 3RR, I think it means that you changed it back 3 times. Based on what I know now, that is rarely productive. My question to is if 3RR means 3 times to one area? If one makes an edit to the articles section on history then, a few minutes later, makes an edit to the section on geography, then fixes a reference in the demographic section, then fixes something in the "see also" section, that is 4 edits. Is that a violation of 3RR? I would think not but Wikipedia is a strange place.

Or is 3RR simply:

user 1: Is to.

user 2: Is not.

user 1: Is to.

user 2: Is not.

user 1: Is to.

user 2: Is not.

user 1: Is to.

If that is the case, then 3RR is not a good policy and 2RR is possibly better. Sandra opposed to terrorism (talk) 22:46, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Sandra opposed to terrorism, Wikipedia is always a strange place :-) WP:3RR is pretty clear, "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period." Consecutive edits count as one revert. In practice, admins will look at what you're reverting. A simple example: Suppose you're in a disagreement with other editors about whether a person should be British or Irish. You change the lead to refer to her as Irish. Someone reverts. You then change the "Early life" section so she's Irish. Someone reverts. You then change the "Career section". Someone reverts. Lastly, you change a category from British artist to Irish artist. Even though you are editing different areas, all your edits have the same goal and you have broken 3RR. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:23, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Unless I'm misunderstanding your example, that wouldn't yet be a breach of 3RR, as both the original editor and reverting editor (assuming it's all one person) each reverted exactly three times. 3RR forbids reverting more than three times, and the original addition of content isn't a revert. Of course, that's semantics, as it's clearly edit warring and therefore against policy. ~ Rob^Talk 00:15, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Rob, you're misunderstanding. The first edit is a change and therefore a revert. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:21, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

To Sandra opposed to terrorism's point, I agree that 3RR is a bit excessive. I personally try to follow 1RR for myself, that is, follow WP:BRD. But in my editing I noted above, I was multi-tasking and I didn't readily realize what my individual edits were doing together on one of the articles I was following. I suppose that's why the rule is 3RR and not 1RR -- for occasionally distracted editors like me. I know you can still get blocked for edit warring without violating 3RR; it just takes a bit more effort to judge. --A D Monroe III (talk) 16:13, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Harassment

Can you strike and hide a comment as harassment? At least two editors including myself object strongly to this IP referring to transgender people as "it" and I have no idea where to ask for an admin to strike that part. Here's the conversation: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Gender identity and here's the diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style&diff=prev&oldid=677998942 Ogress _smash! 21:21, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

@Ogress: Discussion has progressed and removing that comment now would stir up a hornets nest. I have added a note about discretionary sanctions. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:09, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

@NeilN: No worries. I think sometimes people get away with murder when it comes to trans people, I'd like to see the people who say trans folks are monstrosities and objects to get the same treatment as those who make wild racist claims, but I agree that timing is key. Ogress _smash! 02:13, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

List of Internet forums

I’m contacting active participants on this article to vote “yes” or “no” on this suggested format. [Talk: List of Internet Forums]
72.181.218.181 (talk) 00:44, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Hey

Remember when i asked to protect the article 1964 Brazilian coup d'état? Well, the problem persists. I tried to explain to the guy (this guy), he didn't joined the discussion in the talk page. So i spoke portuguese with him in his talk page (my portuguese is just as good as my english, i might add) but still very little talking and no engaging in the article's talk page. Could you talk to him? maybe coming from a administrator it might change his disruptive editing. Better talk to him than blocking the whole page. But if he persists... Well, that's with you guys. Thanks! Coltsfan (talk) 01:39, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Coltsfan, done. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:27, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

NeilN, It appears it was to no effect [33]. Coltsfan (talk) 02:38, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Coltsfan, blocked for edit warring. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:42, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Pashedmotatos

Any objections if I move this to indef? I suspect this account is either a sleeper or compromised, and the blocked anon user who appears to be using it was responsible for some very bad edits, real block-on-sight sort of stuff. --Bongwarrior (talk) 03:20, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Bongwarrior Nope, no objections. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:22, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Neil. --Bongwarrior (talk) 03:27, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

1964 Brazil Coup

the editors and I already had the talk. I sourced the official Brazilian House of Representatives website but they insist reverting my edits which are factually correct, president Goulart was ousted by the congress on April 1st 1964.

I did not violate 3rr between 27 and 28 of August. On what grounds did you block me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcobjj (talk • contribs)

@Marcobjj: WP:3RR is not an entitlement. You reverted four times on August 25-26th and despite two warnings thereafter, reverted again on August 28th without a single post to the article's talk page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:52, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:1964_Brazilian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat#Armed_forces_or_Congress.3F Marcobjj (talk

Marcobjj, you've joined the discussion. Good. But please don't insert your post between another post and a direct reply. Now wait to see if the others respond. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:22, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

They are not able to counter my sources or deconstruct my argument in the Talk Page but they keep reverting my edits nonetheless. Marcobjj (talk —Preceding undated comment added 19:45, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

@Marcobjj: Other editors are presenting rebuttals. If you think discussion has stalled, please look at WP:DRR for other options. And please fix your signature. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:49, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Elon Musk facebook

Thanks for the block on that IP. They've been trying to add that Facebook group for a while. I tried to get it added as a blacklisted link, but that doesn't seem to have gone anywhere. Any way you could nudge that along, or have it added? Thanks much. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Border Town ‖ 00:25, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Ebyabe, it was added [34] but the user wasn't adding it as a link. I don't think the blacklist will help, right Guy? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:32, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, I see what you mean. Just have to keep an eye out for future occurences. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - State of the Union ‖ 16:43, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Rafic Hariri

The neutrality of this section is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. (October 2012) , OCTOBER 2012!! Neill , Respectfully , It is a non-sense. Obviously, the talk page is useless. The content of the current page of wikipedia is saying that Rafik Hariri was a thief based in only two sources.

The talk page is the only way you're going to effect change. You need to outline your concerns in a detailed fashion ("it's nonsense" won't work). I agree this is a content dispute and not straight out vandalism and that's why I haven't protected the page or blocked you. If, after posting to the talk page you feel discussion has stalled, try the options listed at WP:DRN. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:20, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Please note the IP keeps altering the article [35] without any attetmpt of discussing at the talk page.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 11:56, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Continues to talk in article [36]. Still not using talk page. 97.85.113.113 (talk) 07:02, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

The IP shows no intentions to discuss any portion of the article and rather keeps warring and pushing their preferred version of it. Isn't this enough? I'm tempted to request protection again, but there's only one disruptive IP acting there.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 19:19, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Jetstreamer, I've blocked the IP temporarily for re-adding the note to the article. However, this is clear edit warring on your part and could be considered tendentious editing. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:32, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I've simply reinstated a paragraph that has been marked as needing a citation since February this year. The proper procedure is either to add a citation or to discuss at the article's talk (something the IP has been encouraged to by you [37]). Please also note that I'm not the only one reverting the IP edits.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 20:55, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

@Jetstreamer: I suggest you read WP:BURDEN which is policy. Six months is ample time for you to provide a source, especially for such contentious material. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:06, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

You're right about that. I've undone my last edit to the article [38].--Jetstreamer ^Talk 21:21, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

@Jetstreamer: Thank you. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:26, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

bad apple?

Unfortunately, it seems that the user you blocked has not changed his behavour about 3RR. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2015_Thalys_train_attack&diff=prev&oldid=678240104 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2015_Thalys_train_attack&diff=prev&oldid=678197169 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2015_Thalys_train_attack&diff=prev&oldid=678177989 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2015_Thalys_train_attack&diff=prev&oldid=678228734

going against the edits of me, Green Cardamom, and Tough Sailor. Versus seems to want to not list one of the involved passengers in that list, the one that is the second most cited (Stone, is the one that talked to the press the most).

In the end, I think this bad user will win because I am not a fighter. Actually, if 2RR is more sensible as I mentioned before. Sandra opposed to terrorism (talk) 15:01, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Blocked for 60 hours. Doug Weller (talk) 16:08, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Correcting the Language link to an article

Hi Neil, I have a very minor technical question for you regarding this article: Billie Awards

The awards were also referred to as the "Billies" and thus the page used to have a note redirecting to Goat

I believe this created a bit of confusion as the languages section on the left hand menu connects to the Somali - language page for "goat." I removed the note at the top but I do not know how to de-link the languages menu option. Could you help me out with this? Thanks -Classicfilms (talk) 17:09, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Classicfilms, done. Clicking "edit" at the bottom of the language links will get you to the Wikidata interface where you can edit interlanguage links. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:14, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks Neil!-Classicfilms (talk) 19:40, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Pearl Going Page

You've removed content that was sourced and attributed to news articles. re; rape was front page news in NZ and internet bullying well documented and sources provided. It is also well sourced that she isn't only a climbing athlete she is a prominent media publicist.

Also sponsors are still active.

How you have left article provides no balance or explanation to warrant it as a Pearl Going page

Please correct.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alpkate (talk • contribs) 00:01, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Alpkate, see WP:BLPSELFPUB. Also, have you been editing as this IP? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:38, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Help?

Could you please help me with these IP's On Aberdeen Airport and try to get them to stop edit warring, before I pass the 3R. They remove information and don't provide any source for their claims, thanks. RMS52 ^{Talk to me} 05:34, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

User:‎Js82

Since you have interacted with the user previously, can you take a look at the user's recent edits to Hindu and Sardarji joke? Seems to be soapboxing and edit-warring at both pages, and discussing the issue with him may not be very productive. Also seems to similarly disruptive at other articles, but I haven't taken a deeper look at those. Abecedare (talk) 14:51, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

You are the one edit warring. I already put in my explanation on the talk pages. Please do not edit war. And thanks for bringing in the admin.

Js82 (talk) 14:53, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) And now Js82 has copy-pasted my warning to him, to my talk-page including the personalized note I had added to the templated message. Not a promising sign. Pinging @SpacemanSpiff: too. Abecedare (talk) 14:56, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

A mistake which has been reverted. Js82 (talk) 15:00, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

And just to clarify, stop portraying my response to a matter as sensitive as this (the attempted definition of Hindu that tries to subsume Sikhs) as "soapboxing". I don't want to go into the details here on the admins page, but have explained it on the talk page of the article. Js82 (talk) 15:07, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

@Js82: When you make a change that has been reverted, you need to use the talk page to explain why your change improves the article and wait for consensus to form. Post-revert-post-revert-post-revert is not acceptable. Also, your comment, "At whatever place you are going to mention the Indian Constitution's grandstanding fake and deceiving definition, the vehement Sikh opposition to it must certainly be posted right alongside, rather than "somewhere else later". There can be no compromise on this whatsover." has two major problems: soapboxing and a clear indication that you will edit war until you get your way. Both will get you blocked, sooner than later. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:11, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Neil, I perhaps got too excited and realize why you think it was soap-boxing. But, before drawing conclusions, please do take into account the gravity of the situation. This (and other similar issues) have been the major reasons for the Sikh struggle in India for the last 70 years (that have lead to genocides of Sikhs). So, it's importance cannot be over stressed. Now, there can only be two ways out here: either you mention it alongside, or later. I only wished to convey strongly that it must be mentioned alongside, otherwise it appears to be an "Upfront: Hindus include Sikhs by Indian Constitution. Somewhere later, Oh, by the way, Sikhs do not accept it..." I don't want to take up further space here, and hope you would keep monitoring the situation. Thanks. Js82 (talk) 15:22, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

• I think Js82 has now been extended sufficient good faith and the behavior has long crossed the line of being disruptive. A block and/or topic ban is imminent if this doesn't change, which is also what I said the last two times.—SpacemanSpiff 17:46, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

To present my side, it is very apparent that most of the times I have been engaged in issues with editors who generally have a common theme: They are all very active on pages relating to Hinduism, India, etc, and also, not surprisingly given the history, have been actively writing articles on Sikhs and Sikhism over the last several years (based on their own perceptions.) Given that Sikhs are such a small minority, no one in the past probably bothered to present the actual Sikh point of view on all these articles. Now, since I have come in, these people have generally been having issues, since there own version of Sikhism has been challenged, so they keep coming up in hordes to issue me warnings, without really bothering to read all the discussions that I painstakingly often start and participate in. And I did say this is a 'general' theme. There have of course been some issues here and there with other editors as well, but who does not have them. I understand that is part and parcel of life here at Wikipedia. Furthermore, whenever the concerns raised by the other editors have been genuine (e.g., pointing out copyright violations etc) rather than complaints based on opposition to their own POVs, I have always been understanding.

Given this situation, I would urge other non-Indian/non-Hindu admins to please remain engaged. It is very hard for one voice to keep standing up when faced with such drastic opposition, especially one that operates in groups and has been controlling things here for several years.

Js82 (talk) 19:22, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

@Js82: Given that Wikipedia is the seventh most visited website in the world, and every change to major religion articles is scrutinized closely, it defies belief that "no one in the past probably bothered to present the actual Sikh point of view on all these articles." I've looked at your edits and I believe it's far more likely that your beliefs make it hard for you to edit neutrally. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:35, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Neil, visited website does not necessarily mean the minority viewpoint has been represented accurately. The visitors would also naturally reflect the same demography as the overall population. Given that how hard it is to get anything worthwhile accomplished here (especially for a minority person, when confronted with a relentless gang of men who keep coming one by one to raise opposition), it is not beyond logic that that no one has seriously bothered to work on the Sikh related pages all this while. If you see most of these pages, they smack of Hindu authors who keep imposing their India and Hindu centric views. Just walk around some of them and you will see it (tags to self concocted terms such as Indian religions, dharmic religions), emphasis on always trying to show Sikhism as being somehow related to the Hindu philosophy; emphasis on Sikhs having fought over the centuries for Hindus against Muslims (when in reality Sikhs are just supposed to fight tyranny, irrespective of for whom and against whom) ; citing the Indian Constitution's fake and deceiving definition of Hindu (to subsume all other religions) upfront without any mention of the Sikh opposition. This last one is actually a perfect example, which we are debating right now as well: How do you explain this part (Sikh opposition) not being covered, if all these articles have been "scrutinized closely". Just put article 25A India constitution Sikh on Google, and see how many hits you would get citing the Sikh protests. How come these have never been alluded to ? Clearly, the scrutiny you talk off appears to be only limited to "verifying whatever has been written" and not to actually presenting the complete neutral POV.

Thanks for your efforts and reading my posts. And thanks also for commenting on my edits. I would hereon try to retain a more neutral POV in my posts.

Js82 (talk) 19:44, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Neil, to add to my previous posts, I just happened to search for "Sikh" on the talk page of the article Hindu. That is live proof of what I mentioned above. Some people have already in the past objected to whatever is said in the very first paragraph, but given the nexus of the Hindu lobby that exist here, there words have just been subdued. Here is one such editor's words:

"Why is it not noted in the first paragraph that many of those religions mentioned object to, and reject their status of being called Hindus in the Indian Constitution. I can provide many sources, but knowing the editing on Wikipedia I doubt that the truth will be told. Here is one source. ....."

"Wikipedia is obviously supporting those pro-Hindu fascist groups (such as RSS, Shiv Sena), that wish to club everyone as Hindus. Why still does it not say that religions object to being called Hindus? This article should be placed in the category where it does not meet wikipedia standards."

Apologies for pushing more content here, but it was needed to clarify my position. Please go and read all this to get a fair picture. And now, 2 years later, the same story is being repeated, just with different characters.

Js82 (talk) 07:29, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker) I took a look at Js82's contribution to Sikhism (this edit) and there are a few problems with it. First, there is the restatement of the religion from Pantheist to Revealed but without a source change. At the least, I'd expect some talk page comment that confirms that the source was previously misrepresented. Then there are citations to Tliang Mohalla which, I presume, is a religious text and is therefore not reliable, especially because we're dealing with translations. Then, there is text that is uncited (central pillars of Sikhism) and the citation to sgpc which is not an independent or evaluative source. I'm also concerned about the statement above about 'the Sikh point of view'. Merely being a Sikh (I assume Js82 is a Sikh) does not qualify one as a representative of an entire group and there is no guarantee that Js82 is not merely pushing his or her own view of what Sikhism is or isn't. It is precisely because of this that we prefer reliable secondary sources rather than working with whatever view an editor brings to the table. Js82 may mean well but the pattern of their editing is of concern. --regentspark (comment) 21:21, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Need guidance/advice regarding the issue with the Ghulam Ahmed Pervez dispute

I'm trying to ask you and Albino what I can do here, what are my options? You are asking me to go to Dispute_resolution_noticeboard, but that board requires the matter to be discussed on the talk page, which the other editors who are reverting refuse to do... Other editors have deleted my edits multiple times, removing sourced content from Ghulam Ahmed Pervez. They are not discussing their deletions on the talk page, just arbitrarily deleting content and sources. Admins aren't protecting the page, I've been warned now for edit-warring so I can't do anything else.... I spent hours yesterday including sources and created a section for "differing opinions" to present both sides of the argument... All that is now gone. How is this in keeping with Wikipedia's neutrality? Please advise. Code16 (talk) 16:48, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Code16, any discussion about controversial material is going to require patience. We're not talking about hours here, but days/weeks. If you want more outside input, start a WP:RFC. If one side is refusing to respond to good faith discussion then admins will eventually see that and take that into account when taking action. But again, that's not, "they didn't respond in twelve hours". --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:56, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Sure, I'll be patient but need to know how to proceed. I just checked the RfC process, but it doesn't look like that's an option now that everything is already deleted... How do I use an RfC now that all of my edits are already gone? I have to link something to the talk page, which points to something in the article, but they deleted practically all the sourced material that was being disputed (without discussing the matter on the talk page).... Isn't this vandalism now? Code16 (talk) 17:32, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

@Code16: As you've reverted multiple times, you know that all your versions/edits are in history and can be linked to from anywhere. Example. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:52, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh nice! Thanks, I'll just copy that link in the RfC citing that previous version, (I'm not experienced sorry, as you can tell). Code16 (talk) 17:59, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Hey there

I noticed Wikiknowledgesource (talk · contribs) is adding sometimes questionably RS material and I suspect it is because he's "Dr Hutan Ashrafian, a scientist and historian based in the United Kingdom", as the edits notably state. I've removed one because it's questionable (Bodhidharma existed!... you're a medical doctor writing about kung-fu, not reliable) but I'm not sure what COI material we should pass on to the editor as I've rarely (been aware I've) encountered it. Ogress _smash! 18:24, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

@Ogress: Thanks for noting this. I've placed a COI warning on the editor's talk page and reverted some of their additions. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:46, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi,

I see you have deleted some of my text.

Can you guide me to the appropriate appeal process?

I think my last statement was balanced and based on published academic work.

The statement did not state fact, rather suggested the source of an opinion.

Kindest regards,

WKS (wikiknowledgesource) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiknowledgesource (talk • contribs) 18:49, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

@Wikiknowledgesource: Please use the talk page of the article in question. And are you Dr. Hutan Ashrafian? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:53, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Ongal

Two months should suffice for now. In that time, the human behind the unregistered editor and the pretender/prince could have a falling out. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:49, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Not here?

When you get a chance, could you look at User: Charles Eugene Hill (doctor? Their edit history (all on their user page and other users' talk pages) doesn't lead one to believe they're here to constructively contribute to the encyclopaedia. The grammar alone... Cheers. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Inspector General ‖ 16:45, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

@Ebyabe: I stumbled across them a few days ago. I will monitor. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:37, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

@Ebyabe: Blocked indef per a report at AIV which pointed to this. The deleted contribs are the same nonsense. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:50, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks much! Now, if you want a laugh, see this. :) --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Health and Welfare ‖ 23:53, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

@MarnetteD and Ebyabe: No idea what the balloon animal thing is about but I do have concerns about the source used as it never calls D'Onofrio married. Perhaps look at the source used in the Scacchi article? [39] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:06, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Laws of robotics

I finally accepted you deletion, but the real reason is that it was cited from primary source, and there is no discussion of it in other sources, i.e, per WP:UNDUE. Cheers, - üser:Altenmann >t 01:22, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Since you have a correct "gut feeling" for dubious content in this area, please review articles roboethics, Ethics of artificial intelligence and Machine ethics, which are heavily loaded with OR and, as a tag says it, ""partisan sources". I will be happy to join the cleanup.I'd say the first one if especially full of BS. - üser:Altenmann >t 01:31, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Altenmann. I will take a look but the main reason my attention was drawn to the robotics article was the COI editing as detailed here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:49, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Re: Green Party of Canada

Understood. :-) Me-123567-Me (talk) 02:10, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Sock puppetry

Hello Neil. Banned vandal is back with another account: Amookhteg (talk · contribs). Bests...176.219.138.154 (talk) 07:49, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

CU blocked. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:44, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

A worrisome activity

User:RAJIVVASUDEV edits the userpage of User:Themessengerofknowledge. Then User:Themessengerofknowledge moves the page of User:RAJIVVASUDEV to User:Rajiv Vasudev (rather than requesting user renaming). Then they give each other barnstars. So far no harm, but I'd suggest an admin to give them a friendly warning to be more serious with editing. - üser:Altenmann >t 05:56, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

@Altenmann: Done. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:07, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

User Sharif uddin in Zina article

Hello NeilN, I would appreciate if you had a look at the edits of Zina article and its talk page. Despite an invitation to the talk page in April and again recently in August, @Sharif uddin has not been responsive, and is continuing to revert without explanation before, during or after a due wait for an explanation. Best regards, RLoutfy (talk) 08:16, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

@RLoutfy: When a ping doesn't work I often post an explicit message on the editor's talk page. I've done so here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:15, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Archive 20

←

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

→

Archive 30